it's been really amazing breath of fresh air during the pandemic. we appreciate it working with m.t.a. to refine the design. i like to repeat couple of things that i heard. i have not seen traffic backed up on the number of streets temping to negotiate turns or intersections on shotwell. at most, i seen couple of cars. currently the signage is not really doing all it should do to help navigate those intersections. i've seen the final layout. i think it will would alleviate those problems. i drive, walk and bike on shotwell. i like to say that i have not --

i heard someone say it will increase traffic on surrounding streets. i haven't seen evidence of that. this has been great, love it. we want it. please vote yes to keep shotwell slow. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: hi. i'm in support of the sanchez slow street. i like to thank shannon and brian and all the sfmta employees for working on the slow street program. i live on duncan, which is another slow street. i walk sanchez every day. it's been great to have extra space during the pandemic. i'm excited about expanding the slow street past the end of the

pandemic, whenever that happens with delta. i would like to see the sanchez street design go further. i encourage the board to approve sanchez street and all the other slow streets. thank you. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: i'm with senior and disability action. first thing to say, yes, we agree that to the extension of all four streets. we also asking to extend the public outreach to shotwell. also to 20th street. the reason being the last month, senior and disability action has started some in-person meetings

in the mission area. at the same time, two of the meetings which were held at the mission neighborhood center, representing members from there from central latino and bethany center, have not been reached about shotwell or 20th street. all do not have computers. they would not reach and they feel very concerned with the safety of both of the slow streets. safety, y but the streets are much more calmer. safety in terms of people who violate go around the traffic circles are going much faster than they have before the street was slowed down. second, there's a couple of reports of couple of seniors getting physically attacked during the night time. not feeling secure because

there's for some reason, the traffic seems to bring in more security because there's more eyes on the street. bottom line was they would not felt like they were approached in any aspect of this because they were not online. they did not receive postcards. may be because they are spanish speaking. please, extend the outreach for shotwell street before going into design. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: good afternoon, directors. this is eric chase, the city resident, calling to express my strong support for extending the four slow streets on your agenda today. although, do i not live in close proximity to a slow street, i seek to safe positive travel

towards intended destinations. just to enjoy a rare calm space that's mostly free of cars. covid is going to be with us for some time. these outdoor spaces will continue to be valuable. slow street help to address another health crises, mainly traffic violence. our city aspires to be a transit first and vision zero city. carving out more places like slow streets are a boost to our floundering attempts at vision zero and will make travel on foot or bicycle safer more enticing choice. it will be grateful if you approve the extension of the four slow streets.

i look forward to a future expansion of the slow streets network. i hope to close by expressing my gratitude and appreciation to director brinkman for 11 years of service. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: hi. my name is lisa church. i'm calling to fully support extending each of the four slow streets in question pasted covid-19 emergency order. i don't have -- i have one block of slow street in my district. i have family and friends living on and have visited three of the four streets we're speaking about here today. all of them are just better than

any other street in san francisco to walk down other than the fully closed great highway and j.f.k. the resident i know are thrilled to live in a much calmer environment. couple of weekends ago, i was on shotwell and people were strolling down the street and kids playing. it was a wonderful environment. i do hope that you'll be more aggressive about signage and diversion for vehicles. really disappointed to see the violence against the signs last week. i don't understand the mindset of people that do that. i don't think what we have is enough to divert vehicles or to slow them down. i don't think that the implementation of slow streets and traffic safety on other streets should be linked. we can have slow streets and properly mitigate traffic on other streets. something i know that's constantly under discussion and

review by this board. thank you for the quick pivot to the she streets and beginning of the pandemic and hope that you all understand how beneficial they are to all of us. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: hello. i'm actually a resident near lake street. i lived in this neighborhood for more than 20 years. while we seen the benefits of having the lake street as a safe street. i am quite opposed to it for a couple of reasons. one, there actually has been a lot more traffic along geary, clement and california.

especially since california has changed from two lanes to one lane. there's a lot more traffic congestion. we're not back to pre-pandemic levels. where everyone is fully back to work and everything is back to normal. it is quite congested as it is now. second, i do feel that there are plenty of parks and trails and parks and other things nearby for easy access for persons who do want to have a little bit of outdoor time. i also own a car. i also walk and i do take muni frequently to go to work. my other concern really are also with the fact that with lake street, we do -- we have seen quite number of people that come from different neighborhoods and walk along the streets. i know it may not be nice to say

so, there is -- i do wonder as my home, -- [indiscernible] there doesn't seem to be enforcement at intersections. we've seen bikers and joggers run through without stopping. that causes lot of confusion for persons walking and driving. it created little bit of stress. we're already driving past. i hope that it staff consider -- i hope not to keep the safe streets going. >> chair borden: next speaker please.

>> caller: hello. i'm a richmond district resident. i've been in san francisco since shortly after -- [indiscernible]. i'm a senior in my 70s. i live three blocks from lake. it's been a god send. it's been great to ride my ebike and being outside and interacting with neighbors and remaining safe from covid. i'm from being anti-car person. having safe routes to bike away from traffic, will incentivize

those of us who can bike. lake is a perfect slow street. it has almost no track. apart from presidio and 27th avenue. i was sold on the slow street concept. slow streets have proven to be far more relief from covid. i'm lighted -- i'm delighted you're considering to keep lake slow and others slow. slow lake is a joy and real san francisco treasure. please accept the staff recommendation to keep lake and other streets slow. >> chair borden: next speaker please.

>> caller: hi. [indiscernible] [indiscernible] >> chair borden: thank you.

next speaker please. >> caller: hi. i live on shotwell street. in the 700 block. i like to voice my support for making shotwell street a permanently slow street. i'm an essential worker. my office closed down during the pandemic. i was driving every day, coming home going to work. i never had an issue with finding parking or getting access to my street. i don't think by making shotwell a permanent street it should keep any resident from accessing the street or finding parking to

the street. i can say how many times pre-pandemic a car would rip down our street, which seem like 60 to 75 miles an hour. that has continued a bit downer shotwell street as temporary slow street. i do agree that the street hasn't been super respected as a slow street. it has been an improvement from pre-pandemic traffic levels. i do think there's room for improvement.

i think drivers are capable making the habit change to not using it as a street. i think it has a practical future of being respected as a slow street. thank you for the consideration. i'm excited to see more permanent slow streets in the city of san francisco. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: good afternoon again board members. i want to speak in strong support of the program. i live about a block away from one of the corridors. not one of the ones proposed today. i do frequent many of the corridors that's up for approval today. they've been so great, gets me on my bike more. i feel safe. it really brings sense of joy

and commute in these neighborhoods. it really also aligns with our city priorities and values, climate goals and vision zero. it's really true. i think these projects are essential. just in general, in reality, we don't want cut-through traffic on local streets. i think this is something that we should have seen a long time ago. it's great that the pandemic allowed us to do this. i agree with the previous speakers who asked for stronger materials for the dividers, signage, etcetera. at the end of the day, we've seen with peopling cutting down signs with electric saws. we're going to have some challenges. i hope we can look into that more. but really support the program.

>> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: good afternoon. i live on sanchez street for 12 years. the temporary program was enacted without public input, without clear goals or enforcement to maintain it.

sanchez residents and residents of san francisco deserves better. i ask you to vote against extending this program. thank you. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: hi. i'm a resident of duncan and sanchez street, i want to voice my strong support for keeping the slow sanchez street making it permanent. i use it twice a day. it has been such a positive experience to engage with neighbors and enjoy the outdoors and feel safe walking during the pandemic. thank you to the m.t.a. for all of the work they've done and i urge the board to vote to approve the permanent of slow sanchez. >> chair borden: next speaker

please. >> caller: hi. this is chris. i'm a resident of noe valley. i live off sanchez street about a half block. i'm calling to voice my strong support to keep sanchez slow. i think it's great and way to foster community. i organized a group walk every week. it allow us -- [indiscernible]. it fosters community. i'm also excited about what keeping this permanent what will do in the future and experiences

san franciscans can enjoy once they adapt to the permanent. i'm also a driver and i haven't experienced congestion and parking. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: i wanted to say that i was in strong opposition of the slow street. sounded difficult traffic for essential workers and first responders and amount of deaths and fatalities just from people walking through intersections and checked out, being hit by cars. thank you for your time. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please.

>> caller: i'm rebecca, i'm a resident who lives on sanchez. i want to voice my strong opposition. we are the most affected. it's unsafe when you put these many kids in the way of local traffic. for example, my 75-year-old mother asked to keep the noise down outside her window. there's no way to regulate

noise. it should be clear that all these people want is a park. it's exhausting.

>> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: i'm in strong support of slow street.

[indiscernible] that's all i got to say. >> chair borden: thank you.

>> caller: hi. this is karen kennard. i'm a long time homeowner on sanchez street. i'm a enthusiastic walker and driver. i participated in all the sanchez street forums and open houses. i'm calling to oppose extending slow sanchez. i have no opinion regarding the other streets. i'm not familiar with those. i think making important transit decisions during a pandemic that has disrupted transit is extremely ill advised people. i walked slow sanchez every day and loved it. i felt so tory for the residents and the congestion, trash and noise, bikes, scooters and kids unattended and running through driveways. i'm concerned about that on their behalf. i think it's no surprise that

sanchez has the lowest resident approval of any of the four streets under consideration today. i think that should be respected i want to speak on behalf of the overflow street. i question any volume data collected during the pandemic. obviously nobody was driving during the pandemic. that data was not representative. church has a streetcar that's already too slow and subject to long-standing project. noe has an extreme hill with 98-degree parking. both streets are problematic for safety and speed reasons. sanchez is unusually wide and wide sidewalks and a park that ends at 30th street.

there's no need to use sanchez as a walking street or a park. i would strongly oppose extending slow sanchez. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: i live on 29th avenue between california and clement. i am a homeowner. i'm an urban walker. i am a driver. i'm calling to oppose the extension of lake street as a slow street. there are a number of reasons. pre-pandemic, i walked the length of lake approximately four times every week. lake has very wide sidewalks. it has bike lanes on both sides. it is well equipped to handle both people who want to bike and people want to walk, children

and everything else safely with still allowing cars to go down lake street. we have a big problem in our area because there are only three streets that will allow you to turn on to park presidio. geary boulevard doesn't provide that. over the last year or so, we have had a reduction of 50% lanes that we can use to turn left on to park presidio or to go straight. a 40% reduction overall. that's two lanes off of geary because of a bus. one lane off of california and two lanes off of lake. we had a very severe reduction for car traffic. for all of the previous people who talked about the lack of

transparency and lack of studies, promote studies, i echo those thoughts. i urge you to reopen lake to traffic immediately. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: good afternoon members of the board. i'm a resident of district 8. i'm calling in support of making permanent all four of the slow streets before you. for most of the pandemic, i lived couple of walks from shotwell street. both of these are perfect streets for slow streets. they are quiet and flat. they are far better use for walking and cycling. throughout the pandemic, i watched how it will reduce

traffic has allowed residents greater access to this space. especially seniors, families and children. it would be tragic. shotwell street does get too much car traffic still. if you try to walk down, it will be wider. i'm glad to see restrictions being added. we can't ask folks to use these streets like slow streets should be used. no through traffic like the previous sign had. it will be clear and effective.

finally, i want to say -- [indiscernible]. i'm looking forward to the hearing and return to community on that street. thank you and please all the slow streets. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: lived on lake street at 25th for 24 years. i'm personally opposed to lake street being permanently closed. i seen an increase in noise and litter, especially dog waste and i seen an increase in vandalism. i seen an increase of traffic on neighboring streets like california. california really is a mess these days. i would like to offer ways to

make things a little bit better. if you do implement this. at 25th avenue at lake, there's no signage. lot of traffic comes ripping up 25th street and streams past my block and stops at 26th to make their turn off slow street. i would like to make sure that if you put up permanent barriers at that intersection. i like to voice my concern about local traffic. i get nasty looks when i drive down by own block. i'm wondering if it would be wise to implement some sort of placard so people using the slow streets, don't key my car as i go by. that's been my major concern. being a resident of lake street.

>> chair borden: thank you. >> caller: my name is mary. i'm calling to represent myself. i'm in full support of the slow sanchez because i believe it has made the street safer for everyone. i have been in that corner for about 10 years. i seen many traffic accidents. cars are zipping really fast to get to the 280 freeway. now cars are more mindful. car burglaries have gone down. i attribute that to more people out. what has increased are more families walking together and friends enjoying each other's

company. also, it has been a core group of homeowners who clean up weekly. it is clean and it's beautiful with planted flowers. i highly request, please consider what the majority of the city want and approve slow street sanchez. thank you very much. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: hi. my name is debbie. i live on sanchez. i like to know where this utopia is that everyone is disgusting? since sanchez has become a slow street, it has not been a utopia. my car has been hit, people bang

on it and flip me off. it's a very unpleasant place to live. implore the board not to make a temporary solution. don't use this as an opportunity to take a temporary solution and create a permanent long-term disaster for the people that live here. it's bad. where is the transparency? where all the results from all these surveys? i know i actually did little survey with the other residents. we got a lot of people who are highly opposed. you're holding a meeting during a work day and most people are at work. produce the results. i want to see the results. implore that the board mandate that the shannon and brian produce the results. they have to have the data. there has been no transparency about this process. we got a postcard in the mail that things were tabled. next thing we know, we find out

there's a meeting. luckily someone who is in the other camp, must have felt guilty and decided to tell us and that's how we knew there was a meeting today and we can voice our concern. all i ask as you listen to our concerns, you stop the destruction. it's a street. streets are streets. it's not europe. if you want to go to europe. go to europe. this is san francisco. we're progressive but this is absolutely insanity. i don't want to run over a kid. i don't want to hurt anybody. please, use common sense and don't turn a transit way into a park. that's what you're doing. thank you for your time. >> chair borden: next speaker please.

>> caller: hi. i'm calling to support the shotwell slow street. i am a san francisco native and live directly on shotwell street. i namely walk to work and have continued to go into the office and being able to use the space. someone earlier said that one uses it. that is not true. at least for multiple people say they use it. i do see lot of cars park the on the sidewalk. we have had no issues coming into our driveway. i support this. we do see lot of cars that try to go through the signs. i do hope that more permanent

signage will hopefully make that more helpful and accessible. thank you. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: hi. i'm a little bit biased living on shotwell street. i'm thrilled for shotwell. however, one thing that wasn't mentioned, the other streets there's access to green belts like presidio and so on. shotwell is part of the mission. there's not easy ways to run or walk or ride bikes without a bunch of cars. that's a great street.

that's all i'm saying. i yield my time. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: hi, i'm a shotwell resident. it's not perfect, it has been a big improvement living and biking and walking on the street. i'm hopeful that with diverters coming in, that will be even better. i enjoyed using the lake and sanchez streets to ride my bike on. i urge you to move boldly and making more of these permanent. thank you. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: can you hear me now?

david pilpel. page 5 of the staff report -- let me go to that. refers to a memo from the planning department director, dated april 12, 2021. i could not find that document. there's no reference to a case number or a presentation or whatever. i'm sure it exist somewhere, i can't find it. i am requesting to get a copy in the mail. please send me a copy that memo. in the future, things like that should be an attachment to the calendar item. if we're going to make deal about some short document from other department. just include it as an attachment. not a big deal. goldengate avenue pairs with

turk street westbound. i find it odd one would make goldengate avenue a slow street. i think it destroyed the two-way couplet. lake street traffic avoids california street which is a rapid transit corridor and has been reduced and restructured on california street. that means that if lake street is made permanent, if california street is less of an option that shifts more traffic to clement or actually some of it to california street and some to clement and geary. there will be some transit impact on the lake street proposal. i have no specific comments on sanchez street or shotwell street.

there's certainly some localized impacts there. i opposed this item. i don't think these streets should be designated as permanent slow streets. i know that i have a minority opinion here. i don't think the pandemic should be used as a pretext to make these pretty significant changes to our streets that would not have been possible a year and a half ago. i think people living in those places with the understanding if they were streets that were available for their use as streets and this is a significant change to their use as streets and therefore, i oppose this item. respectfully. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. are there any additional callers on the line? >> caller: hello. my name is linda. i live on lake street. i been here for decades within half block of 25th avenue.

i strongly oppose turning lake street into a permanent situation. it was littlely turned into a slow street overnight with no contact. the second day it happened, there was a collision of an suv and a bicyclist. i don't know what all this data collection is. it hasn't been for any of the residents i know. my neighbors are opposed to it. they're working and not available for this call. to my understanding that was done. that's why you added speed bumps. directly blocking our driveway and also in the next block. secondly, in terms of adding a

space, we are -- we live one block at most of the presidio. it's a much more calm place to actually have you walking and so forth. there's playgrounds and there has been a tremendous increase in noise, litter, dog waste. i get flipped off when i ask people to thaek tear garbage with them. before the pandemic i used to walk the street. now i cannot do that. i female like i'm -- i feel like i'm in prison in fish bowl. there's been tremendous amount of crime on our block. this is no fun for us. please do not do this. please do not make it permanent. it's going to become a bigger issue later. thank you.

>> chair borden: thank you. next speaker. are there any additional callers on the line? >> caller: hi. i lived 20 plus year resident of shotwell. i'm calling in strong support of shotwell street becoming permanent. i would refute the idea that one uses them. for the entirety of the pandemic until now, we have been using them daily. i have friends who live on cap street who use it with me with their kids and able to bike, skateboard. i do believe there needs to be better signage and material used. it's been a boone for the neighbors to shotwell to our

part of the mission which is a part with little to no park available for children to play for recreation and for community building. i have not seen any traffic. i'm a driver and a pedestrian. i have seen no back up of traffic that people are mentioning. i'm not sure where that is. it's not on our block. i have not seen these accidents. i was googling while listening and i was unable to find records of any of them. i'm not sure where this information is. i have not seen any facts to back it up. thank you so much for this. i hope that you approve all of the streets. i think that is making san francisco wonderful city to live

in. >> chair borden: thank you. are there any additional callers? >> caller: hi. my name j.d. i want to call in support of the planned slow streets or richmond district, especially lake street. we enjoyed using 23rd avenue and lake street in our city. i drive frequently in our district and never encountered the kinds of terrible problems that other people called in and talked about. i hope you continue to use data and monitor actual usage and continue updating the public and continue to foster new culture of shared spaces and slow streets. thank you so much. >> chair borden: thank you.

next speaker please. with that, we will close public comment. moving back to commissioners. the first director, was director hinze. >> director hinze: thank you to all the members of the public and the residents. i do have a couple of questions about -- my first question similar to director lai and

towards addressing the needs of people who do drive. particularly are we working like providers like google and apple maps and then couple of residents slow streets mentioned that they are having difficulty accessing their homes. one commenter -- [indiscernible] >> in response to your first question about navigation service providers. from the very beginning of the program, we have been working closely with our navigation service providers to make sure that through traffic is being

routed off our slow streets. one of the great things about that is that it means that many drivers are routed off slow streets without even realizing it. for example, if they're taking trip by vehicle, they will be automatically routed around the slow street and won't even see the barricades. they'll already be on an alternate route. we've also been working navigation providers to make sure that people with local access needs, for example pick-up along the block, people parking and driving at their homes can still access and are still routed appropriately. their vehicle trips are allowed on the slow streets. we have been working very closely with our navigation service providers on that. in regards your question about permits. we have been working on improving our communication with

residents. one of the detriments is we moved so quickly. we weren't able to engage with residents at the beginning of the program. most of time when we're speaking with residents and letting them know what a slow street is and what it isn't, it does generally alleviate their concerns. they're allow to drive on the street and park on the street, there's street cleaning, trash pick-up, all of those things, deliveries as well. i think we can do a better job about improving our communication about how to use the slow street. >> director hinze: specifically on the projects. on the sanchez project, we have a few residents who called in with the quality of life issues that you addressed in your

presentation. would you like to respond to their concerns? >> sure. we have been engaging with the residents in noe valley very closely on sanchez street. when we first announced the beginning of this outreach program earlier this spring, we certainly heard loud and clear from many residents that the use of the slow streets was having major impacts. it was something they didn't sign up for. they didn't really appreciate. we worked outside of our agency with other agency partners. for example, public works. we worked on identifying locations for new trash bins and scheduling more frequent trash pick-ups to address some of those concerns. we also coordinated with some of

the areas that were providing amplified music at some of the locations on the slow street that were really affecting residents and ask them to not continue to provide that music. one of the best things that we were able to do is work with some of the community partners on the ground like slow street sanchez, to work on rules of the road on just letting people know how to use slow sanchez appropriately. how to be considerate of neighbors and how to make sure that the slow street is meeting the needs of everyone. i don't think our design is perfect on sanchez. i do think that base the on the feedback, we have a design response to the community. >> director hinze: we heard a

few times there was obviously limited outreach and particularly, for those who don't speak english. can you talk about may be any outreach you did or plan to do that's separate from may be online stuff or your typical postcards? will there be more outreach in the future? >> absolutely. we've been developing new ways to reach people during the pandemic as many of our initial ways to really figure out what's going on slow streets. we haven't had in-person event. we have been coming up with new ways to engage residents. all of our materials are available in various languages and in areas with high

percentages of languages. for example, the sanchez corridor, we provide all -- sorry, the shotwell corridor, we provide languages in spanish. we've been trying to get that boots on the ground feeling not only sending postcards but post posting posters and not all of the material is web-based. we're waiting until we can do some in-person slow street walk to get a sense of how the street is working. we will be doing more and if

there are any ideas on may be means of communication that we haven't tried, we want to hear them specifically in the last round of outreach on sanchez and shotwell. we tried to have meetings during the day in the later evening and on weekends to make sure people are able to attend. >> director hinze: on lake, i know that one hasn't gotten design page yet. couple of callers today had some designs suggestions that you might want to take into account. may be the outreach process to get started on that one. where i on this -- [indiscernible] with careful consideration with

each community, i think slow streets are in our toolbox as we move forward. i would second director lai's direction to staff when you think about permits going forward, we've heard from couple of public commenters, you heard from us, we would really appreciate a network of slow streets. we heard couple of folks that have gone from basically downtown to the highway. i would encourage that and when you use the term network, think of it has a way to get from one end of the city to the other. i would also encourage obviously

outreach and thinking about -- i know we have our basic tool kit but also we've a heard lot today about other design methods that we might use. think about expanding that tool kit as possible. i know that right now, focus is looking at how the ones that we had temporarily thinking about -- [indiscernible] also thinking down the road, think being other streets that meet the qualifications that you use for temporary slow street and poly think -- possibly thinking about implementing it. that concludes my comments.

>> chair borden: thank you so much director hinze. next up is director brinkman >> director brinkman: director hinze, great comments. i agree with all of the questions that you asked. shannon really good responses. i think that it's important to help drivers understand how do you as a car driver use the slow street and when are you behaving correctly and when you might be behaving that makes the other street userrers nervous. it's a really good idea. comments that really resonated with me was children who called in with the help of their parents. thank you parents for facilitating that. that's not easy. i know it takes a bit of time. thank you, kids, for calling it. it reminds me, there's a lot of people ask, they build our cities for the children. they can't drive. they're going to be using these streets decades and decades longer than any of us.

let's build these streets correctly for the kids now, create that network of slow streets. we'll all adapt to it going forward. i was in union city not too long ago dropping something off for a former coworker. people celebrated they live on a cul-de-sac. these are our versions of the suburban cul-de-sac. i will support this when it comes time to vote. thank you so much for the work. these are not permanent. these are extension of the slow streets. i will support this when it comes to a vote. >> chair borden: director heminger? >> director heminger: thank you madam chair. i want to express my appreciation to jeff and to tom and shannon and any of the other

staff who brought us slow streets. who brought us shared spaces. i think both of those programs in particular are real and lasting innovations for our city. if it's okay with you, i'll make the motion now to approve the item. >> i have two quick questions. >> chair borden: let me get the second. second? >> second. >> director tumlin: in addition to -- i don't want to cut you off. slow streets. my thoughts on slow streets is clear until now. sound like we had a lot of strong feelings on both sides.

my question is how do we think we are going to address feeling of adversarialness on these streets. i've gone to the streets and i seen how they work. i do want to see -- since this is a project of our agency. i wonder if we have some kind of plan or idea of how to mend what seem to be some broken bond between neighbors. particularly on sanchez. that doesn't sit really well with me. may be it's not our responsibility. we're a small town kind of. we're a small city. how many times have i run into someone on the street that i seen around. i want to make sure that we're thinking about social cohesion on these streets as we move forward with this pilot.

>> i think that is a common theme that i heard from lot of different slow streets. for people who are proponents for more free space and recreation and bicycling and walking, being really adversarial and negative to people who are driving cars, doesn't endeer them to this space. that's one of the things that happens all the time, sort of like yelling at people who are not vaccinated. once people dig in and you insult them and you term them they are a terrible person, whatever you want to say, there's really no path back for that person to be on you're side. i wish that we -- it wasn't us versus them mentality. trying to do more of that. that is critical because the

only way slow streets will be successful and to expand or continue to do this program is where people don't feel alienated and neighborhoods aren't driven apart by people who drive versus people who don't drive. that will never work. >> director tumlin: thank you. so solidarity glad you brought up this topic. it's core. slow streets are a little confusing in san francisco. limitations that we had on materials have been a part of the confusion. i want to emphasize that slow streets work because they welcome every one. they welcome every one, whether they're on foot, bike, skate or car. people are welcome to drive on every single one of slow streets. we ask that every one respect the right for everyone else to

share that space. part of the challenge is how do we use both design and cultural programs in order to support civility on these streets? all it takes is one aggressive person, yelling at you as you trying to back out your driveway to turn you against an idea that has tremendous amount of potential if we can get them to work right. in moving in program forward, you're allowing us to learn positive lessons from other cities around the world. these are everywhere and pretty much all local cities. our challenge has been limitation on signage, which we're trying to edit nationally. our challenge with the san francisco fire department. there's a tension between our desire to have low motor vehicle

speed to promote traffic safety. obviously, the fire department is going to be conservative in their approach. again, what we're doing here is extending the program to buy us time to find better design solutions, to work with community stakeholders and neighborhood groups as well as mayors that emerge the in every single block. in order to make them more civic places and support the level of civility. this is just step one of a long process coming towards better more sustainable solutions as well as -- [indiscernible] along with bikeways to create network that all san franciscans can feel safe using their wheelchair

or bike or scooter or skateboarder to get from their neighborhood to any other neighborhood in the city. that's my goal. we are moving very slowly towards that goal using data community engagement and good planning practice. >> i do think it goes both ways. folks are use the streets, they get upset at them. if youly -- if you live on a street and someone doing something that upsets you. i would ask everyone to take the temperature down a couple of degrees and figure out how to use the deescalation to talk to our fellow san franciscans about the stuff they are doing that might bother us. i just hope, as we continue through this, we work together as one city to take the

temperature down. like ten degrees. we should be able towork through lot of the things that we've heard on this call as a community. i really challenge all of us to do it. i think this could be really beautiful. the way it becomes unbeautiful if the adversarial qualities that we've been hearing about continue to flare up. i hope that will be addressed. two quick questions, one of them is reflections at night. i didn't catch this part of the presentation. i want to make sure that we have strong reflectors in the evening, especially on shotwell. that's a thorough --

>> the new material are highway grade, reflective street signs. we should make people think twice before driving through these places. it should be kind of tough i was recently in new york city,

i looked at their slow streets, they make you work for it. if you live on a -- block and you're in a rush, that's where i see this program not meeting its potential. then people will see cars racing through and they won't feel comfortable having their kids play in the street. what is the highest amount of discomfort we can make for someone to drive through the street without making it impossible. last thing to folks concerned about what might amount to takeover of the streets. from my research, there are 2612 streets in san francisco. what we're talking about here is to extend a pilot to make three streets slower but not actually taking cars off of them. while i know i don't live on the

four streets. i'm keeping in mind, there's lots of ways to get around san francisco using a car. there are very few places where you're thinking about testing this out. those are my questions and comments. thank you very much. >> chair borden: i'll move on to director lai. >> director lai: thank you. i agree with a lot that's been said. thank you for such intelligent

comments. i will start by saying that i too appreciate and recognize that we are asking the community for a pretty major change in the way that we are utilizing our public right-of-ways. we had many discussions at least during the time that i've been with m.t.a. on how we should be thinking about sharing our right-of-way and thinking about in the future how we should be managing our curb and public faces. this is a good example. any time we're trying to adopt something new, it requires some navigating around adjusting expectations. i think the way that director yekutiel put the conversation around deescalation and not villainizing each other is super

important. understanding and contributing to kids making noise. it's a constant reality for me. i know it's draining. my kids probably make noise on your slow streets. but at the same time, we do live in an urban environment. there's so many policies, historically that are unfriendly to families. i feel like this is one opportunity, we're doing something that can benefit families as well. i want to really put that out there. having said that, noise can definitely be a stressor, mental stressor. especially with lot of people working from home. could staff hop on and talk about the city's noise ordinance

and whether or not our public right-of-ways is governed. can you talk about that and what the decibel levels are permitted on daytime noise? >> i am not sure on the specifics of decibels. we've been working with the community to submit questions to 311 and comments and noise complaints. i'm not sure if jeff or tom or anyone else on the sfmta side can address your question specifically. >> director lai: no worries, may be jeff, you know?

>> i think i can may be give some insight. tara jones, m.t.a. planning director. noise usually does get handled in the context of environmental review. on the basis of what the change in activities are. one of the biggest contributors to noise is traffic. a reduction of traffic would probably mean likely reduction in the decibel levels. there's the individual support which you get with people playing or things like that. the kind of activity that could happen on slow streets is something that doesn't typically become an issue that has to be controlled for.

working around the issues of amplied noise and things like that is something that's appropriate and something that we're engaged in. >> this was an issue through the shared spaces program. there's a road map to current noise issues we're committed to working with our partners. everyone from the entertainment commission to the police. >> director lai: thank you director mcguire and director jones. i wanted to finish the topic.

i think staff approach is correct. working with the local community to reach basically an education level understanding of best practices how to use the street. i would encourage staff to look into citywide ordinances on what other partners may have rules around this. i'm certain that the police -- the noise ordinance does have decibel limits above ambient noise on things like public parks and plaza. i'm wondering if that is a guidance of having that conversation with the community as to the normal range of acceptable noise for this type of public use. lastly, i did hear couple of

commenters mentioning that they had a hard time finding our data or survey results. could staff hop back and point the public to where they can find that. i know i seen it. >> absolutely. the data we collected, you can find that on our website at sfmta.com/slowstreets. for knows street and shotwell street in particular, each of those communities has a web page, kind of a pub that we keep updated with all of the information on where we are in the planning process. and the design to debate and within that community hub for sanchez street and for shotwell street. you can find survey results that we included throughout the

outreach process. these are accessible at sfmta.com/postpandemicslowstreet s. >> director lai: thank you so much. >> chair borden: thank you director eaken? >> vice chair eaken: i want to thank the staff to engage the public and thank all the member of the public that waited on the phone just to be involved in our public discourse here. we lo hearing from you. i do have a few comments and one question for staff. on slide 5 in the presentation, staff is essentially putting forward some criteria for slow streets.

i don't know that i'm totally comfort with this. certain neighborhoods may have a neighborhood organization after the steward for a slow street.

if we have found a way to stem the tide of these heart breaking traffic fatalities through a new tool, that's a wonderful innovation. we should really pay attention to that and i want to affiliate myself comments of direct lai and director brinkman mentioned, if we create a -- all those

people that want to walk and bike and have their own safeway of getting around the city. i want to affiliate myself with director yekutiel's comment. it's a wonderful way you put that in perspective. we have over 2600 streets where it's safe and comfortable to drive. we're talking about four to make it safe and comfortable for everyone. i want to underscore that vision here. one final question for staff. safe slow streets were an innovation born out of this horrible crises of the pandemic. we want to create safe spaces for people to recreate.

as we transition hopefully we start to reap milestones in the recovery. hopefully we can get to a phase that shannon was describing a post-pandemic phase. it seems like now we're still in this thing for a good while to come. how do you think about the idea that we created something during the pandemic but the way i see it, the need for this next does not go away when the pandemic goes away. i wanted to make sure we're decoupling this idea that when the pandemic is over, the slow streets network goes away. that will be a huge mistake and a loss.

>> people will make a lot of choices. we know that we want to give people alternative possible to driving. the city can't handle the traffic that we're seeing now. you said the word networking, that's right. that doesn't necessarily mean that every single slow street that has been designated during the pandemic, is part of that network. i really do make sure we honor the promise we made at the beginning of this process. we very much see a bright line between getting the public as many choices possible to recover in safety sustainable way.

the network is the key. thing it will unlock, city wide safety benefits will be our ability to nit slow streets together. that's what we keep showing as we bring more and more streets to you. >> chair borden: thank you. i think all of our colleagues covered all the issues. we're all big fans of slow streets.

we can have a program that we really can expand throughout the city and make street safer. with that -- let's have the secretary call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion to approve the item. [roll call vote] the motion passes. thank you. >> chair borden: next item. item number 12. >> clerk: we did receive a request to call the next two items together. item 12, authorizing the director to execute contract modification 9 to contract number 2013-19 procurement of

new light rail vehicles with mobility to update and enhance vehicle equipment and using funds from the allowance resolving issue regarding escalation cost for an overall amount not to exceed $80,085,460 in the total contract term and environmental review finding. item 13, authorizing the director to execute contract modification to contractor number 2013. 19 procurement of new light rail vehicles to exercise and option to additional new light vehicles for the amount of $130,409,780 plus additional escalation with cancellation provisions through june 2025 and with no increase in the total contract price or in the term of the contract and

make a environmental review findings. thank you. >> chair borden: with that, we have -- [indiscernible]. >> i will do a quick introduction. we're bringing two contract modifications contract 9 includes vehicle enhancement and resolve escalation issues that janet will describe. contract modification 10, gives the option to procure 30 additional light rail vehicles. we disgusted this at -- we discussed this at the july 20th meeting. i truly believe we've identified

a really great way to maintain flexibility to continue investing in this reliable vehicle while in this uncertain time. janice is giving the presentation. it's through her leadership that we gotten where we are today. janet oversees $2 billion fleet replacement program is really been incredibly -- an incredible partner to me as we build strong relationships with our industry partners. i want to use this time to thank janet and her team and everybody from the contract team to city attorney office to the operators and maintenance staff. the work that we're presenting here today has a lot of people

behind it to make sure that it is robust and ready for your input. >> thanks, julie. >> i on the see a -- i only see a dark screen. >> chair borden: we see a cursor moving, but not your slides. >> it's got the red circle around it. >> chair borden: it just showed up. thank you.

janet, you're now frozen. >> can you see my screen now? >> not yet, janet. >> i can see it. >> it says it lrv4 procurement. >> okay, thank you. sorry for that. thanks for the introduction,

julie. let me dive into this. before we get into contract mod my -- modifications i want to update you guys. this siemens state comprises 68 expansion vehicles. now we're in production with 151 replacement vehicles which will replace our current fleet. this new siemens fleet is doing really well. it has a number of advantages include see list -- which you see listed here. both terms of troubleshooting with a lot more data. but also in the standard preventive maintenance as an example for the annual inspection it takes 80 hours to do the inspection. for this newer vehicle, it only takes 32 hours.

that really translates into a lot of savings and a more easier to maintain vehicle. we've been in front of the board before to improve change in the vehicles. that's our first vehicle that's been the interior has been redone to include the individual seats and some forward-facing seats to give more variety in the seating. phase two vehicles are the first vehicles in final test. we hope to have it delivered. we have resolved issues along the way. which you're aware of. now it fleet is really stable. it's performing at a high level. these couple of examples here.

this is the larger monitors. you see there on the photograph on the left. it's a much larger clearer screen which deals with changes in light, which is much more helpful for the operators for their vision. the reliability program got interrupted because of covid. we have started to track reliability but we haven't restarted the program. we need about 150,000 a month to have reliable figures. which we achieved in july. you'll see that contract goal

25,000 miles between failures. that is where we exceeded it in july. we're on target. just because we're meeting that target doesn't mean we're not continuing to check these vehicles. every failure we look into, we investigate just the last one we had, it was a signal issue which cause the vehicle to fail in service. we don't want to delay service. we investigated it. we have found a solution which were just testing and verifying. that will get rolled out. that will prevent that one failure from happening again. we're really working out the last few kinks now. there's going to be one or two along the way. good news, with that, we're asking you to approve these two contract modifications. the first one for additional

design enhancements and also to finalize the escalation amount for the phase two vehicles. they believe contract modification 10 which exercises an option for an additional 30 vehicles. i'll go through both of those. the contract modification 10, the option vehicle, we separated. that's why we have two contract modifications in front of you. the contract modification 9, will move forward and get those changes going into the phase 2 vehicles while the contract modification 10, option 2 goes to the board of supervisors. getting into contract modification 9, we are finishing up some design enhancements improvements to the operators. sometimes it takes a while for us to really shake out and understand how the vehicles being used.

how to get the right solution. the period of time between phase 1 and phase 2 of these two fleets we included escalation clause for phase 2. so that the increase in price will be based on indicatecies. when we did that, we introduced a contradiction in the contract. the formula that we stated

required a monthly labor index but the specific index we quoted was an annual one. that caused some discussion between siemens, there was different ways to calculate it. after an extensive discussion to make sure we were doing it correctly, consistently and fairly, we came up with a way of using the annual index but developing monthly values from the two annual indexes either side of whatever the date is. by doing that, we came up with an escalation percentage of 14.7% for the phase 2 vehicles. that is between september 2014 and now. that's 14.7%. which annually is about 2.4% and

that compares pretty favorably when we wrote this contract. we put in allowance up to 4%. this agreed upon number of 14.7% or 2.4% per year is within the allowance of the contract. which is why you're not seeing an increase in the contract amount. this contract modification number 9 is for $80 million. some of the design enhancements are $4.7 million. the bulk of is at escalation amount, $75 million. it is a huge amount. it was a compromised -- the range that we were looking at was anywhere between $50 million or $80 million. $75 million is a compromise

there. if you look at it, it's about $4 million per car. this is still a very good value for the car and the escalation amount. move on to contract modification 10. the original contract had an option to procure up to an additional 45 vehicles. there's a federal requirement that says you must exercise all options within seven years of the original notice to proceed. our deadline in september of this year. we need to execute this contract now. to execute any options we want, we need to execute them now before we lose the opportunity to do it within this contract and within the prices quoted in the contract. we're now planning what vehicles

we're going to need towards end of the decade. the current plan anticipates the need for an additional 30 vehicles. obviously covid makes everything uncertain. in order to preserve this opportunity and preserve the options which we think we will need, we negotiated no cost cancellation with siemens so we have up until june 2025 to confirm and give them a go-ahead to start production. that way we can preserve this opportunity and it will allow us time to let the city recover and we can determine our needs to give us little bit more time.

you see here, why do we need them. we're looking at three cars. these are ways of anticipated needs. this provides us time to confirm the need to confirm the storage, to confirm that we have an adequate power grid to handle all these vehicles. it gives us more time. the benefits of this primarily we keep a uniform complete. it allows flexibility and service. it saves on costs and duplication. if we didn't exercise this option now and down the road, we find that we would need more vehicles.

if we look at it here, these vehicles, we plan on having them. they'll be delivered after the phase 2 vehicles which runs from now to 2025. we accelerated that delivery. it depends on when we release these for production to when we see them show up. we have that flexibility. for instance, if we gave them -- if we release them for production in june 2023, we see the production would continue. they start delivering right there at the beginning of 2026. it will be a continuous production. if we're not ready to commit in

june 2023, we have up until junk out to see if the need is there, to see if the recovery is there. in which case, there will be a gap in production. we would have to pay for restart fees included. we would preserve the option to have these vehicles delivered and keep our uniform fleet. we'll be ready for the anticipated need in 2030. this is a long time out. we're trying to plan ahead. it's $130 million but it will also include the escalation between now and when we give them the release for production. we do need to add additional escalation which is why you see that in the calendar item.

restart fee will be up to $11 million. we will validate that. then, we'll apply the formula that we agreed in modification 9 to get to this number. there are no -- we don't have to commit. we have a funding plan but we do not need to pay any money now. we would not need to pay siemens until we completed that lease for production. just to summarize, we're asking for two contract modification approval.

for $80 million, that's primarily the escalation of phase 2 vehicle and contract modification 10 for 30 option vehicles totally 130 plus additional escalation which is in the contract allowance. we would calculate that at a later date. with that, that completes my presentation. >> chair borden: thank you. directors, do we have any questions before i open up to public comment? i'm going to move to public comment. are there any callers on the line? we're on items 12 and 13. first

speaker please. caller, we can hear you on the line. would you like to speak? please mute us in the background. >> caller: i'm a muni rider presently deprived of service because of lack of money.

>> chair borden: do you have us on the background. please mute that. turn the sound down. [indiscernible] can you turn down the sound? we'll restart your time. you can go ahead and speak. >> caller: okay. i've been listening to this as a muni rider presently deprived of

essential service because of lack of money and listening to these hundred million dollar projects. i wonder why that money is somehow available but money for running our bus lines is not. that's my question. there are bureaucratic boxes into which these different pockets of money go. i would certainly wish that somehow money could be made available to run our bus lines properly right now. thanks for your time. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please.

>> caller: can you hear me now? guess what, my last comment for tonight. thank you very much. page 2 of the presentation refers to five bulleted benefits. i'm requesting right now copies of records that show that in particular the maintenance of savingses and what this means in terms of parts and distance between failures and all of that. janet did speak to that little bit in terms of the preventive maintenance, 32 hours versus 80 i think. that's significant. i assume there's some analysis that shows what this means. for example, if there are 79

mechanics with the entire siemens fleet, would we get become with only 74 mechanics and does that result in operating budget savings 400,000 euro? i'm assuming there's some analysis. i doubt that additional vehicles will be needed. that's my sense indeed. i think that demand and the fleet size may be smaller in the future. i know there's no consensus on the rail expansion, the three car end, increased subway length or what staff is now calling the realignment. i call the forest transfers at church and market. i don't see there's consensus on that at this time. as long as item 12 has funds available and item 13 can be canceled until 2025, then i would support both items. in the future, on contract

modifications like these and tim 14, it will be helpful to show the overall budget sources and uses and the specific budget for the modification sources and uses. that's difficult to tease out right now. i will follow-up with janet gallegos on some of my specifics. great work by staff and others on this considerable perfect. that's all for me today. thank you for listening. >> chair borden: thank you mr. pilpel. are there any additional callers? >> caller: i have to leave for another meeting. i wish to fire these questions. i'm wondering why you don't add more lr vs to the fleet?

instead of retiring the l.r.v.s why don't you provide more l.r.v.s to meet the demand. the siemens fleeting on the present l.r.v.s is very uncomfortable. also, what are you going to do to prevent cost overruns on this project? what happens all the time in it central subway and now on the corridor, there's always this cost overruns. i want to see controls over that. those are my concerns. then i will bow out and wish you all a pleasant evening.

good-bye. >> chair borden: are there additional callers? with that, we'll close public comment. maybe you can explain difference between capital funds and operational funds and the budget overall for this project that's much larger and kind of the phasing -- clearly with the director tumlin discussed earlier, we cannot put out more trains without more operators of those trains. it's not so much just an issue of ordering more trains. may be you can explain the phasing and where we are in the process in terms of vehicle delivery. >> i'll take the first part. the reason that we can't. there's a lot of reason we can't

all in favor funds. in the near term, we're committed to buy contract to siemens for the greater replacement. it's work that will as we talked about make us more efficient and healthier long-term both from a service quality standpoint as well as for standpoint. the new expenditure is not money that we would spend until 2025 when hopefully this current fiscal crises as well as the pandemic is well in our rear view mirror. there's lot of restrictions that jonathan can speak to what money can be in operating and what being in capital. to answer this question, the key is any short-term money is

already contractually obligated to pay for what we bought. any new expenses will not incur until 2025. we'll reevaluate the agency fiscal health at that time. >> chair borden: can you answer the second question, when we expect the last -- [indiscernible] roll off the property. >> we will start to get the first replacement siemens vehicle hopefully in the next couple of months. we'll build up like about 10 vehicles and then we'll start retiring one for one. we already initiated that retirement program. these vehicles get delivered, 2021-2025, 150 vehicles. we accelerated that to make sure. by end of 2025, we should be waving good-bye to the last

vehicle. >> chair borden: welfare the input where we provided. we had options and these all represent the new updated seating and the configuration. >> correct. the first 50 will have the single forward facing fleet and the last 100 will have the double transverse fleets. they needed time to redesign and make sure it was robust enough to hold that additional weight. we are also retrofitting the first 68 vehicles. to redo those seats. pretty soon you'll see those rolling around the city with the new interior layout. >> chair borden: with that, i'll

move over to director questions. director heminger? >> director heminger: some you may be wondering can we afford to buy for expansion cars? my sense of that question is that i'm not sure we can afford not to. i had requested that the staff prepare for me, i'm sure it's available to the rest of you, comparative analysis of the price we got for these cars originally. the siemens cars. compared to other properties around the united states. what that analysis shows is that base unit price was $3.7 million per car. which was the second lowest among the 20 cities. it was almost $1 million per car below the average. what i'm trying to point out here is that