>> next speaker. >> i'm a father of one and speaking on behalf of kids safe s.f. as one of its leaders. i along with kids safe urge to you approve the four streets. thanks to shannon and her team for their work and leadership and support of an innovative program that is effectively making our streets safer. on slow streets we've analyzed there are 80% less injuries compared to before these were slow streets. while this shouldn't be the top priority, because you're 18 times more likely to die from traffic violence than a fire. the fire department response times have improved on slow streets, including page street, where they had sfmta remove installations from the streets. please ensure that the fire

department doesn't continue to ruin our slow streets. while slow streets have been disproportionately successful with residents, the design eliminates through traffic which is less safety for kids. we urge the slow street team to use diversion tools like shotwell's proposed design as well as block-in plazas. and we urge you as board members to encourage these. i urge you to approve the slow streets proposed today and encourage the team to use proven traffic diversion tools, to increase safety for kids on slow streets and help improve quality of life for kids and families in our city. thank you all so much for your work. have a great rest of the day. [please stand by]

>> please we're asking you today to prioritize health and safety to help keep slow street and push for a citywide network for car free spaces as part of vision zero policy. thank you. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: hi, i'm jesse. i like to take opposition to the permanent -- [indiscernible]

i do understand the safety of people, these streets aren't being used like they are in other neighborhoods. i urge you to reconsider. thank you. >> caller: hi. i am a district one resident. i feel so much safer on any

adjacent street. i also drive a car to visit my parents. i don't think that the closure of lake street has affected my ability to drive anywhere to reach my destination. i think the closure of all slow streets but in particular lake, has not impacted me while driving. instead, it has greatly increased my sense of safety while i'm on bike and foot. it's also great place to walk my dog in peace and providing me this safety that i need living in a dense car dominated city. especially during this pandemic when we've all needed to have space to find some mental stress and anxiety. thank you so much for your work

in providing this slow street program for san franciscans. that's all i have to say. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: hello. good afternoon. live on sanchez, i urge you vote not to extend the slow street. this program was meant to be temporary response to the pandemic. unfortunately, it is created many quality of life issues, sfmta program manager has acknowledged. we've gone from a residential street to loud, and dangerous boardwalk. there's constant noise and litter. bands can set up and play whatever they like in the middle of the road.

there's now no sense of privacy or civility. we realized residents have a small voice. that can be so many of us that can live on these streets. we're outstaffed and outorganized by special interest groups. many of whom you have here today about how wonderful this program is. it is not. it is deeply divisive. voting not to extend this instead and rebuild the fair program is what is right.

we're pleading with you to step us for us. we should make our transportation community better and more safe but this program is many bad side effects it needs to be rethought and consideration for all. not just the special interest groups wants and desires. please don't approve this extension. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: good afternoon chair borden. i'm the division organizer at walk san francisco. last month, the group shared a report on our observations from surveys, listening sessions slow streets it alongside seniors and people with disabilities.

we shared a series of recommendations base the on what we heard from speed management devices to signage and treatments. the number one piece of feedback we kept hearing which was adding -- [indiscernible] along slow streets. i want to share my appreciation for the sfmta slow street staff on their willingness to be part of this outreach. we look forward to continuing to work with staff to make sure these recommendations are reflected in the design staff continue to refine and finalize them with each community. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker. >> caller: my name is mike chan. i'm chair of the m.t.a. citizens advisory council. i'm an organizer with northern

neighbors, that advocates for lively and liveable neighborhoods in northern part of the city. with lake street, our members and supporters of lake street have -- [indiscernible]. some excerpts about being a great connector to the community, helping kids learn to ride their bicycles, being a great way to relax and enjoy and play. i think this is a great asset for the community. urge your approval for slow streets. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: my name is dave alexander. i'm a parent of two kids in district 1. i'm also a board member of the

san francisco bicycle coalition. to the m.t.a. commissioners, thank you. i live in san francisco. lake street is beneficial to my mental and physical health as well as providing my family and friends with safe passage. i'm able to run essential errands, socially distance without fear of traffic and violence. we need more people from it west side and safe streets are great place to start.

thank you. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: hi. i am a resident in noe valley on sanchez street. i'm calling to voice my strong support for keeping sanchez as a slow street permanent. as a neighbor on an adjacent street who drive bikes and walks the slow street has been hugely positive and beneficial to my life and that of my neighbors. even though i have a car, i have not been the all detrimented by the slow street. we have not seen increased traffic on our adjacent street. we had a huge positive impact of

being able to walk safely and gather safely throughout this pandemic and hope to see sanchez continue as a gathering point and support local businesses and cafes and great outdoor seatings and venues and has really improved our mental and physical health throughout this time. we're so excited we might be one of the first streets considered for permanent. i want to support for slow sanchez and other she streets around the city. thank you so much. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: hello. i'm an organizer of the central mission neighbors. we're a group of about 140 resident and merchants, living and working 23rd street to

17th street. this includes the majority of the proposed the shotwell corridor. shotwell slow street program sits within our vision for the neighborhood. we've been involved since the early planning stages with shannon and brian and the sfmta slow street team including planning sessions, surveys and opportunities for neighbor engagement and feedback. our neighborhood is informed and engaged. we fully support shotwell for many reasons. it addresses safety concerns in our neighborhood, like slowing traffic down and providing a

corridor for safe bike traffic. two appropriately highlight our shotwell streets which is lined -- [indiscernible]. it provides a much needed safe space for neighbors, families and children to gather and exercise and socialize which frankly didn't exist prior to this program. please approve shotwell as a permanent slow street. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: hi. this is meredith nelson. i'm a lake street resident. i'm calling in strong support of keeping all of the slow streets and moving all of them on a path to permanent. i'm calling specifically about my own street, lake street. i have enjoyed a really great

quality of life living here while all streets have been closed. i walk on the slow street every single day. sometimes multiple times a day. sometimes i bike on the street. i met up with neighbors. it's been a really vital place to be able to get outside and it provides an easy access to the parks in presidio. the opposition i've been hearing is mostly about allowing food traffic to go to the presidio highway which was never the intended use of the street. this has been a residential street and having it designated as slow helps to maintain that status and maintain a great community quality of life for the people that live here.

thank you for your time and consideration. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: [indiscernible] i have tried to cross slow street as a pedestrian and run over by bikes, skateboards and scooters.

most of the intersections along market street as well. it is not just about the people in the neighborhood. slow street, it's also about the people who pay taxes and have the right to use these streets. like me as a pedestrian. i don't get around the city by two ways, by feet -- [indiscernible] it's to do something for everybody and not just the bicyclist. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: hi, my name is

chelsea wong i live on shotwell. i strongly oppose any shotwell permanent slow street. as you research in your own report, people are not using it. no one is going to use it or use them ever. it doesn't matter how permanent you make it. cars are still going to blast down shotwell. anybody who thinks that is literally crazy. they're going to get hit by a car. i am a driver and a pedestrian and a cyclist. i also take public transportation. in the past year, i have heard about accidents on 21st and harrison. last week i witnessed a hit-and-run. last year there was a hit-and-run on 21st on a bicycle. in the past year, 21st and harrison, two houses were hit and a pole was hit.

these are things that my neighbors are telling me. i don't know where you guys getting the research about low impact, absolutely, there have been more accidents in around the corridor on shotwell and 21st. slow streets are adding to traffic congestion. you have on coming cars. i think the slow streets made it more dangerous. i don't think that any one ever will use the shotwell slow street corridor safely ever. thank you very much. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: hi, i'm a big supporter of slow streets. i'm a resident right off lake street and also i'm mostly a driver, actually. not a cyclist or a walker. i found no impact on -- i mean i

guess a slight impact on california. they are manageable. it's been so nice to see so many people using lake street for purposes other than driving. the community aspect of it has been absolutely huge. i think it's wonderful. i know there are people who have concerns. i'm not part of some big agenda or some big organization. i'm a resident. i think it's great. sure there are pros and cons, the pros clearly outweigh the cons. thank you so much. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: hi. good afternoon.

i sent you a support letter back in march signed by 267 individuals in our neighborhood community. i'm speaking on behalf of 262 individuals who cannot attend in meeting. it creates community in a unique way and it has brought together people who might not otherwise have made connections. i have been enriched by the experiences and friendship that have been made possible by the slow street. i support the m.t.a. plans to keep sanchez a slow street and believe that appropriate safety measures will ensure that everyone can enjoy this space.

along with the residents of sanchez street and community leaders, i will do all i can to take care of this neighborhood. thank you shannon and brian for the efforts so far. thank you. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: my name is matt sweeney. i live off 25th in between guerrero and delores. i strongly support keeping sanchez street slow. i encourage the board to vote to approve sanchez street as well as the other three slow streets be made permanent. thank you for your time. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please.

>> caller: hi there. my name is kathrin. i live in district 8. i'm calling to voice my support for slow sanchez and the other slow streets. it has made a huge impact on my life in several ways. i can't imagine it going away. i like being able to walk up there alone as a woman. i feel like there's someone jogging or walking their dog. it's nice. i haven't seen any of the negative impacts. i'm a driver in the city. i had to drive down slow sanchez and access one of the other businesses. i found respectful.

thank you so much for your time. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: hello. [indiscernible] >> chair borden: next speaker

please. >> caller: hi, i'm calling in strong support of the slow street proposal. i'm calling in regards to the -- [indiscernible]. i'm calling for strong and hard material to ensure the safety of pedestrian and bicycles. residents on oak street, are organizing with sfsd to eliminate slow streets. i want to say i'm in support of -- [indiscernible] oak street has never been a safe

street. oak street needs to be redesigned from scratch. please pick oak street and make it permanent. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: i wanted to voice my support for slow streets but also to voice -- [indiscernible]

i think sfmta does really good job with equity and outreach. i'm worried that we're talking about removing underperforming streets. we haven't given them a fair shot. shotwell is considered underperforming and needs

improvement. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: hi, my name is andy. 20 plus year resident on shotwell. i wanted to voice my strong support. we definitely want shotwell to remain a slow street permanently. i wanted to -- i'm just representing myself and my neighbors i'm not part of the bike coalition or anything. i'm saying, i personally

observed it being used in its intended format. i've seen an increase in family activity, kids wanting to ride bikes, people getting to know their neighbors. 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 we got an incredible deal. even the option price of $4 million is still a great deal. only thing i don't like about these cars, these new seats are dodger blue. [laughter] back to the cost question. the issue that i wanted to raise with staff and julie talked about this earlier, it's worth couple of minutes conversation. why we don't exercise the funnel option. instead of exercising 30 go up to 45. i have a feeling i know the answer to it. the price is so good. i think it's worth considering

whether or not we ought to take advantage of the option at 45 versus 30. julie, could you expand on that? [please stand by]

>> our site assessment has shown because of various design features it's actually going to be able to hold less and we also gave um some parking spaces -- up some parking spaces when we did the green rerailing to reduce collisions in that yard. even storing 30 vehicles will be a big challenge to resolve between now and 2025 but we think it's something we can get

our arms around and were trying to practice tying up real money though it's programmatic because we are not spending any money until we execute this for 35 cars because of competing and operating primarily capital needs we also felt 30 was the sweet spot. it was staff judgment based on service needs and service estimates, storage, complexity and funding. >> i do think that's a persuasive response. it's just killing me to let that price go. we're not going to see a price like that again. you mentioned the funding plan and if it's 30 cars, i think

it's good in the future whenever we have these kind of expenditures to see the revenue along with the cost to match them up together. jonathan? >> good afternoon, board members. i'm acting chief financial officer. so we have a tiered and layered kind of funding plan that's presented in the calendar item. so director heminger you of all people are aware funding plans change over time based on need and cash availability. if you didn't know the current lrv contract the third largest funding source is the sfmta revenue bond. so we can use revenue bond for the purposes of buying lrvs. we cannot use general obligation bonds they have to go to fixed assessments. those are one of the sources and have to see the nature of development and where it goes in the city the next couple years

but traditionally we used the transportation sustainability fee for major projects and vehicle expansion is another source likely to grow over that period of time. i think the board is aware the transportation authority is looking to get the tax plan. the other plan had a component for light rail expansion. we're working with the t.a. on the new expenditure plan that would eventually go to the voters and we'll look on what the number may look like. the absolute backstop in the current funding plan is the proposition b general fund population baseline. we have over time and we did in the last budget shift for the first time we've almost always used it exclusively for capital to operations starting thes current fiscal year and will maintain a level of about $30

million ongoing in our projections. if that source goes up and we think it will because the daytime population has come down and will recover and the formula will get rebalanced, we'll have a source of funds for the board to discuss to use for operating and/or capital in the window of times you're talking about. so so if we need to go out it will be a policy decision for the board through the revenue bond. if we want to consider maintenance or operating costs with proposition b we'll see what happens over the same time with development impact fees and sales tax and confident we can get a good plan together. >> commissioner: sounds like what you have now are a set of options not a plan. need that plan nailed down by the date that julie needs to exercise the contract change >> yeah. i am confident today based on

our projections for proposition b we could meet the cash flow needs to execute it in that period. i would not advise doing that now but we have a backstop in the window of time if we fully execute it and started getting the vehicles we could meet the cash flow with prop b to cover the cost. we want it to be a mix of different sources and source are largely per capital but that is the worst-case scenario the board will still have the option to pay for the vehicles. >> commissioner: okay thank you, jonathan. that's it, madame chair, for me. >> commissioner: thank you. director hinze.

>> commissioner: i didn't have questions. >> commissioner: all right director eaken. >> thank you, madame chair. i wanted to link today's discussion with the last meeting discussion we had where the staff presented us with like a $5 million gap in the action strategy and director heminger asked can't you come up with $5 million and asked what transit line we'd like to cut. these are big numbers and would like to make a note that there's expressed a great deal of uncertainty and 2030 is quite a ways from now. we all know we're handling a lot of uncertainty. i want to point out we can choose to get 28 vehicles and free up some funding tying back to the conversation we had and i

understand there's different time lines and color of money issues but i do want to just make the point that i think there are those funds available for the vision zero piece. it seems strategic for me to make the option without making the commitment. we're buying flexibility makes sense but it's notable the massive numbers we're talking about and bring up the somz we were talking about last -- sums we were talking about last meeting. >> thank you, director eaken. mr. tomlin, could the funds that come for this as capital can also be used for vision zero? is that considered capital? >> the vision zero project implementation are considered capital. the funding plan or let's call

them options that are in the calendar item, you know, julie did mention that certain funding sources have certain restrictions based on requirements and needs. the proposition b baseline the law the voter approved requires we put 25% into street capital every year and we do and we consistently do it's in the c.i.p. and accounted for. the remainder, 75% is legally needs to be used for trans service so the law restricts our use that source. the t.f.f. we can use for improvements but it's based on to the nature of development and the timing. the board is currently using a significant amount to backfill the operating budget but we have used that and director eaken on the big street project we're using the impact fees on those types of project.

prop k sales tax is restricted by expenditure plan category. as an example, the program for vehicle expansion is the only thing that we can use it on, we'll work with the t.a. on adjusting that as a new expenditure plan as brought forward and taken to the voters. capital is complicated because we deal with a lot of regulatory and policy restrictions on the use of what we do try to do and we do this with the board and within the agency is try to free up as much as we call discretionary funds, meaning you the board based on that type of source get to say where that goes and try to free it up to put dollars on projects when we know we can't put in anywhere else. it will be up to the board on source are flexible at that time but you hit the nail on the head, the money the agency will

save by executing this contract modification to have the option is the value that could free up dollars to go to vision zero. >> commissioner: thank you, any other question or comments before we move on? does anybody have a motion? [multiple discussion] >> commissioner: secretary silva, please call the roll. >> on the motion to approve the item. chair borden. >> aye. >> clerk: vice chair eaken. >> aye. >> clerk: director brinkman. >> aye. >> clerk: director heminger. >> aye. >> director hinze. >> aye. >> clerk: director lai. >> director yekutiel.

>> aye. >> clerk: the motion passes. >> commissioner: that brings us to item 14. 14. authorizing the director to execute modification no. 13 to contract no. 1289, van ness corridor transit improvement project, with walsh construction company ii, for direct costs related to various design changes in the amount of $1,240,049.98, for a total contract amount not to exceed $221,747,266.01, with no time extension, and make environmental review findings.

>> commissioner: great. and on this one we have mr. grabonzo. welcome. >> good evening, chair borden and commissions and director tomlin. i'm the project manager on the project. construction of van ness has proceeded. the team has resolved project challenges in the field and found ways to improve the final product so it better serves the sfmta and the changes have required redesigns and contract modifications. this is a collection of such

we're bringing this evening to make sure we get the contractor paid for extra work they've done. the current calendar item breaks down six significant changes. the first is a series of traffic signal changes costing $4,010.38 and a need to rework traffic foundations in part because of redesigns of the accessibility ramps on the corridor. we are also adding red light cameras to the intersection of broadway. this work was $104,000. it's part of the s.f. go program and originally part of a

separate project when it was determined it would be easier and more cost effective to make it part of the walsh contract rather than have separate contractor come in and charge you this work in conjunction with walsh or shortly after walsh finished completing the intersection work. so it was removed from the previous contract and added to this contract. we had to redesign traffic camera pole at lombard street for under $15,000. the changes consisted of adding an additional pole. again, we had to relocate some infrastructure due to the resign of the accessibility ramps and this was needed to reduce the size of the original pole in the project and add a second pole for the additional cameras.

the fourth item is the san francisco arts commission's artwork for the project. it's being installed at geary street across from the medical center. this was not included in the original contract because of the design of the art piece had not been completed. this particular contract mod is for the foundation for the art piece and the electrical connection and the they will come in after our contract and installing the art piece but this is putting in the infrastructure to support that work. during the during the course of constructing the boarding islands, we were making

adjustments with regards to the placement of boxes to support the clear channel shelters that will be installed on the boarding islands along the corridor. the determination was made we should upgrade the originally specified junction boxes to higher quality, longer lasting and a more resistant model. this cost is over $400,000 but in the end it will give us more aesthetically pleasing longer lasting junction boxes on our boarding islands. and finally we have some trolly wire overhead related changes. this is also part of a project that was being developed separately from the van ness project on the realization was

made during the design phase not the design phase for van ness but for the project that they would have to come in and basically rework trolly switches and power lines we had already installed on van ness to do their work. so rather than finish the van ness work and rip up the street within months or years of having finished it the work is being folded into the van ness project for a cost of $203,000. i want to thank you and everyone else for the support that you've given this project and just seeing we're close to the finish line on this. we're hoping to have major construction wrapped up by the

end of the calendar year so we can see our finished product and start running busses by this time next year. if you have any questions i'll be happy to answer them. >> great. >> i think i'm going move to public comment first about any questions they might have. moderator, are there any callers on the line on item 14 modification to our contract related to the van ness work. >> have you questions remaining. >> commissioner: oh, no questions. i'll close public comment. we'll move to director lai. >> commissioner: thank you, chair borden. first of all, i wanted to thank staff for consolidating these but also thinking ways where to make the project more efficient

and namely including the trolly changes and also adding an extra red light camera we desperately need for vision zero as part of the project. i did want to talk about -- it sounds like we had some of these modifications related to coordination with other city departments basically changes that were realized late, which required us to then modify our signal and island designs. obviously i think there's a communication -- communication goes both ways and all sides have responsibilities in this but seeing staff is the only party in front of us right now, could you talk a little bit about how we could have done better in retrospect and more importantly how we're going prevent this sort of thing from happening again and i understand we're not talking about the

[indiscernible] report just to the modifications in front of us. thank you. >> yes, as i mentioned, you're right, there were at least two changes on this contract mod that revolved around some challenges in coordinating the accessibility ramps with the traffic signals. i want to start off by saying this is very challenging work to begin with because as i'm sure you're all familiar with it can be very crowded with overheadlight -- overhead lighting and maintaining a clear sense of travel. having said that, a set of designs were prepared as far as the ramps went. our traffic signal crews thought they located the poles

appropriately on those designs but those designs were in the process of being updated and that communication did not get through. there's some practices we're looking into reviewing. the standard traffic the traditional way is we put them on drawings saying they'll go on this corner and the final location is verified in the field. so the crews went out with the contractor once in construction to finalize the traffic signal poles and it was only during that process it was discovered the ramp designs didn't line up

and came to additional demolition of existing utility to make room for the new pole foundations. in the future we're going to try to first we're going to improve our communications with all department to make sure we all have the same drawings and the a.d.a. coordinator has signed off on the ramp designs before we have going to sign te contract and work on fixing the final location for the traffic signal poles before

construction. >> thank you for that. i think that is very consistent with even private projects where an a.d.a. coordinator and department approvals are done at the permitting which is essentially the schematic phase and not to defer that until later so thank you for recognizing that. i believe director mcguire could still be on the line. could you briefly talk about where we stand in terms of any other outstanding claims on -- let me rephrase that. other than the major delay claim, is this the majority of all the ancillary left over modifications we will be seeing or what is the global range of what we might still be seeing? >> thank you for the question,

director lai. so this is the majority of the scope changes but i do want to caution the directors that just as we did with the central subway, we are assessing the contractor's delay plan. the contractor's delay claim will likely be a larger number than before you today. i won't want to say anything to create liability but we're working through that right now with the contractor and whether we come to a settlement before end of negotiations is an open question. i would like to bring some information to you about what our liabilities are. this is the majority of the substantive changes, however, the delay changes are likely to be a larger dollar figure.

>> i understand. thank you, chair borden. >> director yekutiel. >> thank you for answering my questions because she is so brilliant and wonderful and thinking 10 steps ahead. one, even with the potential contractor delay claims do you still think, director, we'll not be going over budget. a budget of $360 million. do i have that right? >> i don't know the answer to that question right now. >> okay. and how much of the funding sources for this project are sources that can only be used for the project roughly? i'm looking at the sheet right now. how flexible are those dollars anyway?

>> peter, can you get started on that. >> most -- my understanding is most the funds that have been committed to the project are specifically for the van ness improvement project. there's the original small starts grant plus the local matching fund which was written for this. we recently picked up additional federal funds that are capital funds and i believe there's one assigned directly to the van ness project. jonathan may have more information on that. >> i think that's right. the funds in the calendar item are funds for the policy maker or t.a. board or the proposition

b or federal government devoted to van ness b.r.t. >> thank you. that's it. >> thank you, director heminger. >> i hadn't planned on asking a question but peter you said something that was news to me. so we're hoping to end construction by the end of the calendar year but it's going to take seven more months after that before we can get on a bus. did i hear that right? >> by this time next year the b.r.t. will be running. the target date to start revenue service is in the spring of next year. i think we're looking at it end of march, beginning of april depending on punch list items and getting drivers trained. i should have been more specific but we're not going to be starting revenue service in the summer of next year it will be spring of next year will be

revenue service. >> okay. and that short amount of time is to get drivers hired? there's not a lot of moving piece to this then, right? it's a red line and you drive on it. >> and the same drivers driving the busses will be in the lanes. we'll still be doing some punch list work and some testing. the main issues as far as driver training is getting in and out of the transit lane safely especially intersections like broadway and lombard and mission. so basic training on what you do if a bus breaks down in front of you and how do you get in and out of traffic lanes again and

where the loading points are and accessibility points on the islands. it's pretty straightforward but we have to rotate the drivers through and make sure everyone is properly trained how to get in the b.r.t. lanes and how to get in and out of them safely before starting service and we'll do final testing on the traffic signal preemption and make sure all the busses that run through are communicating properly with the traffic signals. we've allocated i think three months in the project schedule for this. we think we can do it faster we don't want to over promise and under deliver. >> commissioner: after all this time you certainly do not. thank you.

>> commissioner: directors, any other question or comments? do i hear a motion? >> notion approve? >> second. >> commissioner: secretary silva, please call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion to approve item 14. chair borden. >> aye. >> director eaken. >> aye. >> clerk: director brinkman. >> aye. >> clerk: director heminger. >> aye. >> clerk: director hinze. >> aye. >> clerk: director lai. >> aye. >> clerk: director yekutiel. >> aye. >> clerk: the motion passes. thank you. >> commissioner: we need to go back and approve item -- do a separate vote because we had two items and should have voted for each independently. i'll take it very voted on item 12. i'll assume we voted on item 12 and take up item 13 for a vote

again. so maybe should we make -- >> clerk: motion to approve item 13. >> second. >> great. >> commissioner: secretary silva, please call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion to approve item 13, chair borden. >> aye. >> clerk: vice chair eaken. >> aye. >> clerk: director brinkman. >> aye. >> clerk: director heminger. >> aye. >> clerk: director hinze. >> aye. >> clerk: director lai. >> aye. >> clerk: director yekutiel. >> aye. >> clerk: the motion passes. thank you for going back and doing that. >> commissioner: that puts us on item 15. 15. presentation and discussion regarding a human resources and office of race, equity and inclusion update. >> commissioner: thank you and i look forward to the presentation. >> thank you. good evening chair borden and

director tomlin. i believe josephine will start the slide presentation. i'll go over and update you on the h.r. update regarding h.r. staffing and also updates to the gold dust state since there's accomplish manies since the last update and then i'll turn it to my colleague and she'll give an update regarding the office. >> first thing i want to talk about is h.r.2.0. i'm really excited about this. it's a very strategic thought

process how to improve the processes in h.r. and nothing has changed in terms of our processes and staffing levels not significantly anyway. we with 2.0 we want to better align the structure and staff adequately and look how to stimulate our processes and be more efficient and collaborate with various business partners and improve the employee experience and make the workplace a better experience. i want to thank our director of transportation for their support in supporting us in the h.r. division. i'll talk about where they're going. we're also focussing on doing

three fundamental things. one is to improve the h.r. practice to address racial inequity and we have to do objectives and recommendations and the goal report so we need staffing to accomplish that. we also want to make sure we're moving our service restoration and service needs and changing business and hiring needs we have to make sure the division is fully staffed to meet the business needs of the agency. this third component leveraging technology. it's very much a paper to ribbon division for years and we want to have the staffing to be able to say, how can we do things better and use technology to be more efficiency and focus on various process improvements.

okay. so i wanted to just go over high level what h.r.2.0 is. there's six box. there's four that are blue which shows this division within the h.r. division and there are two box covered in green our new division. so i want to give a high overview. so it's focussing on recruitment and position control and employees and our employee services and the history background checks and fingerprinting and our personnel file management. we can still have the process believe it or not. the next is business unit is health and wellness and our employees have to have their

c.d.l.s, etcetera and our addiction program and our assistance program for all the agency and then we have a wellness component as well. then we focussed on this a little bit. and we had three distinct areas and handles grievances and arbitration and that sort of thing. we're dedicating two staff to

the team that will provide support regarding compensation and pay actions and also help with contract negotiations. and then we'll have a person to work with the oms buds person and to handle compliance issues and we'll have a team focus that the employee relations are making sure the team is the first priority in terms of staffing up our h.r. division.

and the objective was to pull staff and to add additional staff. we're moving forward on that. now, previously this is taking separate units skrarted throughout the division and pinning them under one unit or one umbrella. that leads to a combination. i currently have a manager who is retiring and that will oversee return to work and employees coming back to work, compensation, a.d.a. and employee relations we'll move it under services and accommodation and then administration. one, you'll have four groups working horizontally and this is the largest cost driver in

materials of the h.r. division. we want to make sure we're not just processing but analyzing and focussing on the analysis within the area of services. and we want to leverage our technology and look at access management so we can reduce absenteeism. i also want to mention by putting all these in place i think it will be more efficient. i think we'll be working together but hopefully we'll also result in better employee experience for all our m.t.a. employees. important to mention here this is one of the recommendations

one thing she said was there needs to be a case management approach between the a.d.a.s and workers comp and under one division we'll be able to accomplish that and look at that in terms of from the workers' comp to another and working together. the next area within h.r. that is introducing people within h.r. under one business unit is the executive innovation h.r. and strategy. i'm excited about this. we'll focus on technology. so i talked about improving processes and they'll be responsible for that and we have a system and a people soft system. we only need one h.r. system. we'll work closely with our

information technology director so we can make improvements. and with our covid response is an integral part of what h.r. is functioning and we'll stay within the office. the last team within workforce development can include management, training development and internship program. >> so i mentioned there'll be three sections within employee relations. this our new year ombuds office and now we have someone in place. her name is toni battle. i'm excited so have her in this

position. she's an excellent employee to lead this office. she's in internal promotions. she was previously working in the e.e.o. office. she'll report directly to jeff and this is going to have a handling work flow and basically she'll be the intake point where employees can go to for centralized compliance and she'll do triage and make the distinction on where it goes in the ombudsman office or e.d.o. or e.h.r. or is it management or related to employee and manager or co-worker that has to go to the employee relation team in h.r. they're working through the process and what it looks like and how we need to communicate

it to the board and provide a tracking mechanism as well. one of the key things for this with a recommendation is accountability here and you can see the bottom box where it talks about the ombudsman office and a resolution. that will be important. she'll be able to monitor the cases as they come through and make sure she sees them to completion. i want to take a minute that a lot of times i know employees get frustrated and there's so many recommendations in until we had the gold report and i know

that can be frustrating and i see and hear that and understand that. i want all employee to know the h.r. team and executive team is committed to understanding workforce issues relating to discipline and hiring and training and just overall employee experience and what employees are going through. we want to make sure that we are we have the staff in place to make improvements in terms of our h.r. practices to address inequities and we are committed to that. and on the forefront it seems like progress is slow and you take one step and then jump seven but we're committed and the team is making a lot of progress.

we're accomplishing objectives of the plan and we'll continue to work with the and work with the office as well. i want to point out to refresh your memory on the hiring and retention and discipline and leadership and professional development, culture of inclusion and belonging and commission and i want to touch on a few accomplishments that are located within these focussed areas. we heard about discipline and it's been a concern of our employees and everyone and

that's very understandable. it seems progress has been slow one of the things we're excited about that we've been working on since january has been not only a recommendation but an author recommendation and that's how are we tracking performance. you have to make sure you have clean information that is accurate information that is being entered so you can report out on it properly and accurately and one of the things with the performance tracking we are trying to do. so one, we go from paper to automated processes. in text form and we'll review this and very simple and easy the manager can fill out and then track to e.o.r. and there's

more information every manager has to complete for every action. how do we know h.r. is getting all te data. it will automatically go to the relations team to put it into our system. there are controls being put in place. so that way the manager for example in for transit for best in rail we've been working with and collaborating on the process so when they go through it has to go through controls for reviews. the director within transit will have to file it. the director can say i see

what's happening. we can run queries for each division. it will show us, okay, this employee will see this if there's anything a manager wants to do for discipline if the rule book then basically they'll have to be a justification and the manager will have to sign off on it. and we'll need to have better data and analyze our data and provide interventions appropriately. we'll have to ask who the supervisor is giving the discipline. it's not an option and we'll have to drill down and see what supervisors are giving what discipline. we'll have to see what the violation is. it's pretty exciting. it sounds a little bureaucratic but it's an important part of

the process i think it's important to make sure the discipline is being implemented fairly, consistently and also transparent so as employees come to us we can explain. our projected live data is in september. this is phase 1 and maintenance next and phase 3 is the rest of the agency. phase 1 takes the longest because we're getting it up and going but we'll have everything in place. we are uploading all the rule violation. so every rule in the rule book for transit has a pull down feature on the form. mangers can do a click and drag. there's a lot of progress made on this and i think it will be completed in september.

we'll provide training for managers on how to use the form and we'll include inside bias training in the corrective action process as part of the training. next slide. this is one of our lead action objectives as well. this is one we're actually going to be partnering with the office on. especially for next year for '21-'22 performance year we'll incorporate mandatory equity training as part of the performance management process and we're excited to work through that process with that office. i also wanted to mention that for the training for this year we had several trainings for all of our employees not just our management supervisors but how to conduct the evaluations and how to get feedback and developing performance goals and

how to mitigate bias during the evaluation process. here are important updates i want to mention and one you probably heard a lot of about is the qualification and this is what i'm excited about specifically. we've gone through a first phase of reviewing our qualifications and we can go through and look at those on a case by case basis and we've been able to say let's replace it with more experience or maybe manager 2 and why does that person have to have supervisory experience?

say someone who is a non manager is staffed within the division, they apply for the manager 2 and don't have supervisory experience and then don't meet it. so there's things we're doing to make sure we have a wider advocate pool in terms of diversity and greater opportunity for our current employees which is very exciting. we'll continue to look through other classifications outside the management divisions in phase 1. another thing is incorporating interview questions on advancing equity. it's part of the interview process. so we have to make sure it's in

our mandatory question on all of our interviews and asking candidates about equity. why they think it's important in the workplace. how do they feel about equity, etcetera? and we think that's really important because that's a mixture that candidates know is important part of our value and we also get to hear from their perspectives. that way we can assess the commitment to equity. so i wanted to also mention briefly to have a high level overview of the report on i believe you all received a summary memo last week the report received from july 19 there were 19 findings and m.t.a. had nine findings and i wanted to give you a high level

overview because some of these may overlap and we'll continue to address these. and one of the recommendations was there was not a city wide acting policy. how do city departments appoint acting or assign people to positions. say for example someone needs a position and you need to have somebody in that role. you want to have capacity so you can recruit for that position. sometimes it can take six, seven months. so we had drafted a policy.

it actually is going to internal review with staff and with the executive team and our anticipation is we'll have that completed and finalized within the next 30 days. another thing i wanted to mention which was really important the report focussed on was outreach to under represented job classes. i'm happy to let you all know that for the first time we actually are going to be hiring recruiters. so those recruiters will be instrumental in term of outreach effort and look for under represented job classes and under represented employees in the workplace and we'll be working with those employees with acquisitions and others and an ombuds person has been accomplished. we're excited about that. we'll continue through our

strong program we have continuing to grow and we'll have more opportunities to talk to you about that. we also mention the report about the interview panelists and just that process and we'll be partnering with the e.o. team on that. the report also mentioned disciplinary actions. i think there's still room for us to continue to grow. obviously making significant changes in terms of disciplinary action and we are focussed on that. and i thought it was interesting because the golden report mentioned that city wide there should be support and agencies technician to address equity and inclusion and i think that's really important because at the beginning of the presentation i

mentioned the report in terms of being able to have additional support in h.r. and we think one of those three options was to improve the practice to address racial inequity within the workplace. [please stand by] .

>> i should add that both the reports that shared these recommendations preceded when we had an ombudsperson's office, and most of the data collection was right when i started or we didn't have a racial equity office at all, so just to put out there that there's more ways that we're working onto share what we need and what resources we have currently. leadership accountability support and development is a really important strategy as well as comprehensive performance reviews or 360 reviews were staffed from many different perspectives give feedback. these are all strategies that

have worked to form the work of orei. so these next slides are informational for the public and here. i have publicly available documents, so you can go through them and read through them. what you'll see on the right are summaries of the baseline strategies and core values, and where we're drawing from when we talk about best practices, we have the office of diversity and racial equity, and racial equity framework, which was used to drive all the city departments and direction us in developing racial equity action plans on what's needed when it comes to racial equity work in the city and county? the sfmta workforce did a great job of developing the phase one racial equity action plan, so that is very core to me to understanding not only what are we committed to and what's the values and background information and known information about what we need when it comes to a sustained office to address racial

equity. you'll see both the goal reports listed, and as i mentioned, those have very specific goals around workplace issues and complaint processes as well as discipline processes. and a few other sources of information that i mentioned at the very beginning that are [inaudible] this really flows throughout [inaudible] which is why a significant portion of my time as i on boarded with the listening session series was to go out to staff across a myriad of different working locations to ensure that a vast portion of our workforce was implementing the racial equity action plans but the orei. they have a series of

leadership competencies about how organizations can go from inducing trauma to be listening organizations. i'll draw your attention to these areas highlighted below. they speak to the many areas of the racial equity action plan which the plan was able to inform. the gare works across the nation to support many different jurisdictions and address racial equity within their organizations. the american public transportation association adopted a racial equity guidance plan for different jurisdictions, and then, we also have our sfmta values, both internal and external values which offer all of what we do, including the office of race, equity and inclusion. i want to go a moment to go

over the areas inside the four circles. i want to make sure that the board as well as staff and the public know what our [inaudible] is. so starting with the top left, the first function is agency wide policy practice and practice improvement specifically around improving equity. we are leading with race per the office of racial equity, and we understand that there's a series of racial equity needs and we'll have to improve our policies to better increase our outcome for equities. on the right, you'll see specific directives and operations both internally and

externally. third on the right is to better priority aye and establish equity -- prioritize and establish equity and priorities. and then bottom left is an agency commitment agency wise. i will just emphasize that again, orei is meant to support the agency everywhere, both internally and externally, so it is expected that many of these areas will overlap with the work areas of our agency because everyone is tasked with racial equity. these are the four core areas that pull from best practices across a series of local, national, and regional best practices for advancing racial equity. so i'll talk briefly about the organizational structure based on that before i switch to the

racial equity action plan. first i want to know that with our current budget for the office of race, equity, and inclusion, the only positions that we'll be working to move forward on are these three 9174 manager positions and also a supervisor position, which is the 5408. i will describe the functions of the entire office as there are future staffing needs. first, i want to describe these gray boxes. what they represent is the office of racial equity and inclusion, we'll be working on this over the coming months this fellowship will be an upcoming opportunity and also working on racial equity projects. and then besides that, it's

meant to be a networking space. one thing i found from talking to staff across the agency is many people desire a connection, and they're stuck working in their silos. the fellowship which are basically committees, both are opportunities for custodians to sit and work with engineers, for planners to work with operators, for planning control operators to work with payroll clerks. it's mean to encourage an abundance of this across our workforce. often time, staffing does not get to show those skills. for example, if i am a parking control officer, and i have not had an opportunity to exhibit training experience, this could be an opportunity to do so as equity training work that will involve the trainer model where staff can support the office of racial equity in implementing racial equity trainings across the system. so when we start with fellowship, we will start with one series of fellows but will just be in the workplace.

let me take a step back and describe the four elements of the office of racial equity and inclusion. at the bottom, you'll see an arrow, which means that all four of those have a place in each department.

experiences of being marginalized or underserved. while we do this already, we are looking at cross system approaches to our work. and much of that engagement and who we reach also overlaps in this second area around equity workforce and workplace, so that supports us in having a more equity workplace and fork force, so the same efforts to have universal strategies to reach, against, culturally specific strategies and interventions, to reach more indigenous folks, african american folks, latino folks, so not only is the work of

orei, it supports several different divisions of the agency. so there are three different sections that focus on equitable development, so internally and externally making sure we have robust strategies, building pipelines for staff and making sure we have robust pipelines that can support what's happening in h.r. so training, as you probably know, happens throughout our h.r. division but also through various divisions with stop specific or safety specific training. the training that office of racial equity and inclusion will direct is our racial equity training. it's important to note that that overlaps with the

leadership environment and the third unit was an equity workforce and workplace is staffing well-being. this section will be the primary group working to support our [inaudible] groups as well as our other resource groups or committees, and also helping to form more trauma informed strategies in addressing racism when it happens and supporting staff when it happens, and we've already started to do some of that work with mary donovan, our manager, by giving access to [inaudible] resources. the next is policy topics and practice improvement. we loved it so much, it had to be an agency improve. accountability system. this would include the constant tracking of our racial equity action plan as well as the status of our racial equity action commitment.

this will work on establishing a stronger accountability culture not just for staff but for the public, as well, to make sure we have robust standards when it comes to measuring racial equity in everything that we do. there's a lot of networks that we're going -- we're connected to to work on optimizing how we do data collection and how they improve our processes and alignment with the city and county strategy, and then we'll also have a unit devoted specifically to [inaudible]. as you can imagine, with all of those projects, they'll have a lot of collaboration, so this will actually [inaudible] in collaboration with all of the other units. and then, the fourth and last unit will be equitable collaborations to duplicate any of our internal or external

strategy functions. the first is cultural education, so this is focused on the cultural change needs to improve our equity outcomes. this is supportive the other areas of the agencies, as well, whether it's sharing information about revisions in our system practices or making sure that everyone actually gets the information, especially those that are not assigned a personal device. and also, optimize the learning outcomes of our racial equity training. and then, the third unit's within equitable communications is communication define, so a lot -- communication definition, so a lot of work around supporting the communications coming out of

the office of racial equity and inclusion. i will say most of the materials from the staffing managers to coordinators to an lists are proposed. they're not confirmed. in preparation for the upcoming budget season, it was important for me to get a sense of our overall staffing need and get a sense of the work. i do want to briefly just share that about our committee structure for our cross divisional fellowship which again has not launched, but i'm working with the executive team to get the final details so we can launch that in the coming months, and it shows staff from as broad a range of work duties as possible has opportunities to engage in professional development and has the opportunity to support not only the office of racial equity and inclusion but the larger team in advancing racial equity. i just want to point out that all of three of these groups will be part of a larger committee, and there will be

three subcommittees, so probably at least two committees leading each of these, and then the fellow buckets as you'll see are a collective across all of the divisions. so that's a little bit about the organizational structure to give you best practices about how they're really integral to developing the office of racial equity and inclusion. and again, the public and those listening will have access to those. so this slide represents how the orei functional areas overlap with the racial equity action plan commitments. and this is extremely important because as i worked to build up the office of racial equity and inclusion, but it's building up the racial equity action plan, so on going workshops and meeting with not only division directors but several managers and staff are spaces in which i've been lifting up all the actions and commitments relative to that team's scope

of work. so what you see here are summaries of several actions for those who do download the slides and the notes of all the specific actions for example encompassed in outreach and equity pools, monitoring decision making, interviews at panels, pipelines, performance management, and a series of other areas like wellness and support or data transparency. so what i want to represent here on the far left, what you see are the core analysis of orei, and that will crossover all of these actions. the same goes for culturally specific interventions. there are ways in which -- i can speak a little more at the end of the presentation some of the workshops that we have at the end of the fiscal year now that our budget has been confirmed to create and

distribute culturally appropriate material. in equitable workforce and workplace, we have commitments in our action plan committed to standards around equity for training and development, we have opportunities to have more culturally specific interventions to improve training and development, and then also, when it comes to our process improvement, there are actions that call on improved processes to optimize training and development. so again, this is just for reference to really map out the work of the racial equity action plan is the work of the office of racial equity and inclusion, and we're working to have more sustained support and structure to guide not only the specific actions in the action plan but also many of the

commitments. this is currently on the internet, and while this will be available on a public website, but the staff has been available for several months now. i do want to preview this for the staff and the board and also the public. when you first land on this page, it has a summary of all the actions complete. you'll see 5.6% of the actions have not been started, but the vast majority are either in progress or on going, and i'll explain what that means in a moment. 2.2% are complete. so the main difference between on going and in progress, in progress, there's been planning, workshops, efforts to begin acting on it, but there's been no formal implementation. the on going speaks to racial equity action plan and talked about the sustained approach to implementing actions, so for many things, there'll be many

different iterations. i think the blue also really speaks volumes about not only the on going commitment to the work but also the function of orei, so many of these functions will need to be on going, and they will not be a check the box where complete. i've told that many -- told many people that many items on our racial equity action plan are doors that lead to other doors. this is a [inaudible] for the functionality of the dashboard, so there's an option to filter by the specific actions. you can filter by the updates and the statuses and see the

statuses of that specific action. so this section over here, it is a bit hard to read. admittedly, i'll try to hover for the more robust updates. for example, we have one of our on going actions is to update minimum outreach standards for all job announcements? as you saw within the core functional areas, one of the key areas for orei will be equity standards across the board. this will include how you do outreach, so i look forward to working with our talent integration team about integrating equity standards into our work, and there's been a lot of work, for example, with outreach standards on our citywide network. we're working with mercy work group and has met with a group of stakeholders in diverse locations to ties openings. that said, i think speaking to the on going work, i've had several meetings with h.r. about the need t