parking authority commission. secretary, can you please call the roll? >> clerk: yes. [roll call] madam chair, you have a quorum. places you on item number 3, announcement of prohibition of sound producing devices during the meeting. we have no announcements. we are in a virtual meeting. item number 4, approval of minutes for the april 20th, 2021, regular meeting. >> chair borden: directors, are there any additions before i open it up to public comment? seeing none, we're going to open it up to public comment. secretary silva, can you please

give the number to call. >> clerk: the phone number to use is (888) 808-6929. the access code is 996-1164. to address the board, dial 1 then zero. >> chair borden: great, moderator, can you please open the line and let us know if there's' callers. >> announcer: you have zero comments remaining. >> chair borden: there any motions? >> i'll move the item. >> second. >> clerk: on the motion to approve the minutes, chair borden? >> chair borden: ize. >> clerk: choice a care eaken. >> aye. >> clerk: director heminger. >> aye. >> clerk: director hinze. >> aye. >> clerk: director lee. >> aye. >> clerk: director yekutiel. >> aye. >> clerk: thank you. the minutes are approved. placing you on item number 5,

communications. >> chair borden: due to the covid-19 health emergency, this meeting is being held virtually, as it has been for a year now. and all members of staff and the public are participating via teleconference. in the public notice for this web conference, we asked you to participate remotely by leaving a voice mail message or emailing the board. we have received and we appreciate those comments. and we really thank you for honoring our request. we continue to urge you to write the board at mtaboard @sfmta.com. or call us at (415)646-4470. at that number, you can leave us a voice mail message. if you've participated in the meeting group, this is your first meeting, you might find that the technology is not always seamless. sometimes our line disconnects. sometimes we can't hear each other, a variety of things that go wrong. everyone is doing their very

best and we appreciate your patience and understanding. we cannot continue the meeting if you cannot communicate with us. so we will stop the meeting, and then reconvene to ensure that you are able to provide the necessary public input. about that i want to thank the members our team behind the scenes that everyone else can't see, that makes this possible. our meetings are much more laborious in an online format, because multiple technologies and pieces involved. i want to thank staff for over a year now dealing with this. >> clerk: this meeting is being televised by sfgov tv. please be aware there is a time lag between the actual meeting and what members of the public are seeing on sfgov tv. if you're watching and you wish to comment on an item, as mentioned, please call the phone line when the item is called. for members of the public who wish to make comment on items on the agenda, the number to use is (888) 808-6929, access code is

996-1164. to address the board, dial one then zero. please make sure you're in a quiet location, that you mute any tvs, radios or computers streaming the meeting. this will reduce reverberations so the board can hear you. later in the agenda, item 13, vision zero quick build program informational and item 4, title 6 analysis of the temporary service plan informational are being continued to the may 18th meeting, at the request of staff. that places you on item 6, introduction of new or unfinished business by board members. >> chair borden: great. and before i go on that. i want to make one more communications point. if you are calling for this meeting for the first time, please note that our agenda is numbered. and we go in numerical order. if you have a specific item that you're looking to give comment on, please look for the agenda number. at that time, if you're holding on the phone line, that's when you press one zero. we go in chronological order. each item has an item number and

please when you're ready to speak on that specific item number, press one zero. any items of new or unfinished business, board members? seeing -- >> was there someone before he? director hinze can go before me. i need a second. >> chair borden: director hinze. >> sorry. my mute button is a little -- my computer takes a bit. so i did just want to bring up that we -- since we've spoken about it, the twin peaks project, staff did say that they would bring back some kind of a report to the board, once that

project has gone in. and there's some time for folks to experience it. i just wanted to raise that and say that whenever staff feels is appropriate, i think maybe -- whether that be in any way staff wants, an update on how that's sort of going to the board, would be appreciated. >> chair borden: thank you. we'll let staff follow up with you at a later time when they have some information. unless you have something to add at this point, director? >> no. >> chair borden: okay. great. director yekutiel. >> i'll make it quick. we can all agree that the music scene in san francisco is one of the things that makes us the greatest city in the union. and that our venues are our

precious commodities and a dying breed. it's been a very, very difficult year for our brick and mortar musickic venues. one of the things brought to my attention is the very high cost of parking fees, fines and loading zones. most of us don't know that our venues pay an annual fee for the loading zones and every single time they need to actually use the loading zones for tour buses and to bring in the artists that we all love, they have to pay additional fees per meter to have the meters bagged. i was wondering if we could take a look at the kind of collective fines and fees and fee structure for our physical brick and mortar venues. whether it's the rules around our music venue loading zone use, maybe finding a way to provide a little bit of relief in the coming years, so that they could have a softer landing pad as they try to recover after over a year of not making any money. i wanted to bring this up to our agency. because i think a lot of people may not know that there are some

venues that pay almost 200,000 ad year just to use their loading donors. venues that aren't that big, paying $30,000, $40,000. see going we can help them out a little bit. >> chair borden: is there interest among other board members on this topic? i personally didn't know that those fees were that high. great. it looks like a majority that is interested. so we'll have director tumlin, leave it to you to get back to us on that topic. director heminger. >> madam chair, whether you haveiate intel on when we might next meet again in-person? >> chair borden: i wish i did. i'm really hopeful today. we moved into the yellow tier. and i know a reopening plan, maybe secretary silva heard something from the board of supervisors secretary around

that? anything? secretary silva? >> clerk: yes. not at this time. but i'll look into it and get back to you, with some tentative dates for in-person back at city hall. >> chair borden: great. director eaken. >> thank you so much, madam chair. just want to raise two items for my colleagues. i had the privilege of touring the paint and the sign shop last week. and i just wanted to say a special thank you to mike, darryl, gretchen, noah and ted, as well as director mcguire. these folks head up the painter, the meters, temporary signs and curb management team. and i just wanted to say i was just so struck by all the complexity these folks are managing and the very tricky job it is to prioritize competing requests at the same time. and the seamless work they do at that. i also just want to note, many of those folks have been working overtime and haven't had a break

in a very long time. director tumlin reminds us of this all the time. so i just want to emphasize i hope my colleague on the board are with me on this. as much as we want you all to move expeditiously. we feel these folks should be able to take time off and everybody has been through so much over the past year. just really want to make sure people are finding space and time to take time off and recharge. second, just wanted to note for my colleagues that i was able to spend some time with supervisor connie chan in direct 1 last thursday. we did a slow walk, talking about the slow streets, how they're working, if they need any improvements. what she's been hearing from constituents, as well as priorities for district 1. that was great as well. so thanks so much to the staff and christina especially for helping to arrange all of those meetings. >> chair borden, if i may. chair, thank you so much for visiting our shops. many of you have taken tours of

parts of our operations and i know you've all learned a lot. i would like to invite all of you to join with us at any of our many facilities to hear directly from our staff about the challenges they face, as well as tour our major construction projects to understand the complexity that our crews face every day. you hear this from my regularly. it's a whole other thing to hear it directly from our crews and to see thible for skill and care that they take in their work every day. >> chair borden: thank you for that. members, are there any additional questions or comments before i open it up to public comment? seeing none, we'll move to public comment. again this is public comment only on the introduction of new or unfinished business by board members. so any of the items that were just discussed, this is that time to speak. this is item number 6. if you are on the line, please press 1-0.

to address this topic. moderator, are there callers on the line? hello? >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> chair borden: seeing there is no public comment, we'll close public comment and move on to the next item. >> clerk: item number 7, director's report. >> chair borden: mr. tumlin. >> good afternoon, everyone. as usual, we have a lot to cover this week, because we are doing a lot as an agency. first, as always, is our vision zero update. on april 24th, we had a fatal hit-and-run involving a pedestrian and a motorist on park perseido. that crash, as far as what we heard so far, was late at night, involving very high speed. as always, rapid response team went out to see what we could

do. the intersection had recently been repaved and reworked by caltran. to all of the favorite. marxings were in good condition -- markings were in good condition. the signal timing doesn't meet our current goals. so we'll be accelerating work to retime the signals for a longer pedestrian crossing time. and we'll also continue doing outreach in the entire corridor as part of the transit and pedestrian safety improvement program, that you've heard about before. also on may 1st, we had a fatal collision. again what we've heard so far likely an intoxicated driver driving extremely high rate of speed on san jose avenue, struck a light-rail vehicle. everyone on the light-rail vehicle was fine. but the driver succumbed to those injuries.

our team has gone out to look at the site. it's the sort of crash that i -- would be hard to predict and one of the many reasons why that we continue to very strongly support automated speed enforcement, which is moving forward in sacramento. next up is our quick build updates. we had an agenda item to share with you some of our quick build efforts, as part of of the vision zero update. a quick summary of some of the things we've been up to. as you know, a lot of our work during covid has focused on the ter der loin, -- tenderloin, where every street is part of the high-injury network. and where the city has the largest concentration of vulnerable populations, whether that's elderly or children or people dealing with mental health or substance use issues.

tenderloin need as great deal of care on the street side. so we are currently working on our golden gate avenue quick build project, that is in construction. and leavenworth will start the first week in may. we're also doing a lot of work in the bayview of steadily working through every single item that we committed to in the bayview community-based transportation plan. so the williams avenue quick build, being part of the high-injury network, we're holding a virtual open house through may 13th. you can find that by googling williams avenue quick build. and it will bring up the open house page that is seeking public comment. particularly from people in the neighborhood. we're also doing a variety of in-person outreach events in community spaces along the corridor. and online office hours. the bayview quick build project, for evans avenue and hunter

point avenue and inis recently completed construction. we had a really, really marvelous open house to thank all of the community-based organizations in the bayview, that had fought so hard for so many years to fix what is called deadman's curve. but also to do it in a way that engaged not only with community members, but with local artists to paint all of our quick build materials out there, particularly on hunters point boulevard. we are also now getting started on the evans avenue quick build, that is currently in planning and design and will go out to public engagement shortly. also i neglected to state that also in the tenderloin, we are implementing all of the adopted no right turn on red restrictions throughout the entire neighborhood. and changing the speed limit on every street to 20 miles an hour.

over 300 signs will be installed over the next two months. speaking of overtime from our sign shop. and we're also doing a whole bunch of advertising on banners, in the shelters and so on. and a whole variety of languages, in order to educate motorists about the changes and why those changes have been made. this month is also motorcycle safety month. and we received a grant you through the state office of traffic safety. and we'll be partnering the police department to continue to provide hands-on motorcycle safety skills training throughout the summer. in addition to being motorcycle safety week, this is also small business week. and i want to red mind you of everything that we're doing focused on small business recovery throughout san francisco. you'll be hearing later in the agenda today a lot of work on the shared spaces program. you'll also -- you've already heard through our recovery plan,

particularly on the muni side, all of the ways in which we're trying to allocate every single available muni service hour to focus on business recovery, both on the delivering workforce to work side of things, but also in the way transit is used as an attraction and a symbol of the vitality of san francisco. and that means particularly the "f," line which resumes service in 11 days. and the cable car services, which will resume service in the fall. we've also been doing a lot of work on every single one of our construction projects, to do everything that we can to minimize negative construction impacts on small businesses, including working around their shared spateses that were not in the construction contracts, that were signed months or years ago. but where our contractors have been super supportive in finding ways to work around or temporarily move small

businesses shared spaces, so that we don't jeopardize their recovery. and i'd also like to remind everyone that this month is also the mayor's small business challenge, where she invites all of us to do all of our shopping at local small businesses. so step away from the amazon boxes. and take advantage of the fact that the needs of daily life are available in most san francisco neighborhoods. and if they're not in your neighborhood, they're a short muni ride away. so i have taken up this challenge in my household. and it's resulted in some interesting conversations. and something that we may actually want to continue beyond small business challenge week. another update about our human resources team. the h.r. team is one of the core foundations of how we're able to

deliver service, by getting the right workforce and making sure that our workforce feels welcomed and supported in all of their work and in whoever they are when they show up at the workplace. so we'll be having h.r. director kim ackerman come and give you a fuller briefing on all of her work and h.r.2.0. but some of the quick summaries are -- she's been working with every single division directer to develop annual workforce hiring plans, so we can get ahead of the hiring needs, rather than having it be reactive. we're working again at rebuilding our pipeline, including making sure that the pipeline really focuses on local people and people of color. and that we invest in those folks through apprenticeship programs. we host an apprenticeship career fair. something i feel strongly about. we've also been up with grading

our -- upgrading our training opportunities for all of our front-line staff. 2400 of our employees have participated in the practical communication tools for safety and service or pact training. both julie and i have been through the training program. it's a great way of building de-escalation and compassionate communication thinking for all of us. we've also been working directly through the department of public health to book special slots of vaccine appointments for our staff. we've booked over 805 vaccine appointments ourselves. and are working on a whole bunch of other outreach tools to help make sure that all of our workforce feels safe and confident in the vaccine. and knows how to get it, if they want it. we're also develop aggravator of dashboards, so that we can track our hiring trends. again get more ahead of the -- our hiring needs. and are leading the development

of dashboards to help us be better managers, including being fully transparent to our staff about the ways in which we're implementing the recommendations of the dolores blineker report. and, finally, we're move willing forward with hiring an ombuds person. we expect to have that person onboard in june. and in preparation for that, we're starting to develop some better ways of tracking workforce complaints, before they rise to the level of an e.e.o. complaint, so we can actually solve the problem at its root, which is through better management, rather than having to go through a convoluted rule-driven process to remediate the problem. and, finally, i wanted to update you all on our race equity and inclusion program. as you know, a couple months ago

we haired our race equity inclusion manager. she has been very busy and led an all-staff conference call just last week, with about 500 attendees, including what is great is we got attendees, including our labor union leadership, and folks from a half a dozen other city agencies. we're trying to open up these programs to the whole city, since all departments face the issues that we at sfmta are facing. she is scheduling a series of these trainings and open houses. the next one will be about the socio cultural context of covid-19 vaccines. a very important topic. timely right now. and leads to a lot of unpacking of the ways in which we have treated people differently, based upon race in the medical profession, particularly in medical research and all kinds

of ways. she's also host aggravator perform listening sessions to better understand and quantify our staff needs, as well as the strength of the agency. so that work will be continuing on for quite some time. and we'll be providing you with more detailed updates later. and finally, in addition to it being motorcycle and small business and other months, this month, of course, is also asian-pacific heritage month. and we have put on our internet site as well, a variety of opportunities for all staff, in order to understand the cultural context, historically and currently that our asian and pacific islander staff face. that's all i have. >> chair borden: a lot of significant months overlapping. director yekutiel wants to know if scooters are counted in the

motorcycle safety tonight? [laughter] anyway. inside joke. i guess. republican there any questions for the director -- the director's report? it looks like director hinze is first. >> sure. mine are quick. director humboldt, just a follow-up -- tumlin, just a follow-up on your h.r. comments. i believe it was director ackerman reported was coming soon was external--facing website, not on the branding repor results. an external sort of version of that was in development. do you have any sort of update

on that effort? >> i don't. i can check in with director ackerman and get back to you. >> a shout-out to our director yekutiel, who is apparently the great mind behind the small business challenge. and i, too, encourage all of the public to take the challenge and see where you end up shopping. >> chair borden: thank you, director hinze. director lee. >> thank you, chair. on the staffing news, really glad to hear that you are continuing to press on with hiring more senior-level staff members. because as you are concerned about your staff capacity, including the paint shop, we as a board have also been concerned about your capacity and your

really nonstop around-the-clock response to everything that's been changing throughout covid. so really appreciate you pressing on in hiring the ombudsperson. please let the board know if there's anything we can do to expedite the hiring. on the hiring note, just want to say congratulations to finally selecting a chief of staff. and thank you victoria for joining. certainly long-awaited for you. you've definitely needed a chief of staff. we're really glad to have her onboard. just a plug on the small business challenge. really excited that on may 15th, our rail is coming back, which includes rail that would serve the west side, a couple of the neighboring commercial corridors. please, everyone, consider taking muni as you visit your local retailers. and then a real question now

about the quick-build. director tumlin, could you please remind us what is the most painful pinch point for our ability to deliver on the quick-build faster? i believe in the past you have mentioned, you know you know, it's basically the primary bottleneck is really staffing capacity, including our paint shop. just if you can just remind us what the situation there is. >> so you know, as i've stated before, we have increased project delivery five fold over the last year. the sfmta has gotten phenomenally efficient at delivery. part of that is, you know, the -- planners and engineers getting better at this. but really the bulk of it is the phenomenal skill of our shops. the skill and seamless coordination. i'm just amazed how much work

they can get done. i have worked in a lot of cities, i have never seen a team work this collaboratively and efficiently as what we delivered during covid. so the bottleneck is we just need more of them. and one of the greatest fears that i've had, as director and any of you who have been out to our shops have perhaps seen this, is looking at the average age of our most skilled workforce. and making sure that we have a strong succession plan, and that we have a plan for recruiting people who really want to make building and fixing things, as part of their career and then making sure that those folks are representative of the city as a whole. it's one of the reasons why i've been pushing hard and investing in internship and apprenticeship programs. and removing the obstacles from successful completion of an

apprenticeship program, directly into our workforce. so this has been -- i mean, this was a priority of mine like a very, very -- high priority of mine before covid hit. and then, of course, we went quickly into hiring freeze mode for nearly 14 months. so we've basically taken our entire h.r. division out of reverse and into, you know, like into first gear, into second gear, while the accelerator is being pushed down harder and harder. so, yeah. it's -- it's that twin set of obstacles. both the staff availability on the shop side, but then also the capacity on our h.r. side to do all of this work. and the h.r. side obstacles are also partly capacity. so we're still -- we still don't have as robust of an h.r. division as we did three years

ago. and while the emergency declaration made a lot of the bureaucratic obstacles for project delivery go away, the emergency didn't change some of the processes for hiring that are very time consuming. long answer to a short question. >> thank you for that. thank you, chair. >> chair borden: and thank you, director, for all of your -- all of the work that you're doing, the whole team is doing. we again just want to associate myself with all of my colleagues' comments about, you know, all of the hard work that's been done. the happiness that you're helping to bring in resources to get things done. congratulations to ms. wise and just reiterate the importance of all of the months that we're talking about, both a.p.i., heritage month, as well as the small business challenge. we know that the small business

community has been battered economically. and since we get revenue, their success is our success. the a.p.ism film community has been very much targeted recently because of -- because of racism really. and it's really important and critical to support all of our communities that make san francisco such an incredible city. with that, we'll open it up to public comment. so that was just what we were discussing right here, either the comments by director tumlin or the comments by directors, item number 7. moderator, ra there >> caller: -- do you have callers? >> operator: you have three callers remaining. >> chair borden: first caller, please. is there someone on the line? >> thank you. >> chair borden: we heard you. you can speak now if you'd like. hello? >> sorry. i just wanted to give a comment

on the next item. not this item, sorry. >> chair borden: okay. no problem. just i guess -- hang up i guess and we'll have the moderator switch over to another line. >> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> chair borden: first speaker, please. >> hi, good afternoon. may the fourth be with you, as they say. some i am responding to the issue of small business week. as you know, unlike our competition, we are actually small business people, because of how we operate on city streets. we're also regulated by the city. so in supporting small business week and month, it's important that you also support taxis, as small businesses. so i appreciate it as a board member for the sfmta, which regulates taxis. that you also make sure you

promote us, due to our role in the city. the next issue is regarding the tenderloin. so most of the signs are up regarding the no turn on reds. however, their placement makes it very hard to see at night when you see a blaring red light and a sign next to it blurred out. i want to let you know the placement of the signs is ridiculous. if you're going to have one next to a light, you have to have one before the intersection and one after the intersection, especially if they're new. i don't know how many times i have seen drivers actually ignore those no turn on reds. and, of course, enforcement is going to be nil at night when there are much more important things that police officers have to deal with in the tenderloin. and also the fact that a lot of the employees at night live in the tenderloin. so i think it's important that you understand that we are adding another $2 to the fare by those -- sitting at no turn on

reds. and because the light timing is horrible, especially on larkyn street. larkyn street all of a sudden we have to sit at every light. i don't understand that. and i don't know why the traffic engineers want to make poor people pay a lot more to -- for taxis and other services. i feel bad for the driver on presidio. at night the jaywalking has gotten an all-time high. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. moderator, can you take us to the next line. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> hello, everyone. i'm a long-term resident of the tenderloin. and i work at the tenderloin community benefit district, the pedestrian safety manager. i'm also the vice chair of the tenderloin traffic safety task force. also the presentation has been postponed on the quick-build, i would like to take this time to

thank the sfmta staff and jane, particularly jennifer and sheila for their hard work at bringing the golden gate and other quick-build for the tenderloin. along haight street and larkyn street. thank you for your time. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: hello commissioners directors, whichever way you'd like to be called. a quick comment.

i wanted to say thank you from the bottom of my heart for recognizing the needs of small businesses. i grew up with one. if the pandemic had occurred, in childhood, i would have been homeless, because my father had a small business. thank you so very much for that. that's it. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> caller: thank you. directors, i would like to point out that whatever we want to achieve with vision zero or reviving our local businesses, i do currently see a big gap in wide areas of the city with respect to enforcement of the rules that has been put in place. it's convenient to break the speed limit, because there is no

enforcement coming. today it seems on many streets it's convenient for violate the weight limit, because there is obviously never any enforcement on this. and it's convenient to break the law just to -- by taking a shortcut or commercial street, that's for small businesses. personally i feel unsafe walking on streets, that have small businesses on there. there's speedinger if there's heavy trucks not cliffing to local businesses. just trucks cutting through, because it's convenient today to ignore all of the rules that the board puts in place. how do you feel you can have an impact on the streets, today it's not enforced at all and

very convenient to ignore. >> chair borden: thank you. that concludes your comments? >> that concludes my comment. i would like to hear a response. >> chair borden: yes. unfortunately this is not a question-and-answer period. we're going to be addressing the topic of vision zero at our may 18th meeting. so these -- these questions you're asking will be answered at that time. but for meeting laws here in california, we cannot discuss an item that hasn't been probably noticed to the public, prior to the hearing or meeting. so public comment is just for people to comment on areas under our jurisdiction. and the questions that are brought up are addressed at a later time through conversations. but this is not a question-and-answer session. thank you so much for calling in. again tune in on may 18th, where questions about vision zero will best be directed. >> i appreciate it. i hope that enforcement is always on the table. >> chair borden: thank you. next caller, please.

>> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker, . >> i have lived in san francisco for 12 years. i just wanted to ask about the vision zero update. director tumlin mentioned two fatalities within the last two weeks. up to 15 is fatalities so far in 2021, which is projected to be 44 fatalities for the total of 2021, if we continue at the current pace. that's a 42% increase over the number of fatalities we had in 2014, when we signed the vision zero pledge to end traffic deaths by 2024. only three years to get to zero, we're at 44 right now. and they've been increasing pretty much every year since we signed the pledge. so i'd like to see more done on vision zero, like the elephant room, maybe you could have a standing item for all sfmta

board meetings, since it's probably one of the most important topics that you could discuss, so that the public can ask questions and the director with respond in each meeting. i'd also like to bring up that, you know, we have -- we're seeing this with, you know, the autonomous driving becoming closer and closer to becoming a reality. i would love to hear the board's perspective on possibly ending all human-driven cars in san francisco on some sort of timeline. what timeframe do you expect us to not allow humans to drive an automobile in san francisco? i think that would be a good discussion to have to see how far, five years, seven years, ten years from just eliminating this as a risk in the city. and we can focus on other, more pressing needs after eliminating traffic deaths. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have one question remaining.

>> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: hi. i'm a father of a 2-year-old. a ten-year resident of san francisco. and one of the organizers of -- [inaudible] in addition to echoing everything that patrick mentioned and requested, i want to thank the team for their work in the tenderloin, as well as all of the community-based organizations there and director haney for all of the work on the 10-mile an hour speed limit and right-turn restrictions. as well as other traffic measures there. i also want to ask that park presidio be looking at a larger level. what we saw with the death the other day, was the result of a road that encourages people to people at very high speeds and have disregard for humans, including kids and seniors, who use those streets to cross the streets. some i ask that m.t.a. look into

bigger and broader efforts to slow and calm traffic along park presidio, so we don't see another death and we don't see the number continue to rise well past 2020 numbers. so thank you again. and i look forward to more work. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: good afternoon, board members. kaden miller. just wanted to call in and talk about vision zero on this item, as many of the previous callers have talked about. you know, over the last year, i do see that we're making a lot of progress. and staff is working very hard. but it just seems like we're not seeing the results. like i don't know.

it's every month. and it's just -- you know, these are people's live, who have families, who have kids, who have grandparents, parents. you know, this is -- this is a really big issue here. and i don't know what to do about it, because it seems like the enforcement is not working and the speed limits are not working and the paint is not working, what can we do. we have to design the streets in a way that cars like cannot go that fast. because it -- i mean, in a sense we're lucky that it only hit one of our light-rail vehicles and didn't get a pedestrian, who is trying to cross to one of the light-rail boarding islands, that aren't long enough to have the train doors open up on to the island. we have real issues in the city of just prioritizing cars over everything. so it's kind of no wonder that these are happening.

and there has to be real changes to make it so we don't discourage it, but it's not possible for this to happen. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. moderator, are there additional callers on the line for the director's report? >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> chair borden: with that, that closes public comment on this item and concludes this item. >> clerk: chair, i believe there's -- >> could i make a really quick comment in response to all of that. thank you so much. just want to thank all of the public for calling in and definitely hear and acknowledge the passion in all of your voices on vision zero. i think you can rest assured that this board, and the hardworking staff of the sfmta, if you recall back in the february workshop, the board members were asked to rank values among many different

values and safety was -- if it wasn't the number one, right up there in terms of number one. so we are all with you on the current state of vision zero being unacceptable in this city. and we're doing everything that is in our power and i think we need to continue to go faster and do more. and to that point, director tumlin, i wanted to have you remind everybody if you could, what is the timeline for the action strategy updates on vision zero. i believe that's sort of coming up this spring or summer. yeah? >> so we were going to give you a vision zero update today. that has been postponed, chair borden, until when? >> may 18th. we can have that. maybe -- i know it's about the quick-build program. but maybe address the bigger picture themes. i know we have talked previously about the goal date and whether

-- and our likelihood of making it. >> we can also discuss, of course, monday of the most powerful safety tools that every civilized country takes advantage of, none of those tools are legal in california. the only way for us to enforce the speed limit is to have an armed police officer make a traffic stop, which is highly problematic in so many ways. so we can also give an update on all of the things that the state legislature is trying to move forward in this session to legalize basic safety tools that are available in much of the rest of the united states and all of the rest of the civilized world. >> chair borden: great. so with that we'll close this item and move on. >> clerk: that places you, directors, on item number 8, citizens' advisory report. there is no report expected. it places you on item number 9,

you can address the board on matters within the board's jurisdiction, but not on today's agenda. >> chair borden: just as a reminder to members of the public, we did continue items number 14 and 15, is that correct? >> clerk: items 13 and 14. >> chair borden: 13 and 14. so if you wanted to address those items, you could do so under public comment. because we will not be hearing those items later on in the agenda. otherwise public comment, as stated, is for other items not actually on the agenda. so, moderator, are there callers on the line? >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> chair borden: first speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon again, board members. just want to talk briefly about service, since i know that item was continued to the next meeting. i'm excited, as i have stated previously, the f-line and the 3652 shuttle will be resuming

coming up on the 15th. that's exciting. but going forward, i think so far the service has kind of been decided by staff. and i think maybe a consultant is being brought in to look at service restoration. i think what needs to happen, with future rounds of service increases, there needs to be more outreach to the public and specifically the public that needs the service as the city reopens. to looking at going out to schools where a bunch of students will be back on muni in the fall. going and talking to office buildings. what are their needs? when are they looking to reopen. instead of just making a lot of internal decisions that the public, even if it's not staff-intention, they feel like they're not listened to. you know, maybe that's not the case. that's the way a lot of the

public feels. i think it's really important to be getting more public outreach. and really also be pushing for more and more service. because as i've stated previously, i am very concerned about 85%, 70% of service, as the city is reopening. so i hope that people can look into better outreach in that. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you, mr. miller. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have five questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. callers good afternoon. this is bob planthold. i'm call being the continued practice by muni operators and the continued obliviousness, nonresponsiveness by upper management to complaints about this. i'm mentioning this to the board because, though you said policy, you're also suppose to monitor and make sure policy is enforced, if not implemented. that's not the case.

people with certain types of visible disabilities are clearly passed up. you keep spaces available for people in wheelchairs, but somebody who uses a walker or crutches or canes and is at a stop, the operators will pass by saying, oh, our seats are full, when if you look through the window, that's not the case. -- a leader of transport workers' union mentioned how the rear-view mirrors are too small. they can either see the front seat or back to the rear. but there are many times i'm passed up, even if visible yellow crutches, i'm passed up when the next two seats, and additional seats are empty. the operators -- i don't blame. they're using the equipment. if you found wider, deeper, higher rear-view mirrors they

could see space to allow me to get on. and similarly, operators will say, well, they can't open up the doors because somebody is pushing back. well, in fact, operators have pulled in and opened the front door for me to board. you need to be better training, monitoring to seem with all disabilities easily can get on. not just those in wheelchairs. thank you. ronen thank you, mr. planthold, next speaker, please. >> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. callers if i understood you correctly, item 14 is being addressed now, am i right? >> chair borden: yes. we're continuing the item to the meeting on may 14th. so if you'd -- 18th, excuse me. you can comment now. callers okay. i have to endorse the previous caller's comment. i'll just say yay there. basically i want to talk about the, so to speak, core services.

i'm on the 48 line. and a week or so ago, i went to the corner of 24th and hoffman. i saw that the temporary suspension sign had been lowered and was on sidewalk level with the temporary status marking, cleverly, delicately folded underneath. let me check the 23rd street stop. same thing. same thing at the shuttle stop, or the stop. i asked the manager of fire fly restaurant. they and the phils went in and invested in gorgeous dining experience. i said, well, you're not served by a bus any more.

likely. people who have gotten rid of their cars, that would like to take public transit to the restaurant are out of luck. second, i wanted to say it's great that we have an equity program and reaching out to communities in a focused kind of way. but i'm wondering about, you know there's no mention about people with disabilities or seniors. silent. that's ageist and it's ableism. and it's insulting, it hurts, to see the needs of seniors and people with disabilities are ignored or at the bottom of the pole. last summer when the 48 line came back, my neighbor and i cheered when we learned about its return. [bell dings] >> chair borden: i'm sorry. your time is completed. everyone gets the same amount of time. we will take your comments under advisement and addressing these

in our other meetings. >> caller: can i just finish one thing here? >> chair borden: you can finish your sentence, yes. if you want to finish your sentence, unfortunately everyone gets equal time. callers it doesn't encourage car-free streets. and essential workers can't get to work because they rely on getting to the places they clean and childcare and upper noe residents. okay. i'll hold it for later. thank you so much for allowing me to finish my sentence. appreciate it. >> chair borden: no problem. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. -- >> caller: it's david. can you hear me now? >> chair borden: yes. >> caller: i heard last friday that the sustainable streets

division has been renamed the streets division. so now we have a transit division and a streets division. i'm wondering if that has any special meaning or anything else changed as to the organization and when the new organization chart will be up on the website to reflect all of that and if there's anything else i should know about that name change. next, i understand that the market street subway testing is now under way. i understood that to be for two weeks, prior to revenue service starting on the 15th. have we learned anything new or special about the subway to anticipate issues or problems before they arise with revenue service. and, finally, on items 13 and 14, i heard the announcements. by still think you should call

those items when you get there on the calendar. allow public comment and then take action by the board to continue them when you've published the calendar, or an agenda, that creates an expectation of the public that they'll have an opportunity to comment at that time on that item. and even if the issue before the board is whether or not to hear it today or continue it. i think that's the time to hear those items and to simply say at the beginning of the meeting that we're not taking those up. if you want to comment, your time to do that is under general public comment, consolidated with anything else you might have to say. i think it's unfair and runs afoul of the brown act and the sunshine ordinance. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: hi, good afternoon. this is i want to address a

couple of issues here. the taxi accessible services division had an outreach meeting, virtual outreach meeting regarding some drastic changes. they don't think they're drastic, but people who have been involved with taxi industry a long time consider them drastic. and the devil is in the details regarding this issue. it would be great if they didn't just throw them out there and expect us to agree with them. less than 20 people participated in the call i think the microsoft teams is horrible, horrible, horrible way to engage participants. it's -- it's not as easy as zoom. i know that's not what the m.t.a. uses. but i think a lot -- it's complicated for those who are not as technologically savvy.

even i had trouble joining on early on. it's not an easy program or platform. the other topic is regarding the issue of pedestrian safety. i want to address more on this. yes, they always want to blame the car driver. how about the issue that pedestrians also observe the traffic lights as well. it's -- and as well as the scooters. you made a joke about the scooters. it is not funny. it's true. i have rarely seen them stop at traffic lights, particularly at night. and i think it's -- it's very concerning that they are not taking personal responsibility as well. and last but not least, regarding the changes that they're proposing. they're so worried about wanting to take -- [inaudible] off the streets, instead of trying to keep as many cabs available. they're already down to a little -- a little less than 1,100 cabs

available. at this point we don't have enough drivers to take them. and if you also eliminate the building for them to work the airport, you're also discouraging them wanting to work as a cab driver. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> caller: hi. can you hear me? >> chair borden: yep. we can hear you. >> caller: okay. great. thanks. my name is stacey. and i have two suggestions. one is in listening to the hayes valley r.p.p. process, that is being realigned and whatever. i was wondering why we haven't considered r.p.p.ing the entire city. because i know that sfmta is short on funds. and if we did so at today's rate, it would basically -- i think it would give us another $52 million, which would help i think tremendously. and if we got really creative,

throw in a muni pass, charge $1,000 for parking, which is closer to what the land value actually is. and then you'd have seven times that amount available for muni to provide low or no-cost service to kids, seniors, et cetera. and then the other is next time that there's any sort of thought about -- you know, this may go towards vision zero, but education in terms of making safer streets. i'd like to educate the taxi drivers and the car drivers. because the notion of jaywalking and how we view pedestrian and vary use of streets and cyclists, while cars are the ones killing and crashing people oh, how about messing up the 14 this morning. they were the ones at fault and

not the muni driver. we need to do more to minimize driving in the city and maximize transit, pedestrian and cycling. anything you can do for that, would be appreciated. thank you very much. >> chair borden: thank you. moderator, are there additional callers on the line? >> caller: you have three questions remaining. >> chair borden: anyone who wanted to speak on items 13 and 14, which will be considering at a fully noticed hearing in the future, you'll have a full opportunity to comment. if you'd like to comment on those items, you called in and may do so during general public, since they're no longer on the agenda. next speaker, please. >> caller: yes. this is greg garcia. the 500 block of -- [inaudible]. and i wish to object to the rerouteing of the 48 bus under the 500 block of clifford. this was attempted in 2008 and reject by your board at that

time. there are a bunch of reasons why this is not a good idea. i put them in my email to you. and i wish for you to examine the email and come up with some sort of an explanation of why you think this is a good route. that's what i have to say. i don't think we were given a fair opportunity to voice our objections or our concerns. and maybe this meeting will help explain our feelings and our position. thanks very much. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: hi, is this is this s this the time to make comment on the shared spaces program?

>> chair borden: no, that's item number 11. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: okay to make public comment about new business right now? >> chair borden: anything not on the agenda. >> caller: okay. perfect. this is luke. a father of a 2-year-old. >> chair borden: excuse me, sir, we can't really hear you. you're cutting in and out. >> sorry. is that better now? >> chair borden: you sound further away from us. >> caller: okay. hopefully that's better now. this is luke. organizer of kids safe s.f. the board to continue your work along with rec and park on keeping kids' safe and kids' safe great walkway a reality for

families and all san franciscans. it's amazing to see the life and vibrancy on those spaces. and i know that a lot has been -- a lot of work has been done by rec and parks, as well as sfmta to increase access for those with disabilities and our coalition continues to advocate for more access for people with disabilities. as well as black and brown folks. as well as low-income individuals and people living in the southeast of the city. and we urge the board to continue their work to keep those spaces open to people. so that people can continue to enjoy them. and long after the pandemic. so thank you so much for your work already. and thanks for your time. >> chair borden: thank you so much. moderator, are there any any additional callers on the line for general public comment? >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker, .

>> caller: this is patrick. i just wanted to bring up an issue that hasn't been discussed and i'd like to get it on the agenda soon is the issue of flag stops in san francisco. so a flag stop is a muni bus stop, where there is no -- there is no actual bus stop. where there is and it's blocked by car parking. and i got a list of the flag stops in san francisco. and there's over 1,000 of them. and i went through each and every one. and found that more than 500 of them are blocked by automobile parking. this is legal automobile parking, where the sfmta allows people to park their cars in front of the bus stop. another thing i thought was interesting was that the majority of these flag stops, that are blocked by parking, are in the southern part of the city, district 10 and 11. the majority of them are in districts 10 and 11. so i'd like some of the to revisit this policy of allowing

people to park their cars in front of the bus stop. i think it's obvious this creates a lot of issues for people with mobile issues, people in wheelchairs, elderly people with walkers, people with strollers, because a car is blocking the bus stop and they have to squeeze between multiple caring to object to the -- cars to get on the bus. create blanket policies that stop flag stops and eliminate this practice of inaccessible bus stops. thank you so much. >> chair borden: thank you. moderator, are there any other additional callers on the line? >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> chair borden: thank you. that closes public comment. i want to bring on city attorney susan cleveland to address the issue about comments on the items that have been continued. >> sure. thank you, chair borden. when the secretary removes items

at the beginning of the meeting, as she did before and you announced that general public comment is an opportunity to comment on this item, that is sufficient for the brown act. you could provide later comment, if you so chose. but you do not have to. >> chair borden: thank you. with that, we'll move on to our next item. >> clerk: the consent calendar. members of the public, if you wish to address the board on a consent item,. >> supervisor preston: one and zero. when speaking, please identify which item you are speaking to. these items are routine and will be acted on by a single vote, a member of the board or public wishes to consider an item separately. approving parking and traffic modifications as listed in the agenda. item 10.2, acting as a parking authority commission, authorizing the director to execute a commercial lease agreement with the united states postal service for the retail space at 2055 lombard street in

the lombard garage, for a three-year term that will result in $2,579,359 in revenue and includes four, five-year options to extend the lease and authorizing the directer to execute the four options to extend. item 10.3, approving modifications to the contracts with artists catherine wagner, paramedia, white light and tomie arai to provide designs and consult on the fabrication of installation, to extend the terms of those contracts to december 31st, 2021, due to delays to project construction and to approve retroactively where appropriate contract modifications that extend the term of the contracts. to request the board of supervisors to approve the contract modifications and make environmental review findings. item 10.4, approving the issuance and sale of the fourth series of transportation and road improvement general

obligation bonds. series 2021c and in the amount of $122.8 million. to fund costs associated with capital projects including accessibility improvements, complete streets improvements, muni forward rapid network, pedestrian safety improvements and traffic signal improvements. making environmental review findings and rescinding sfmta resolution number 210406-045. madam chair, that concludes the consent calendar. >> chair borden: great. and what we'll do is we'll open it up to public comment first. if you are speaking on a specific item on the consent calendar, it would be helpful if you could just identify 10.2, 3, whatever the number is. with that, moderator, can you please open the line for public comment. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> chair borden: okay. seeing no public comment, we'll close public comment.

directors, the matter is before you. >> i'll move the concept calendar. >> chair borden: great. thank you. thank you. did you have anything to add? >> i had one thing to ad, which is a second. >> chair borden: perfect. so the director eaken, did you want to second or make a comment? >> i just wanted to ask a clarifying question. and thanks to the staff for answering my question ahead of time. and this is on item 10.4. this is the bond issuance and the project to be funded by the bond. just because this has been such a sensitive issue for our bicycle community in the past. i just want to make sure that this is clear. the description -- the table describing what will be funded by these resources, includes reference to a protected bike facility on market street. and i believe that's not the

case. so i just want to make sure what we're approving is accurate to what will actually be funded. >> director eaken, jonathan the chief financial officer with the agency. we funded the better market street project numerous times through the geobonds, that's carrying the scope of the whole market street project that we've had in the past couple of years. but you are correct. the bond dollars associated with this item would pay for the project that this board approved a couple months ago, which is potentially the 5th to 8th, the shared lane on the street project and the repair elements currently planned for market street. jack, you might want to add to that. it's just paying for the project. >> chair borden: director tumlin, did you want to speak to that? >> no, jonathan got it.

it's carrying forward the old definition. >> chair borden: okay. the amount is lower than it was before? >> no. no. this item on consents just has to do with minor number issue. we had on the resolution, the last time we brought this forward to you. we're trying to catch it up with the action. >> chair borden: okay. does that satisfy your question, director eaken? if the someone -- if we're able to do the bike improvement, though, with this action that the money could be allocated to that, if something changed. yes? >> the gee -- both as part of the better market street project. yes. >> chair borden: great. director hinze. >> just a quick follow-on to that. you already referenced, jonathan, this is kind of

correcting a clerical error and the numbers. so just to clarify. i'm voting on this today instead of two weeks ago, won't delay the issuance of said bonds? >> hopefully getting this -- [inaudible] >> all right. thank you. perfect. thank you, chair borden. >> chair borden: thank you. so with that, we have a motion and a second. unless there are any additional comments? no? secretary silva, can you please call the roll. >> clerk: on motion to approve the consent calendar, chair borden. [roll call] >> clerk: the consent calendar is approved.

thank you. places you on your regular calendar. item number 11. approving transportation code amendments related to a permanent shared spaces program, which would delegate authority to the director or designee to restrict parking and close the parking space portion of any street for purposes of issuing a curbside shared spaces personal. and interdepartmental staff committee on traffic and transportation to a temporarily close the traffic lane portion of any street for issuing a temporary closure for a roadway, shared spaces permit. establish a procedure for the board approval of -- establish a fine amount of no parking zone parking restrictions. rescind the places for people application fee, advance the sfmta regulations for both curbside and roadway shared spaces. and make environmental review findings.

additionally, staff identified a correction in the proposed legislation. transportation code division 2, section 313. a reference to the public works code -- public works code should reference public works code section 2.1.1. not 211.1. late father we're taking an action and a mostly cloudy skies to approve, as amended, will be needed. >> chair borden: at this time, call on director yekutiel. >> thank you so much, chair borden. hi, friends. i would like to ask the board to recuse me from the vote on the shared spaces item today. manny, my small business, currently participates in the shared spaces program. it's not completely certain at this time that i have a financial conflict of interest, due to this legislation, it is possible that my business may be financially impacted, specifically by the portion of

the legislation that focuses on commercial curbside parklets. i have consulted with our fabulous city attorney's office. and given the fact that they are today and just in case there is, in fact, a conflict, i believe it's best to recuse myself from this item. if this or related items comes in front of us again, i'm going to reevaluate it at that time. >> chair borden: thank you, director yekutiel, for your leadership in general on this issue. and we understand. director, if a motion to recuse director yekutiel? >> so moved. >> second. >> chair borden: great. secretary silva, can you call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion to recuse, chair borden. [roll call]. that motion passes.

director yekutiel, request you could please log out of the meeting and we could please proceed. >> thank you, everyone. >> chair borden: great. now that -- unfortunately, direct yekutiel has to leave the meeting. he cannot participate in any way or form. so now we will move on with the item. i know we will start off with director tumlin to introduce the staff that's working on this critical project, that everyone is waiting for. >> that's right. so speaking of small business week and the mayor's small business challenge, one of the most important things the sfmta has done during covid is collaborate with half a dozen other city departments, in order figure out how do we use the public right-of-way north to best allow the small businesses in san francisco to survive. and we have helped with that. and now we're asking the

question, shall we take the experiment that we did during covid and move it into permanency. so in this work, we've been collaborating with half a dozen different city departments, recognizing that the sfmta plays a critical role in san francisco's economic recovery. one of the challenges in this project has been how do we make sure that the fees for this program are affordable to small businesses. we also recognize that sfmta's financial resources come from many resources. the biggest source, the biggest single source of revenue for the sfmta is actually the city's general fund, which is highly dependent both on business taxes and the sales tax. it is very much in the sfmta's financial interest to ensure small business survival in san francisco. and we're committed to playing our rightful part in helping make that so. so with that i'd like to turn it over to staff and introduce

staff from the planning department. who is first in the presentation? >> that will be robin. >> okay. let's bring up robin and robin can introduce the rest of the team. thank you so much. >> chair borden: welcome. >> thank you, director tumlin, chair borden. i'm here with the deputy program manager for the shared spaces program at the sfmta, to deliver a presentation about the legislation that's currently proposed to bring this emergency temporary program into one that will be a longer-lasting opportunity for our small businesses to rely on. before we get into that, and i'm going to start sharing my screen, of course, i want to acknowledge as director tumlin had mentioned, this has been a huge interagency, citywide effort involving a collaboration not only between, of course, planning and the m.t.a., but d.p.h., oewd, as well as the

fire department. what you're getting briefed on today or actually what you're contemplating today is the work product of many, many minds and hearts. directors, are you able to see the presentation screenshare? i can only see director eaken? >> chair borden: yes. we actually put ourselves off screen so that the focus on the television is on the screen. otherwise you'll see all of our pictures and the actual presentation will be very diminished. >> thanks for the clarification, chair borden. thank you for that thumbs up, director eaken. so monica and i will jointly deliver this presentation. i'll kind of take the first slides. monica is really going to take the middle, media portion of this which focuses on the specifics of what's being contemplated here at the m.t.a. board, with regard to transportation code. i'll wrap up with a few other

slides before we thank staff. so just a quick recap. you know, where do shared spaces actually occur? they occur in a variety of different sort of venues or parts of our public realm. and even in parts of private property. so that can happen on open lots, such as the ones that we see on 24th street and lilac or in the lakeside district. we also, of course, are very familiar with the sidewalk dining, as well as the curbside parking lane or what we call in san francisco for the last ten years a parklet. and a smaller proportion of these are actual closures of streets, usually sponsored by merchants' associations, community benefit districts and other community groups. there's a variety of activities that shared spaces was conceived to facilitate, of course, in response to covid, when indoor

occupancy, indoor capacity was limited or all together banned. so that has ranged from everything from outdoor retail in, in some cases personal services like hair cuts and adult fitness. of course, outdoor dining is one of the most visible uses of shared spaces. on some occasions, when appropriate given public health parameters, entertainment as accessory to any of these primary commercial uses has been something that we've seen, be a very meaningful layer in the shared spaces program. last but not least, curbside pickup. these are sort of short-term layover zones which monica will talk about in more detail later, that allow for folks, contactless pick up of things, much essential goodsed a services like medications and groceries and the like. so we're all really familiar with the attending economic

crisis that, you know, was sort of brought about by covid. this is some data from later last year. but, you know, the context within which we were working as a city. you can see here that san francisco ranked third in the nation in terms of overall closure of businesses and then fourth in the nation in terms of permanent closures of businesses. it's been an extremely eventful year, since shared spaces launched in july of 2020. we bring this slide up only to illustrate that, you know, we've delivered and operated this program as a group of city agencies in a very dynamic environment. we've moved from red tier to orange tier to yellow. you know, into the states most restrictive tier during the winter or rather shelter-in-place, that was tied to regional i.c.u. capacity. and so this is also just a

foreground that a lot of what we're looking forward to, in the codified program, is solidifying and, you know, affirming a lot of the customary procedures, design requirements, and sight feasibility requirements that were somewhat suspended or waived during the public health crisis. since the program launched, also we've seen a very steady commitment and enthusiasm for this program. so even in the winter months, when we were under the state's most restrictive shelter-in-place orders, we still saw applications coming in at a fairly steady pace. as we approach the summer here, we are seeing that trend level off. but still a healthy appetite in our small business community. so you can see here from this graph, that there's actually quite a spread of the typologies

of shared spaces that merchants, you know, are availing themselves of. of course, the largest portion of these do involve occupancy of that curbside space. we've been working with the city economists' office to start to try to understand what the economic impacts and benefits are of the program. director tumlin mentioned in his introduction how, you know, critical it is for us, through programs like shared spaces and others, to stabilize and retain our small business community, our neighborhood serving merchants especially. so some of the preliminary data analysis from the first quarter of this fiscal year, does show that, you know, there is a positive benefit. we're reprising this analysis to incorporate data from the first two quarters of this fiscal year, so july through

december 2020. more on that soon. there's been a lot of questions about, you know, who is actually using shared spaces. who are the small business entrepreneurs and merchants that are participating in this program. we do have an ongoing impact survey, which we administer roughly quarterly. and from that ongoing survey, we've discovered that respondents, about half of shared spaces operators are women-owned enterprises. another third are immigrant-owned businesses. and over a third identify otherwise as minority-owned. and critically, you know, one big metric that does i think signal that we -- there was some success with this program early on is that the program helped merchants avoid permanent closure. as we know, some of these businesses have been serving their neighborhoods, you know, for decades, in some cases

legacy businesses. so the programs had a direct impact on their ability to keep operating and hopefully survive through the pandemic. just a couple more slides before i turn it over to monica. but, you know, these are the main tiers of -- drivers of moving the shared spaces program from a temporary emergency program into one that is part of the city's permanent toolbox for supporting small businesses, public life and our social and civic well being. so, you know, the first is that obviously the economic crisis and the fallout, that was sort of invoked by covid-19, will continue as a city, as a state, as a country, as a global economy. our recovery from that is going to be ongoing. and so even while the state of public health emergency itself may end, the project of economic recovery and stabilization will continue into the future.

there have also been a lot of really amazing outcomes from the shared spaces program, that aren't directly tied to the economic stabilization of those -- of the small business sector. you know, we know that these new ways of -- these new invitations for inhabiting public spaces and experimenting with the ways that our public realm can serve us, as communities, you know, has contributed to, you know, positive mental health outcomes, especially during the sort of darkest and most desperate times during the emergency, when our traditional forms of socializing were curtailed. [ please stand by ]

>> the first has to do with simplifying the various pre-covid and covid era permit programs and organizing them more sensibly and cohesively under city code.

equity inclusion is a key driver. we want to make sure that the inequities that existed pre-covid are just programmatically with this. there's collection of fees for example and adherence to compliance. design compliance. it's also phased to allow businesses to meet those obligations as they start performing better economically and as the economy recovers. if we do have slides for these. common characteristics i'll let -- monica, i'll let you takeove. >> thank you so much, robin.

i work at the planning division at the sfmta within the streets division. i had the fortune to serve as our executive program manager over the course of the last year. we're getting little bit more into the specifics here. i want to start with this slide. it shows a good overview various types of permits that are included in the proposed legislation. i want to call attention to the green box which represents the sfmta to walk through few of those on the left side it shows sidewalks, no parking zones, roadway closures, parcels and entertainment. these are the six different types of permit types that robin referenced in his diagram at the beginning of the presentation. the second row there you'll see

m.t.a. in green. it ultimately is public works that issued those permits. compared to the curbside no parking zones, m.t.a. is the core reviewer and permitter for those type of permits. similar for roadway closures which will be permitted through -- they will be permitting those in the future programs. m.t.a. will be one of the core departments involved. the next slide, with that it will be so important for all the city departments to work closely

together seemlessly in order to ensure that our permitting process is streamline and customer friendly. this means many of the pre-covid program like public works would be collapsed and consolidated within an integrated within the permitted program. that means simplifying the toolbox permitting processing, framework that the planning department would manage and oversee as they did in the legislation to make that intake more streamlined. robin touch on this earlier. equity and inclusion are core tenants of this program. they'll continue to be prioritized and reallocate resources. we've already allocated through the shared space equity grant $5000 grants over the last few

months to folks that applied. i know there's a current onetime supplemental preparation of $2.3 million to go towards things like future equity grant. i will try to go brief through some of these core values that rob introduced. third one here, we're in the stale of emergency. we expect our roads to recovery to be a long one. as the permit is -- as the legislation is written, it will be that the parameters will not go into effect until june 1, 2022. permit holders would have the end of this year before they have to comply with the new parameters that are defined in

the legislation. fees themselves will be collected june 2022. this is one of the permit tests that i mentioned. it has been a wonderful permit. so far, available and plan for that to be continue to allow for recurring entertainment within permitted shared spaces. as you can imagine, due to state of emergency, especially very early on, lot of our commercial districts were much less active

as people were sheltering in place at home. that meant that parking was less demand, less demand for commercial passenger loading. it was easier to be permitting shared spaces. as the city opens up, we have to be more creative and strategic about how shared spaces fits within our established transit first and vision zero priorities. we have our strategy that was adopted last year that we can point to and really give us a framework for our neighborhood commercial districts. one specific thing that will change in the permitting program, instead of six month permit it will be one-year permit to provide more stability.

here i will pivot towards little bit more specifically the actions that are brought to you today, board members. kind of glossed over this in the beginning. it is going to be upcoming board of supervisors hearing that will hear and have discussions and adopt potentially the legislation itself and division one code changes. there are required necessary division two code changes. that will be the focus of the next few slides which are around two things here, delegating authority and fees. delegating authority means that m.t.a. delegate to close the traffic lane. doing so the m.t.a. will have a detailed procedures that will document the process for eligibility and sort of our

assessment process that will be integrated closely with the code changes but a separate working document. that was part of drafted out of the board packet today. first, the curbside regulation which i mentioned, we don't issue those permits that's public works. we're core reviewer. when we get an application and we're reviewing, we're looking at eligibility. we're looking at our vision zero climate action through a holistic framework, we're accessing the unique needs within a multimodal and diverse ecosystem. that means we assess all the

commercial corridors to do a data collection efforts that will set the foundation of how we review and assess permits in the future program with con veto understanding of with shared spaces within our curb management strategy. how we make sure the space works for diverse needs. one things an important issue with regulations is how to handle construction and making sure that if people are seeking permits, they are transparent and no decision-making process if there are planned construction, what conditions we may impose and conditions and considerations with emergency construction as well. here's a few other categories

within the curbside permit regulations. it will cover things like how far from the curb, daylighting, 20 feets. the next slide just showing -- these are 11 different situations, different modes, different uses in our streets that we have kind of clear define parameter about what our protocol will be. for example, accessing parking spacing, we won't be able to permit.

so kind of stepping through all of those will be managed about. that's all the curbside regulations. the roadway regulations is fortunately a little bit brief and more high level because we have an existing permitting structure that will be able to fall within that database and process for our roadway future shared space closure. there's some within our regulations specifying those

parameters and those considerations and how that's handled for our roadway closures. now this slide pivoting to the other piece that the division two code will take action on. now moving towards the fees and fines part. there will be this new general loading zone which will be created in division one. that's part of that. there will be division two code changes. there's a concrete thing i wanted to mention that the pre-covid parklet in the previous program. i want to call that out.

more about the general loading zone. during the pandemic, we've had this kind of new need emerge for your curbs. that's different from our existing destination. which is vehicle coming to the curb and driver to get out the vehicle to go to the restaurant, to go to the retail. whatever it may be for a few minutes. they are leaving a vehicle, they come back and they move along. we've been able to do this under at a temporary program. it's been very successful. in some instances, whether it's really dense and complimentary, we like to continue to do this. there will be this establishment of this new category in division one, different from white zone where the driver must stay in the vehicle. different than yellow, which is really loading for commercial vehicles and short-term parking, which is kind of most similar

green zone. those are 15 or 30 minutes you can get out your vehicle. we're talking about that quicker 5 minutes or less activity. next slide is the proposed sign mite look like. these will be permitted and processed through our existing color curb program. it's sort of consolidated into an existing city permitting process. few more slides kind of shifting gears from the balancing curbside function goal or policy. moving on to goal of maintaining public access.

public access is a pre-covid parklet. wanting to maintain public accessibility. this slide introduces within that curbside permit, the three specific types of shared space permits which is the public parklet always accessible to the

public. the moveable parklet type which we've had a few of in the city so far in the last year or so. this will be pulling out your tables and chairs and the business would take back their tables and chairs and the curb can go back to whatever the parking and loading that it generally is. lastly, the commercial parklet there on the right, which is what you're used to seeing most of. i'm going to straight specifics of these. public parklet moveable and that commercial parklet that i was talking about the bottom row, kind of getting into little bit more than nuances and

differences between each of these. public parklet and commercial parklet, both have structures on that right side. both are obviously 24 hours a day. they are occupying that space. no commercial activity and then the commercial parklet which has a different category. that middle moveable parklet and it's only occupying the space when businesses is in operation. these are the three tiers of the proposed fee structure in the legislature today. $1000 application fee for the public parklet. that middle ground, $2000 removable parklet and then $5000 for that commercial parklet with annual renewal fees to address staff time and processing on an

annual basis. for one whole year and throughout the time of application is how they are currently being presented in the legislation. with that, i will take it over to robin to cover more about the design specifics of the shared spaces themselves. >> thank you, monica. i'll close with a few slides pertaining to the kind of permit review process and a lot of the design considerations that we are lifting from our pre-covid parklet program as well as new learnings that we had from the last 10 months to this much amplified shared spaces program. the temporary version of the program that we're currently operating in sort of waved or forgod some traditional public

input procedures. the legislation as drafted reintroduces lot of these. lot of public feedback was about the ability to respond to a public posting about a parklet under certain conditions. public hearing might be advisable to have more public dialogue about a site that's being proposed. those kind of two middle steps in this process, seven day posting and the public hearing are being reintroduced into this permit review procedure. it's also important to note that during covid, during the temporary emergency version of the program, we closed this entire work flow within three days. that was the kind of goal, was to provide a permit to an applicant within 72 hours. with legislation, we're expanding that out. we're opening that up to 30

days. this is with commensurate with the timetable in prop 8. for permitting for small businesses everything from tenant improvements and now shared spaces permits. it creatings more of seemless experience instead of expectations for your average small business merchant. critically, going from three days to 30 days, means that these public input processes can now be accounted for in a more meaningful way. we've listen working closely through the entire shared spaces experiment with the mayor's office disability and so, we know that a.d.a. access was

paramount. which was true of pre-parklet program. you'll see examples of technical assistance guidance that we adapted from the pre-covid parklet program to ensure that facilities are a.d.a. accessible. all this guidances is available in multiple languages as you might see here in the slides. some other imagery from webinars and the technical assistance documents of the shared spaces program has published with very specific requirements for maintaining access. we are carrying them forward in all the regulations and technical assistance documents for the codified version of the shared spaces program. some more images about what's already out there. but we will continue to

promulgate. there's been questions about how moving forward as we transition many of these sites from the temporary emergency permit into a codified one how we can be more consistent about site design and configuration. here's an example some of the types of traffic control devices that would be customarily required of the parklet program. i want to close on enforcement another learning that we did

have during this ten-month experiment of the temporary shared spaces program, it's a real opportunity for the city to be much more coordinated and tighter about our enforcement and compliance activities. one of the key things that the legislation does is it very clearly establishes who's in charge of making sure that typology of shared spaces is meeting all their obligations irrespective what jurisdictions might be setting the rules that we want a single strong coordinating agency for each typology to help people stay in compliance. that concludes our slide. i will stop screen sharing now. >> i wanted to take a quick opportunity to thank the army of staff who worked on shared

spaces every single day who are some of the most dedicated public servants that i worked with and who's add their expertise and commitment. we truly would not have achieved this. it's been a very wonderful and collaborative effort, challenging but collaborative effort where the divisions across the agency came together from curb management, planning, division, engineering, temp sign shop, you name it. everyday, every morning we're talking in addition to the to public works. it's been a wonderful and something we're proud of. thank you all and i look forward to your discussions, questions and comments.

>> chair borden: thank you. it's the incredible way everyone came together to make this happen right away early in covid when before we could have seen how long all of this last and to take a program which was intended to be temporary and have it evolve and grow into something that's permanent. i think it's changing the city in a dynamic way powerfully. it's amazing. other communities follow our lead. now this concept is all over the world. i think that hopefully in the long-term, we'll be a better city as a consequence. i want to thank you for all your hard work and creativity. i know it's not easy for bunch of city agencies to come together often. this is a testament when we work together. i will take clarifying questions from board members only. we have a lot of people who want to comment on this item. if your question is a comment, please reserve it for later. i will start with director

heminger. >> director heminger: , i will wait. >> chair borden: director lai. >> director lai: you mentioned that the current program was taking this opportunity to address some of the -- -- systematic inequities. which type were you referring to. >> thank you director lai for that question. first and foremost this was a program conceive to provide small businesses with assistance and through the economics of the covid-19 pandemic. for that reason, what we've done was deployed extra technical assistance, public education in language education to some of the commercial corridors that historically have been for lack of better term, more anemic than

others. these are usually corridors and sort of the outer neighborhoods that to begin with didn't have the same kind of thriving commercial activity and growth that we've seen occur in more core parts of the city. we also through the temporary version of the program, initiated executive grant programs. those are $5000 grants to individual parklet sponsors. targeting geographies that were more from an economic point of view, more distressed. moving forward, monica mentioned that we in this year's supplemental eappropriation, we're able to get an allocation of $2.3 million, which is currently at the office of economic and workforce development. we're in the process of developing another grants program for that to administer

that to shared spaces sponsors. again, with the idea that certain geographies and certain communities have been generally harder hit. we'll have a harder time of surviving not only as an individual business but within the context of their neighborhood. i can say that one of the biggest components of this new equity grants program that we are currently framing up will be for compliance grants. there has been a lot of question about moving into a stricter codified set of design regulations, site configuration and requirements. that does mean shared number of sponsors who would have to undertake capital work to ensure their platforms are a.d.a.

accessible. >> director lai: on slide 26 the one that has other items and features. you highlighted in specific the a.d.a. parking spacings, i wanted to clarify all of the items on that slide are essentially spaces that cannot shared spaces? >> no. director lai, that's a great question. those are items that are covered. they are very different. bike share, you may have a permit under certain conditions. we may relocate it.

we would have to assess that. it's not like an automatic no. >> director lai: thank you. i appreciate that clarification. a question about the application itself. i tried to go through and see what's like. i believe that's designed as extended. the landlord does not need to provide authorization? the application is just based on the the sponsor of the application, which is the individual merchant? >> that's correct. that's how the current application is set up. it is important to note that through codification, we are setting the expectation that if you are popping up in front of a neighbor, many parking spaces don't like within your own storefront, most parking spaces overlap a little bit or

sometimes a lot in front of the neighbor that consents from that neighboring ground-floor tenant. that's something we set out as a expectation during the temporary version of the program and now we're making a requirement. >> director lai: my last clarify clarifying question. we're not accepting any kind of city wide or neighborhood based maximum on the number of shared spaces. it seems to be essentially case by case assessment depending on the local agency. is that correct? >> that's correct. there's no framework, metric like i mentioned earlier, there will be a summer assessment.

we'll have to data collect on each corridor. >> director lai: thank you, chair. >> chair borden: thank you director, hinze. >> director hinze: just couple of things. you clarified one of them in your direct lai's question. can you clarified shared space permit can't take up blue zone. >> that's correct. >> director hinze: we've got lot of questions about paratransit loading and unloading. can you clarify that the paratransit can be used in front of whatever business?

>> that's correct. >> director hinze: thank you. around bus stops, as shared bus stops are -- the presence of a bus stop is a consideration for shared space. when a shared space can't be in the middle of a bus stop correct? >> that's correct. >> director hinze: thank you. >> chair borden: i do have one question. i do have question what's going to happen to those shared spaces where either the muni service is returning or they were using -- or routes are being brought back. or even in instance where someone is in someone else's business? how we're handling those?

>> for the bus stop, it's a great question. those permits are approved conditionally upon sort of approval and acknowledge, you can activate the space. however, when it comes to service, you would be responsible to remove or relocate if possible. that's how we've been handling it. your second question sort of about the business kind of perhaps saying no originally, maybe they want to activate. that does get little bit more tricky. one way i will address that, that summer analysis going in and understanding what's there today and getting some sort of intent and understanding of who

aims to continue to have a permit to see what the future landscape and demand will be. >> chair borden: the final question is, there's some areas where there's rose of restaurants adjacent to each other, there are some areas where things are more spread out. are we making sure that it's fair? sometimes there's like four restaurants are able to get one. there was a issue with an restaurant getting it? we really want to be in the business picking winners and losers. we want to give everyone same chance of equal opportunity. >> it's a great question. it's been top of mind and we're juggling to set this right. it has been a problem, first come and first serve. it will give us a fresh start. we're not going to be rolling

over one. this is a new program where you have to reapply. >> to add to that, which is that this is one of the reasons why the consent environment going to be increasingly important. we want to incentivize, require cooperation and constant communication between groups of merchants on the block and as a community.

we've seen the current emergency version of the program, lot of really innovative collaboration and single parklet sites. this is less of legislative issue and more of ways that we can set up the program to incentivize this more. for example, you might have -- i can think of a few off the top of my head, a gym activates the parklet and in the evening the bar next door takes over. they take on joint responsibility for maintenance. there's a pet food and grooming store that also is actually paired up with a bar. there are instances that we have documented popup retail happening in shared spaces. that might be kind of a pizza and wine place in the evening. there's still a lot more opportunity to encourage doubling up in cooperation and broader use of the physical site

itself by broader set of community and not necessarily exclusively to that sole merchant. >> chair borden: in the application process, have we made it easy for joint applicants to apply? >> great question. the way that it's set up now really constraints us to having a single applicant. to be the main submitter. we have -- there are still some issues we're trying to iron out with things having to do. it's something we can contemplate as we stand up the permit intake procedure for the permitting program if folks do want to go in. we can think about how two entities to submit an application. >> chair borden: sometimes you have people next door to keep

track of the spaces too. that would make lot of sensation. finally, to help people with affordability f they're not able to have the efees. is that true? there's a fund for businesses who can't afford the fees? >> there is equity grants that i referred to earlier are for capital hard and soft costs. capital and technical assistance costs. the fees right now as shown, continue to invoke lot of feedback. now they're out there. i know that the legislative sponsors mayor's office and the board are very interested in revisiting -- not revisiting, introducing other equity provisions that for example, could take the form of a fee waiver if you qualify. one example is prop f set up a

threshold for those making grossing $2 million or less qualifying for a program. that could be something that we adapt and apply here so that folks who -- if they had much more of a distressed year and were making a lower amount, it could maybe trigger or qualify you for some kind of fee to referral waiver. the details are to be clarified. >> chair borden: are there any additional clarify questions? seeing none, are there commenters on the line? if you like to be in the speaking queue, please press 10. >> clerk: that phone number to call in is (#88)808-6929 access

code 996-1164. >> caller: i feel special being first on this item. i want to say that i am very much in support of the shared space program in general. i think this legislation is problematic. i think it doesn't do enough to ensure that things like bus zones and bike corrals, bike parking is not very negatively impacted by this. even currently, i think part of it is with the legislation itself but also big part of it is the legislation that does

exist. this legislation going forward. i understand small businesses are smuggling, then you get a slap on the wrist and person walks away. i'm a business, i'm trying to make money, i don't care about people getting on the bus. i think there does need to be at least tracking of how many warnings or complaints that a businesses are getting. when i call 311 i have to e-mail the mayor office to get my complaints resolved. the been frustrating. before removing all the parking

for these shared spaces why can't we remove all the parking in front of flag bus stops? this is transit for the city. it is important with the funding that will come from the sales tax. i think it has to be more shared and balanced than just kind of green lighting everything like it is now. i hope legislation will take more that into account. >> caller: this is david pilpel. the stakeholder does not

generate public outreach done by m.t.a. i'm wondering what public comment has been received in support and in opposition to this proposal and where is it available to the public to read? what is the estimated parking meter revenue reduction for making sure space is permanent. staff report suggest total annual cost is about $10.6 million, how is that going to be paid for? is that at the expense of transit service and other priorities within m.t.a.? the ceqa documents, that's referenced in it staff report is nowhere on the planning department website in particular, let me try to pull that up. i can't find it. it refers to an april 2021

planning department addendum. there are several items in april on the planning department website but no specific addendum to discuss shared spaces. that is not on the planning department website. i urge you to continue this item until m.t.a. or the planning department posts the relevant ceqa document. i would ask are the new fees a revenue measure needing a budget amendment under charter section 88106. d. i oppose this radical repurposes city streets to serve narrow private interest. i did not take a stand on the temporary shared spaces program. this is supposed to be permanent. it's a permanented call repurposes of city streets. i oppose it as such. thank you very much.

>> chair borden: thank you mr. pilpel. city attorney, can you explain the ceqa document and the appropriateness? >> yes. chair borden. i have confirmed that the addendum to the mitigated negative declaration is posted on the planning department website and was posted in an appropriate time. we can provide that document to any member of the public that would like it. >> chair borden: thank you. did you have anything to add ms? >> no. >> chair borden: we'll continue with public comment at this time. next caller on the line please. >> caller: hello, commissioners.

my name is richard rothman. i'm a senior citizen living in the outer richmond. talking to my senior friend, i can't walk to a neighborhood shopping center. what if i wanted to go to the shopping it center or clement street or another street. like on saturday morning? there's no parking because they have the shared spaces there. either not being used. this isn't what you supposed to do. you supposed to move traffic and

circulate cars and traffic. other thing you didn't talk about it got the permit they're going to permit the parking spaces. i think the traffic code needs to be changed to allow somebody from the mayor's office on disability to sit -- these permits should be appealed to the board of permits appeals. you need to think of seniors in the city. this is making it harder to live in san francisco. no parking, no shopping. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: good afternoon. i strongly support the shared spaces program.

thanks to staff for all their work on this i encourage the board to continue it. it demonstrated what's possible for better uses of our streets. however, there's been some negative aspects. around access with people with disabilities, double parking and loading and public access. blocked sidewalks has been a problem especially family that provide clear passage for people with disabilities. 6-foot clear space is insufficient in crowded areas. there needs to be a well advertised process to support accessibility violations 311. there needs to include code enforcement that takes place. shared spaces has created enormous hazards of double

parking. shared spaces should set the goal of no double parking. there should be loaded zones to designate to achieve this. in a presentation that describes the loading zones to application base, there's no incentive for business owners to pay for loading zones. finally, the public access provisions are not defined or detailed enough. if a bench is going to be provided, there needs to be a path to explain how public will know they they will use it.

>> caller: good afternoon. thank you, i appreciate the thoughtful questions that i heard from the board. i work for the mission economic development agency. i think parklets have been a good way that many businesses have been able to remain open and have been able to create some sort of revenue. the reality is that there are two different distinct realities for businesses. you have a capital or you don't have the capital. this program is called shared spaces. it should be the city responsible for building shared spaces instead additional expense for business owners.

equity is not just about education and language accessibility, great example of unequitable practices is during the last six months, we helped 30 small businesses along the corridor to seek financial help. mayor breed had a meeting with the latinx community. she's experiencing difficulty accessing financial support. i would like to see data. $5000 is not enough to pay for a construction of the parklet and then upkeep design regulations, site regulations and staff. additionally, when it comes to

-- there's a p.u.c. project going on now. there was a proposition that seven parklets should have been removed at the expense of the business owner. i have many other examples. i like the idea that i heard about the community hearing. i think there's a long way to go when it comes to equity. equity is not just about meeting -- to get the people in the back to the front. that is just more financial aid. more than language access is

about making sure that the board and the community, businesses get prioritize to have access to this. >> chair borden: your time is up. i wanted to let you finish your sentence. most of the issues you're bringing up are board of supervisors issues not m.t.a. issues. i do appreciate your comments. our team is working with you and other groups on these issues. they are very critical. thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> caller: hi, i have a few comments. i want to congratulate the staff for putting forward design recommendations and standards that we need for safety and parklets. i do have concerns about -- i

don't see any discussion or provisions for who's responsible for removing the structures when a business closes for some reason. i see abandoned parklets out there now. they are just serving to collect trash. i do have concerns about potential revenue impact on this. is going to be a revenue up. is fee proem to offset the revenue that m.t.a. was getting from permits fees and parking meters, etcetera. finally, the enforcement is going to be critical.

we've seen across the city, many businesses putting tables on both sides of the sidewalk in addition into the parking spaces causing very narrow corridors for pedestrians to try to make their way through. i would hope that any legislation will step up enforcement. thank you. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: this is stacy. i wanted to thank staff for shared spaces. this is what we need more of in san francisco. there are neighborhoods that are not well served by rec and park.

would it be possible to expand the grant program to individualed independent of business pursuit? to that, is there a blanket insurance to provide to sponsored spaces. just to the commenters others, drivers and motor vehicles are killing people on our street. 95% of these vehicles are polluting our air and causing climate change. we are a transit first city. if you have issues getting around, you can take transit. the guiding principle about these spaces should be how do we put people, bikes, businesses and transit first and large motor vehicles last. parking is a private enterprise

they are financing arms, the banks, insurance companies all make money from automobiles and have nothing to do with making san francisco better like our small businesses and restaurants do. disability access is important, bus stops are important. shared spaces are important. think bigger. if there's competing interest, take away parking and travel lanes from cars to serve people and make san francisco better. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: it's bob. i want top point out even with the presentation today, note that the presentation by the planning staffer was untrained in any disability areas or in building inspection code

compliance. that presentation indicated a photo of obviously young under 35 years old people without disabilities with disability access. you're being presented with i got to say a facade of compliance thoughts. i want to go back that your counsel was hired by a city attorney who has never in 20 years, done anything on behalf of people with disabilities. he's fought religiously consistently against compliance with the a.d.a. you're not asking questions about how reliable is the presentation by the planning it staff. beyond whether or not you want to accept the planning staff,

undertrained, therefore incompetent, you also not asking yourself like, how many of you on the m.t.a. board of directors benefiting from civil rights law enforcement yet. none of you said or done anything squat regarding this issue about helping people with disabilities. you're going to help you're own disadvantaged community, period. anybody else is left out to figuratively hang out to dry. that's unprofessional, it also allows if a mayor was actually prudently ethically -- ethics compliant.

m.t.a. through the mayor staff are doing to support her. people with disabilities are left out to dry, ignored. you cannot provide any documentation that even the mayor's disability council -- let's move forward with this. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: good afternoon.

i'm the director of public policy and partnerships of the golden gate restaurant association. i'm challenge on behalf the restaurant community to show strong support for shared spaces program. this program has allowed more than 1700 restaurants and bars to serve customers outdoor on sidewalks and curbside and open lots. it has been a lifeline for the brick and mortar businesses. in a recent survey, over 84% of operators continuation of this program was critical to the survival of their business. we know that it will take years for local businesses to recover from the economic impact. shared spaces give them an opportunity to survive but thrive in the long-term. shared space activates our

streets and brings life back to our cities. eurge you to support a program by approving the transportation code amendments related to this program as outlined in today's eagenda. thank you so much. >> caller: good afternoon board of directors. i'm with u.s.m. we should continue the conversation of this program unless equity issues are truly addressed. we should not have one size fits model for businesses to benefit from this program. i think it's unfair that we talk about equity and inclusion when struggling immigrant business have to pay $6000 to have a permanent parklet.

it puts them disadvantage of businesses that have more economic resources. we shouldn't have mom and pop restaurants pay same fees that high end eatery can afford. lastly, i would like to know more about the data presented today for community engagement. i speak with the local merchants and restaurant owners. they are concerned about the issues that i brought up and loading zones, the parking and curbside concerns as well from this shared space program. they felt they did not have a chance to learn about this legislation and to provide adequate feedback. i ask that the shared space legislation once again be continued until there's an equitable approach to collaboration and engagement with our community and sharing information. especially about who all receiving the benefits from

these grants. thank you very much. >> caller: hi, i serve as commissioner for the office of small business. today i'm not here in that capacity. i also serve as the chair for the subcommittee of small business for the latino task force. i love the spirit and i love the business orientation of the shared spaces. i do have big concerns regarding its equity component through the equity lens. many has spoken, one size does not fit all. the fee permit is not equitable to businesses in the mission at 140 square foot for parking stall, the 6000 fee translates into $42 and $86 a square foot.

that's not equitable if a table top in the mission arches around $12 compared to the marina which is arch $30. it doesn't make it equitable to have permit fee. in addition, the actual structural guidelines, it will be very unequitable implementations if businesses are forced to redo their parklets. that the -- in addition, there's a cultural component along mission street corridorrings, we have lot of cultural parades and cultural events. implementing a shared space that is removable will be cultural centric and important to our neighborhood and community. thank you for your time and consideration. >> chair borden: next speaker

please. >> caller: my name is scott rothman. this program needs public space for private enterprise. i rather focus on some of the problems with the program and want you to respond to concerns. if m.t.a. has shared spaces to share the bike lane, direct tumlin and supervisor has been aware of this. i've seen dozens of businesses are storing it liquid propane gas violation of the fire code.

there's the problem of liquid propane. last friday during a zoom, i asked fire department, why businesses with shared paces parklet allowed to get away with multiple violations for so long. the captain sold us that nobody ordered or issued citations more noncompliant. sounds criminal to me. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please.

>> caller: hi. good afternoon again. i want to say some of the comments but some of the speakers ought to be taken to heart regarding this issue. no one is against continuing the use of the spaces except after ours. some issues that risen over the nine or ten months since they started. they need to be addressed, these concerns before you approve this today. first thing that bothers me is why you call it shared spaces? just like some people call it rideshare. it's not really rideshare. if i sit down at outside dining area, would i be arrested for trespassing or fine for trespassing if i didn't buy any fad -- food from that

restaurant? the prices seem reasonable considering that you're taking away public space and you're barring the public from using this spaces during the business hours of that restaurant. it's a concern about having public access to these spaces. the other issues is transparency. when someone has a proposal and it's up for review, there ought to be some e-mail list that you can join so you know in advance that this is going to possibly happen and there's going to be a public hearing. just like the engineering public hearings take place. in addition, there are some closed streets. unfortunately, we're not notified about it until we come upon it. it will be great if somehow there was some link to a website or place to know when they're happening. last but not least is enforcement. the weekends and the nights

dollars very little enforcement of double parking. along the mission corridor, there's so much double parking because they don't enforce the white zones there. it creates a problems. accessibility for senior and disable is limited due to that purpose. i appreciate it that you deal well these issues and come up with solutions before you approve this and pass the resolution today. thank you very much. next speaker please. >> caller: my name is tara bacon. i own two restaurants in san francisco. both of my locations have enjoyed the shared spaces permit. during the covid crises, this additional outdoor seating it

really helped our businesses stay afloat and provided a welcome space for customers to patronize us in safe way. i'm strongly in support of the program becoming permanent. i hope the board will approve these new policies. i do encourage the board to rethink the fees for the parklets. the fees are extremely high for mom and pop eateries. please consider payment plan to help small businesses to keep up with the fees. this is extremely helpful. i hope it continues in the city. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: i'm in strong support of shared spaces while also

encouraging the board and m.t.a. to continue to work on equity concerns as well as concerns of the disable community. especially regarding sidewalk access. we stand in solidarity with those folks to make it more equitable. thank you >> caller: this is ben lyman. i'm the president and entertainment commission. i'm in strong support of the shared spaces program. i don't think it's easy to put

in words -- [indiscernible] just because businesses are open and we see people in there, you don't understand how much debt that we've accrued especially with p.p.p. money not being refundable. we need shared spaces. it brings joy to so many people. i do think that the balance that we have to strike is between equity and affordability for everyone. and access. you hear passionate people talk about the access issues it may create. we need to come up with system that balances affordability and equity to make sure every small business access this while building parklets are designed

well. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: hello, everyone. i'm with the richmond family transportation network in district 1. i'm urging the m.t.a. to engage in long-term city planning. this is such an amazing opportunity to reimagine our streets. continuing to develop people first basis that aren't offered by travel lanes.

i want to encourage m.t.a. to continue to help mom and pop businesses. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: hello. this is herb wiener. i think this issue has to be viewed in balance. it's these shared spaces were fine with the pandemic but once the pandemic is over, you're going to have people not wanting to eat outside. they want to eat indoors. especially during the winter. if the owner of the restaurant or other business has shared space, they're going to be stuck with the extra taxes to pay. furthermore, there's going to be

less parking spaces for motorists. all parties lose in this. good solution now but basically when win the comes and the pandemic lift, you have to view the situation in a more balanced way. i would support the shared spaces on a temporary basis but once the pandemic is over, you better start looking at it in a balanced way. these are my perspectives as a motorist and someone who rides muni. it might be wise to have shared spaces on the sidewalk instead of the street. remember, shared spaces are endangered by motorist, reckless

motorist. there was an incident in the bayview where motorist intron a shared space. let's look at this in a balanced way and try to do it from a reasonable perspective. thank you. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners. pleasure to hear about this today. i'm calling in strong support of the shared spaces program.

we are fortunate to have such a nice environment. obviously making sure that all businesses that want this can access it. obviously there's still plenty of work to make sure they are accessible. many are problematic. we're starting to see that we

need to give more space to people. i hope you will support this today. we'll continue to work on making our city a better place for people. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: hello m.t.a. i'm president of the small business commission. i'm here today speaking on my own behalf. i want that thank you for your very hard work. it's so amazing watching how you guys work on this stuff. small businesses have been absolutely devastated by the pandemic. we are facing years of recovery. many of us, myself included, are looking at years of debt. this devastation also extends to our employees many of whom were left out of work by the pandemic and also encountered debt. small businesses disproportionately employed

minorities, immigrants and undocumented workers. this is really tough for the city. shared spaces has been a silver lining. they've created a community. i heard they are reducing crime and they've allowed us to see each other just a walking down the street. that's been amazing. the permits expires june 30th. it's important that we move forward expeditiously. this legislation does not eestablish all the rules for spacerred -- shared spaces. all this legislation creates a permit and a process for the shared spaces to exist. i know all will work hard to create the rules. the permits currently out there are less than 1% of the publicly owned spaces in the city.

the revenues that come from shared spaces is not just fees but also sales taxes. this is a transit for city. this is important environmental policy. i'm committed to working with the disability council on addressing their concerns as well as equity concerns there. there's a lot of work to do. still need this legislation. thank you so much. >> caller: my name is lorie thomas. i want to speak today as a small business owner. i have two restaurants. i want to just please ask that you consider this program very seriously with the ability to

take and build seating into the parking lanes in addition to the sidewalks that we have had for multiple years in the city. we want to continue the ability to get parking lanes. for every one parking space you see out there, you can equate that as one person i'm able to hire and bring back to work. we have no guarantee, guys that we are going to move to full indoor dining any time soon. i'm sure you've seen the devastating information out of oregon, they've moved to minimum three week shout down dining, seattle is considering the same thing. we in san francisco are doing a really good job of getting vaccines in arm. we cannot blake will happen. wie need to -- we need to make this work going forward as much as possible. i would love to work with anybody who -- we can help

address any concerns and issues to comply with access for all and equity for all. it's a critically important program. i want to thank you for your work and urge you to please consider moving this forward. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i'm just calling to ask for more clarity on the item. on this item, you're asking establish new fine. this wasn't discussed previously. i want wondering how much the fee will be for no parking zones and the general loading zone? i would like to know more about how will people will know about this, how much the fees going to be and how can they pay for them as well. thank you.

>> caller: my name is patrick, i want to call in to support shared spaces. these spaces are great for our city and much better use of the space and for car storage. i fully support the elimination of more parking in the city. one idea suggestion i hope sfmta will copy what other cities do to improve the experience of shared space. one example from stockholm they add divert either with lot of parklets with shared spaces which greatly reduces amount of traffic on the streets and reduces cars speeding. thank you.

>> caller: my name is paul breed. i was calling in support of the shared spaces program. i thought it should be expanded to include allowing people to gather in all parks. i'm happy for the city. that's all. >> caller: my name is william. i'm calling in support of the shared space program. >> chair borden: does that complete your comment? >> caller: yes. [laughter]

>> chair borden: next speaker please. we will close public comment on this item. i do have a question member of the public brought up fines and fees related to parking and the like. maybe staff can address those? >> sure. i'll jump in. that fee referenced, i mentioned, to section 304 i believe that fee is $750 the same fee for green zones and these new zones will have that application fee. there's an installation fee as well if the application is approved. >> chair borden: i think you can talk more about questions from the public about the disability access and what if any work you've done to work with the

disability council and other advocacy groups related to those issues. then the other issue of equity. if you can address those three. >> i may ask robin to jump in. >> thank you. we have been engaging with various parts of the disability community around shared spaces. initiating first with workshop or a public hearing mayor's disability council in november of last year. we've continue to meet with the council formally with them most recently on march 15th -- to

talk through and think through lot of the issues that have been raised. i think for that reason, you'll see that both the ordinance that is before the board of supervisors as well as department issued regulations, those are departments regulations included in your packet as drafts for reference as well as forthcoming regulation issued by the department of public works. the city and programs commitment to maintaining a.d.a. accessibility and upholding all the code and requirements that come from federal title xxiii and translating those into really tangible, applicable ways of making sure shared spaces are

compliant. we have heard that enforcement continues to be great need around many issues double parking, etcetera. it's something we need to think about and we need to figure out. we're working with the mayor's office of disability thinking about stepping up to meet the necessary challenge of keeping our street and sidewalks clear. i will say that also that we don't want to rely on it. of course, 311 and reporting any

kind of difficulty is still really important. not only because it is one thing that definitely will trigger some kind of site visit or follow-up on the part of the appropriate city department. it help us build a body of record where the hot spots are. that helps us invoke code sets up our set of progressive disciplines. we now through codification have for example, during the temporary version of the program, which is kind of an emergency program, now that we're codifying, we have notices of correction and notice of violations, fees and fines. those are real consequences to

ensure we have quality of compliance across the entire population of parklets out there. >> chair borden: i guess only final question was people brought up was related to equity. there's grants to help construct spaces. is there a chance -- this is more of board of supervisors issue i guess, is there a chance there's going to be something done to help with the cost? $5000 can be very costly for very small business or if a payment plan like someone suggested? >> the main core of the equity response programmatically is the equity grants program as with all of the direct grant and loan assistance program that the city setting up administered, there's a lot of need and limited amount of resources.

we're constrained by the amount of funding at our disposal at this time. i mentioned earlier, we have been hearing that the fee is too high. we have this evening and planning commission couple of weeks ago and informational, we have been hearing loud and clear that there's a desire to see those reevaluated and readjusted. we know that members of the board of supervisors and the mayors getting that feedback too. i don't doubt that's going to continue on to the board of supervisors discussion as they deliberate what the right balance is for fee structure and perhaps some other equity provisions or some other kinds of qualifications for fee

waivers under certain conditions. >> director heminger: i have couple of issues that i want to cover. i want to say i'm a big fan of the program. it's one of the very few silver linings from this pandemic. if it was up to me, i'll be eating outdoors every day of the year. i think there are three issues like to cover. first is safety. the second is design and the third is cost recovery. i think one of the e-mails we got in the last couple of days on the safety question said the only barrier between the diner and traffic is two -- [indiscernible]. i think many motorists are

taking the cue to slow down. not all of them are. i would appreciate hearing more about your strategy for improving safety. whether that's signs, whether that's barriers, whether that's reflectors. what will we do to ensure these are safe facilities? >> thank you for this question director heminger. in the ten years we've had a parklet program, 80 plus parklets around the city, unfortunately, we've never had anything amounting to an injury or fatality or a crash. we have really well articulated

tested site design criteria on strategies. for example increase visibility and therefore safety. i mentioned in the presentation that for example, type 2 at wheel stops have been pretty standard for covid parklets. we'll be reinstituting those additional site components around parklets. the curb management team at the sfmta has developed specifications for the temporary version of shared spaces program for adding reflectors and reflective materials. we are working with our partners at d.p.w. to come up with with specifications that relate to the issues that we brought up.

>> director heminger: have you thought about signs? parklet ahead? one part of the presentation said these things tend to congregate with each other. is there some sense to put warning signs out there like we do for schools? >> no. certainly we've discussed signage at the individual permit level. we've gone out and during the temporary program put up stop sign if there's visibility issues. it's an interesting concept. we have dense zones that have advanced warning. i can't say yes, signage bringing back the public parklets themselves. i believe there's some idea

having that type of signage around the awareness of getting to the facilities you're getting at >> director heminger: robin is in e.u. partisan. that's the flight he's got behind his head. what about lights? lot of these things have lights. you dine at night. is that a requirement or is that just something lot of folks do because they look nice? >> that's something folks elected to do to provide night time lighting. whether that's solar powered or sometimes connected to their brick and mortar facility for electrification. at present, it is not a requirement. we actually try to focus our requirements on those parameters that are focused on access and safety. we try not to be too prescriptive about the types of

amenities that parklet contains. it does lend really nice atmosphere to the streetscape and helps with night time illumination. my experience with many of the parklets, if there is lighting, it's definitely active during open hours. i don't see lighting on past open hours. >> director heminger: i would encourage you to reconsider that. i think lighting is really one of the most -- one of the best ways to promote visibility. as you say, it sort of educate -- creates a nice atmosphere. which gets to design. obviously it's a temporary program. lot of these things were thrown together. during an emergency, that's not such a bad thing. should we expect to see very

different looking installations in the permanent program or are you going to be sort of -- >> park with the parklet sites and the program. it's something we spun up in couple of weeks to meet this really urgent crises. to answer your question, yes. the better goal is better design quality, better material quality across the parklet population. it was open, air flow was allowed, there was some a.d.a.

accessible facility at the establishment. folks were adhering to rules around fire and safety. all the other proven urban design principles that we apply to parklet design guidelines pre-covid. we weren't as focused on. as we move into codifications, we should see better quality pedestrian experience and kind of streetscape with parklets becoming more and more consistent with quality of design and execution. >> director heminger: thank you. let me move into the third issue which to me is the most concerning. that is cost recovery. first of all, i do wish that with the 43 slide deck, there has been at least one slide talking about the cost of the program.

as mr. pilpel indicates, it's in the staff report. you have to hunt for it. it indicates a revenue loss, $10 million. that's on top of some undetermined revenue loss when we were essentially talked into freezing our fares right before covid hit. i do worry about the trend that we're establishing here. policies and programs however, making a move on our revenue. our primary job is to run the muni. muni is taking a couple of hits here with these revenue figures. i understand that part of what we're trying to do here is help small business not only survive the pandemic but get back on

their feet as well as they can. i'm willing to support essentially the fee structure that's laid out in the measure before us today. i do think that we should make a statement about the fact that it is not our intent to provide $10 million subsidy to this program at the expense of muni forever and that overtime, there ought to be a way to get closer to cost recovery. remember, too, i think it's tempting to look at the temporary and the permanent program as a continuum. in many respects they are. one big difference is that the temporary program was essentially replacing indoor space that was inaccessible. it permanent program is supplementing indoor space that will be available. that is a significant value. the real estate in front of

these businesses is significant asset. i do believe it's reasonable over a period of time whether you can do it through these fees or do it through other revenue that can reimburse our lost parking meter revenue. i do think there's a way to be fair to both interests. at the appropriate time, madam chair, i would like to propose an amendment to the enacting resolution today that would talk about having a goal, long range goal of full cost recovery for the program. >> chair borden: is there a second for that amendment? we don't have to vote on it on discuss it now. i want to see if there's a second for that. we can come back to it. >> director hinze: i would

second that motion. lot of folks answered most of my questions. obviously, i second working with the disability community and engaging in dialogue which it sounds like you all are doing. we've been in dialogue. i appreciate that. is there going to be like one place where the public can find all accessibility info, grants and compliance that the business are going to have all the designs, regulations and all of the loading zone requirements. there's a lot to the access.

where is the public will be able to find that information? >> thank you director hinze. the first will be the programs web page and website where we currently have a number of resources for both shared spaces sponsors as well as the general public who are curious about how specifically a.d.a. compliance, achieved. there's both articles there and the mayor's office of disability wrote to make sure how shared spaces accessible as well as the technical assistance documents that we previewed in our presentation from various graphics. we will certainly as the program moves in the future, be consolidating and keeping all of that easy to access information at the website. information about grants and equity grants and all the

technical assistance documents will be there. i would think those kind of workshops and webinars would be part of the rollout that we do in sort of the latter summer and the fall as we help to make sure that folks are getting their sites compliant. if they want to pursue a codified permit.

>> director hinze: my next question is kind of more specific on the 311 enforcement. say i file a shared spaces 311 related complaint, whether it be access or whatever. some complaint about a shared space and i'm encountering. when do we anticipate would be the response time in terms of getting a response to that complaint? >> that's an excellent question. we just presented this to the mayor's disability council. i want to get back to you. i think it's something like within 48 hours of public works receiving a ticket or getting forwarded a report from 311. the enforcement agency needs to

follow-up. that can be in a number of different ways. usually a site visit, a call depending on the nature of the issue. 311, we don't want to exclusively rely on that as our only enforcement mitch. it does trigger a process of follow-up for the city. >> director hinze: usually it's by e-mail within 48 hours. i was wondering more of an estimated timeline for a site-based resolution of whatever complaint happens to be. you can get back to me if you like. unless you have off the top of your head. >> i just pulled up our notes from that presentation.

i think that compliance at the site essentially closing the complaint, it can vary depending on the nature of the issue. it's closed at the site visit sometimes it involves a ramp or clearing an extension cover on the sidewalk. sometimes that impacts operations and needs little bit more time to work out. once we do have a 311 ticket and enforcement agency is assigned, it's something that we're tracking and that remains very key for us to seeing success. >> director hinze: i'm curious, we've heard a lot today about losses of parking and staff might not have this ready.

on arch, how many parking spaces are taken up by the program? do you have like an estimate on that? >> i can jump in. i believe there's 1700 meters of the 28,000, that's 6%. >> director hinze: i don't know if this is probably robin, do we have a sense of if the -- assuming the program is approved, do we have a sense how many shared spaces in total, are they going to increase a lot or they going to go away because it's burdensome to make changes.

what are the projections on that? >> great question. i think that's in all our minds. it's hard to say given all the variables you cited director hinze. we know some that are currently in transit stops. for example where transit services have been suspended. we'll definitely see some folks would have to relocate or seize outdoor operations because we're a transit first policy. i was able able to quickly pull up notes. within three days a report being filed, our enforcement agencies are required to follow-up with a site visit and for curbside

parklets, that's more often than not the department of public works and their enforcement team conducting the work. >> director hinze: thank you very much. >> chair borden: thank you director hinze. director eaken? >> vice chair eaken: thank you so much. i want to raise one issue picking up on a thing that director heminger raised around safety. i guess the real question that i have, have we explored as an m.t.a., thinking about our vision zero goals and thinking how much vision zero is fee management. have we explored the map of the shared spaces? there's a great interactive

online. if we look at that map and consider the idea of fee management at a broader level across the city in terms of where these neighborhood commercial corridors are. it straights me looking at that map, there's some amount of overlap of the shared spaces map and high injury network map. there's maybe an opportunity. it was you chair borden, you referenced a piece of legislation around the idea. you were disappointed that someone chosen to opposed idea of lowering speed in commercial corridor. we don't want cars speeding through the corresponds do. i wonder if that's something we as m.t.a. to be considering. to director heminger's point,

you are now entering a commercial corridor. we want you to drive slowly here. it seems to be so fitting with a concept of making march and more space available for people to dine and to enjoy the public realm. we want to slow down the cars. i've dined number of these outside. it's kind of terrifying to sit there with little strip of wood with you car going 40 or 45 miles an hour. what was your thought process? i would be very supportive of lowering speed limit ons places where we want to encourage people to enjoy the public realm. >> if you look at the shared spaces map that, is effectively the map of these streetcar and

cable car system as it was in the late 19th and early 20th century. our neighborhood commercial district follows transit lines. it's one of the great powers of it san francisco. one of the challenges that we face is that the regulatory environment that we operated in is intentionally blind to context. this is why we are fighting so hard in sacramento to give san francisco tools to actually manage speed in context like communities that have a high proportional of vulnerable residents. similarly, it is why we're currently fighting at the the national level to fix problems for example with the manual for union tomorrow traffic control devices which says that all of the infrastructure of streets need to be exactly the same whether you're on a rural highway in nebraska or in the heart of north beach in san

francisco. we need some regulatory change in order to legalize us being able to adjust the speed limit to achieve safe outcomes because as you know, right now, speed limbs are crowd sourced by the 15th most dangerous driver in a line of 100 people at d.m.v. we would love to do that work. in the meantime, what we are doing is all of the work that you see with us advancing temporary transit only lanes, doing muni forward projects, there's a strong relationship between all of our muni forward projects and neighborhood commercial streets. one of the side benefits of lot of our muni forward work is advancing pedestrian safety and making the speed of our neighborhood commercial streets more slow and steady rather than fast and stop and fast and stop.

i would love to do more there but first, i need some tools to be legalized. i wanted to address another factor that has been a theme in several of your comments. i introduced at the very beginning of of this conversation. we feel very strongly about our role at this time in supporting san francisco's economic recovery through the shared spaces program even if it means using our operating funds in order to help support it. [please stand by]

>> part of our recovery of small businesses is that people still are able to drive, and what that will mean is the loss of the revenues of the parking system is only the meter times the revenue of displaced spaces. so all of this, we will be learning a lot about in the coming months as all of these businesses recover from no indoor services. i think once places are able to

open inside, some will decide it's not worth the trouble. so we will be carefully watching all of the numbers over the summer so we can monitor the recovery as well as muni's recovery at the same time, and i think tom wanted to say something. tom? >> yes. there has been some legislation moving through the legislature, a.b. 43, which would allow bodies like ourselves to set speed limits, especially in places with high pedestrian

high bicycle districts. but i don't want to make any promises that that's going to mean that we are going to lower all of the speed limits that we posted in the chat, so but we're going to take the opportunity to lower the speed limits with our crews just like we did in the tenderloin. there has been some really good reform at the state level in california, and i think there's an effort we can renew that around the shared spaces. >> great. and acknowledging the renewed momentum on a.b. 43. i would just love and acknowledging, as you said, jeff and robin, that this map is dynamic. it's going to shift in the coming year ahead, but i would like staff to conclude, maybe

after the beginning of the legislative session, to come back and have a conversation about these neighborhood measures [inaudible]. just in response to one of the comments that we received in writing in public comment, about the crash in van ness, are we, in fact, as a city, using all of the tools that we have to make our streets safer. just as you said, mr. tumlin, this person was suggesting as a four-lane to three-lane on van ness besides these speed limit settings. staff is already in alignment, but i would just strongly

endorse to use the tools that we have in these shared spaces. thank you. >> thank you, director eakin. director lai? >> i agree with director tumlin that this effectively is an investment by m.t.a. to our community. not just the business community but for our urban community, and i acknowledge and definitely respect how conscientious director heminger is with our fiscal situation, but from my personal perspective, you know, $10

million a year is kind of a drop in the bucket to the m.t.a. budget. to me, it's so worthwhile to make that contribution especially for the current theory, much needed economic life and cultural life that the city needs. i do have to point out a couple of concerns that i do have. nothing that would hinder moving this forward today, the legislative piece, but for the draft policy for staff and my colleagues to consider, well, first, i'm very glad to hear that we as a city have had a chance to expand the grant opportunities, especially on the compliance side because it would suck for merchants would have had to build something during the pandemic and not get something for it, so thank you

for having that available. but along the lines of a comment that has already been made, i do struggle with the issue of charging small mom-and-pops and perhaps more struggling m.c.d.s the same that we might charge as a thriving larger format business, and i really would like to see more support programs, i mean, as a city, as a whole, not just on m.t.a. it's board of supervisors' offices, each district, too. there are strips out there that should not be charged the same way. i have major concerns about the operation of the streets, particularly in certain corridors where the rights of

way are a bit constrained, but also, those are corridors where we have a lot of vibrant commercial storefronts that may want to use these spaces. i would urge staff during summer to try and collect data on violations of double parking or freight parking particularly on the consequences of our muni delays or any kind of just street operation delays because i do feel that there's probably a space or a conversation that needs to be had about how we set policy around just managing our streets before? i am a bit concerned when we bring streets back, people are

going to park where they want, and our transit services is of great concern to me, and i hope that that will be coming back to us. i also -- i appreciate your comment, robin, about not wanting to be too prescriptive, but i have concerns about informality sometimes turning into inequities and sort of a black market content. i do support the comments by chair borden by essentially anyone using or accessing the spaces to register a file through the city process -- and not essentially create the process where the use would be

transferrable because i do worry that -- we're a capitalistic society. people are going to try to find ways to capitalize on that and go from there. i just want to make sure that we're not requiring tenants to get consent from landowners, so i hope we will continue the current requirement where we do not require permission of the landowner adjacent to the frontage. it certainly does not belong to them. and i think around the same frame, i would like to see more around our block by block or space by space approval because

i want this to ainvolve and give it space to grow and sort -- evolve and give it space to grow and sort of let of market grow, but i see some problems with having it be kind of a project-by-project assessment, and often, that [inaudible] under what circumstances would we do that because i don't want the community to feel that, you know, they're going to spend thousands of dollars building these spaces, which, quite frankly, is also in addition to the city's network of street furniture, which i appreciate

that, plus the $6500 for steer commitment just to ask them to enforce revocation until the next year. i want there to be some clarity under what context the city would move to revoke approval. and i don't know if my colleagues are ready, but i would be ready to make a motion, i suppose, per the correct citation read into the record earlier, but chair borden, i am finished. thank you. >> okay. great. before that, i think director heminger wanted to fix or speak to his motion. i think it's important tote that, going back to what director tumlin said, it's not an apples to apples figuring

out. their demise or their destruction directly impacts the overall tax we collect, and the only way to calculate that difference would be to look at those numbers, as well, and i think that's really difficult. we're also on the yellow tier, we're not at 100%. we're at outdoor dining, and there are going to be people, at least for the foreseeable future, who don't feel comfortable dining inside. and a lot of these restaurants owe rent for the last year. although they're doing well now, they maio rent for the better part of a year, so these shared spaces and the fact that

they have to payback rent whether it's added on their lease or it's an escalator added on over the years, it's something may have to consider. i thought -- i do think that there are -- it gets a little bit complicated because there are changes in what the capacity is. i do love that the staff is looking at ways to add meters to other streets, and i think that is really the right

approach. something else to think about, maybe not as popular, i don't know, but the notion of would there be a surcharge or a dollar charge, right, for people that would maybe pass along to the consumer that would be charged for us to -- as captured revenue or even to fund the program for people who can't pay the fees; that even a dollar per check, people would be fine with that. in the past, surcharges haven't been detrimental to restaurant dining in san francisco, and i think that could be a really creative way to look at how we fund this. but i think that we are always so quick to charge fees on business, and i think there's

sometimes where it makes sense to pass it on the consumer, and it doesn't have to be very high in terms of the services that you're going to eventually see. it is important that the mom-and-pop restaurants, like the pupuserias on my streets, can afford a figure that is imposed. with that, i'll let director heminger put forward his brief comments. >> i want to comment. >> oh, i'm sorry. did you want to say something?

>> i think staff is doing a great job, and i just want to add director borden in saying that it's great in adding more meters in the neighborhood and more hours, because so director tumlin's point, we can absolutely makeup any lost revenue by doing those things. as director eakin said, there are concerns. i will probably continue to eat outside for sometimes -- for sometime not because of covid but because it's quieter outside, so with that, i'm happy to second the motion that director lai has made.

>> and director heinicke, did you want to say something or did you want to second the motion that director heminger made? is you're on mute. >> i don't know that we do this, but i do realize that a lot of the equity issues that were brought up today aren't necessarily in our purview, but i'm wondering if we can put in some resolutions the board of supervisors sort of encapsulating the fines and fees and the fees in general for shared spaces and the importance of equity so that the board of supervisors knows

that the community has our support. i just put that out there. >> great. director heminger, you wanted to make a motion to your amendment -- or an amendment? >> yes. i wanted to say something because i didn't get a chance to previously and say what it says and what it doesn't. the amendment would be as follows. it would say resolved that the sfmta board of directors supports a long-term goal of achieving full cost recovery for the shared spaces program, and i want to note that that

does not commit us to a particular course of action. we don't have to get it strictly by raising the fees. it could be, as you said, madam chair, by increasing the meters. we, m.t.a., are losing some money here in the deal because of lost meter revenue, and i think we need to find a way and to commit ourselves over the long-term to filling that hole, and i think it's important, especially to make that case at the outset of a program. i worry with respect to the inflation adjustment on our fares, we're going to have a hard time ever enacting that inflation adjustment again because we gave it up once. i think just in the interests of transparency, it would be good for us to say something at the outset that we have a goal

of recovering those funds in a way that would be acceptable to all the stakeholders over time. >> we'll have to take the amendments separate from the core motion, and i think, director lai, what was -- remind me of the language of your amendment? >> the amendment was just to correctly site the code section that was typed in -- cite the code section that was typed in the amendment. >> i don't think that's a substantial amendment. what say you, madam city attorney? >> you can vote on the amendment or incorporate it into your final resolution. >> okay. we can take it up with the

resolution. we don't have to take it in a separate motion? >> as long as the motion includes that, and you could include the two motions as friendly amendments by director lai or you could consider them separately. >> i think director silva -- secretary silva, did you get the long that director heminger had? you could drop it in the chat, director heminger, or if you had the exact language, secretary silva, for the motion, and then, director lai, you had a question on the motion? >> yes. so i guess i'm trying to understand what might happen if, let's say we adopt the

amend that director heminger requested and we don't -- we aren't able to cost recover, what does that do? i suppose it sounds like the language is that we have a long-term goal with no same limit on it, but, you know, my understanding is staff has worked quite heavily on this cost issue, so i guess i want to understand a little bit of what the implications might be if we cannot achieve this. >> sure. if i can reply, the language is setting a goal, and there's penalty for not reaching the goal, and there is no date for reaching the goal. i'm just trying to put a marker down that we commit ourselves,

and it might well be our successors, as well, to try to make whole the deficiency we're creating here. >> okay. i guess i just want to pose a rhetorical question for my colleagues to consider. what does it say to our community that we are setting goals for cost recovery for these shared spaces programs. we clearly don't have that same goal for supporting transit service. we supposedly have a cost recovery model for residential parking permit programs, but just as a policy, like, is this the goal that m.t.a. has? i guess i haven't really thought about that, since this is a new amendment, but i wanted to share or think out loud with my colleagues, you

know, comparing it with other services that we provide, where does this land in that spectrum. thank you. >> thank you. anybody else have any comments especially in terms of the motion. jeff, director tumlin, i don't know if you had a thought related to overall cost recovery. i guess at this point, we don't -- it's vague enough that there's nothing that happens if we don't meet it. i guess the question is, is this something -- do we want to prioritize this and is this consistent with what we've done in other areas. mr. [inaudible] has his hand raised, and he'd like to address that. >> [inaudible] chief financial

officer. just to get you some -- some of the things that director lai and heminger have brought up [inaudible] in visitors to the city. [inaudible] we have some general programs where just in fact you live in san francisco, you get the service from m.t.a., and you don't pay a thing. we do have services that are subsidized, and then, we do some other programs where the program is full cost recovery, meaning, we collect from the user the full overhead cost. we don't profit from it in any way, but we recover the full overhead costs. we have our general programs, we have our subsidized programs, and we have our

incentivized programs. i would say that the program today is a subsidized program where we will collect part of the pot. we certainly will not collect the entire pot, but the agency can make this a cost recovery program. the lengthy list proposed by director heminger sets no goals, but as we consider all of our different parking revenues and all of the different programs, it'll be in the mix perhaps for years, many years to come. >> great. any other directors have thoughts on this topic or questions? okay. so i guess, with that, we will take a vote on the amendment,

which is the first amendment proposed by director heminger. >> okay. on the motion to resolve that the sfmta puts forth a full program to recover the cost of the program -- [roll call] >> thank you. that motion passes >> and then, there was an amendment -- the amendment you proposed, director lai, was not a change to the material content, it was a fix to make it correct. please remind us of what we need to do to make it correct.

>> i can chime in. that is to correct the code to correctly reference public works code 2.1.1 instead of 200.11.1. i did note a motion and a second. >> perfect. and then, the original motioners, your motion was for the overall motion -- so with that, we'll take a vote on that amended motion. >> clerk: thank you. [roll call]

>> clerk: thank you. that motion passes. and then, chair, one more. a motion and a -- >> i thought because [inaudible] whatever you think we have to do, but the first motion with that section wrong, we really wouldn't want to approve, any way, because it has the wrong section? >> i think we could just vote on the amendment. i move item 11. >> two times. >> clerk: great. on the motion to