character, everybody needs to have a car or we support housing, just not this housing near us or that we have to see in our neighborhood. that should be a whammy button and then that person gets bounced and they're not allowed to talk anymore. because those repeated lines are total b.s. and we are in a housing crisis. we need it all over the place. from my back window of corbett, i look out at a building of about 50 units. the building i live in is about 20 units. this is a high density neighborhood and apparently some of my neighbors can't accept that. they're wrong and you shouldn't listen to them. whammy button.

>> caller: hi. i am a more than 50 year resident of san francisco. i'm not in the noe valley area: there is an affordable housing crisis in san francisco. anybody who can pay the rents of ten apartments in this this san francisco project, they're not affordable ask the the

young family who spoke just a little bit ago, if he can afford $5,000 rent, he can afford to buy and pay for a small house in san francisco or a condo. and to call this an affordable housing project is also wrong. this, again, is a market rate building and shouldn't be -- nobody should be fooled they're going to get reasonable rent. they're going to be underground in a one bedroom apartment. and i'm also curious on the home san francisco and many other projects at market rate. do you track how many people moving to them that are local san franciscans? it should be noted. it would be a curious thing whether it meets the needs of

even market rate people. i believe that many people are coming from outside san francisco who have a lot of money and can afford that $5,000 or two-bedroom or whatever they're going to charge and i hope the planning commission will consider doing some surveys for these market rate apartments that are going up all over the place. thank you. >> caller: hello. i've been a resident for about 25 years. this is a complicated issue with this development. obviously, there's pros and cons on the one side. i've heard there's a housing crisis and the housing's unaffordable in the bay area. obviously, building more housing should be considered.

on the other hand, the negatives, there's 13 units in this apartment or in this development and that's a spooky number. i think that should be taken into account. thank you. >> caller: hello? hello? >> secretary: yes. go ahead. >> caller: hi. i'm an owner of 11 argon alley. i am opposing this project on 4512 23rd street because i think this home in san francisco province is not appropriate for this -- for my neighborhood and also this big building, i'm not opposing to

do new houses, but that building is not appropriate for our neighborhood and also it will create a crowd of people because the area where they want to build this apartment is so small. it's very small and i am just very worried about it because they're going to dig down so deep and my building is on the top floor and, you know, it shakes all the time and also, i just don't believe that this housing is appropriate for the house, for that lot. i think if they go like the one

we have like four unit apartment would be great. so please i beg you to reconsider that, to think about the neighbors and also for the 885 corbett avenue also, he really needs the light and all the neighbors behind me. so, please, i invite you to come and see the lot. you can be on the site that way you have more view of what it is and this is not the right place to build that 13 units. thank you. >> secretary: okay. members of the public, last call for public comment on this

item. you need to press star three and when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> caller: hi. my name is weston. i'm an adjacent owner to this property in question and i just want to echo the sentiment of quite a few of the other immediately adjacent owners who have voiced their opinions. primarily just questioning the propriety of the housing. in this particular location, the practical reality is i know there was discussion about four municipal line stops, there's really only one. there's the 37 bus line and to expect that to service an entire building along with the rest of the nakd and facilitate the people who would be living in this housing unit doesn't make a lot of sense.

the walking distance to any commercial hub whatsoever is approximately at least a half a mile and anyone that knows the city knows that's all the way down the hill in noe valley. so i as well as a lot of the members of the media community have attempted to work with the developer over the last month to figure out a way to develop an appropriate building on this site and not surprisingly to no avail. so those of us who are immediate owners have legitimate concern about the height and setback of this project as having significant effects on the value of our properties and that's something we ask the planning commission to take into account. we are not just random people and millionaires and billionaires. we're just average residents of san francisco who are concerned about our property moving forward and who are in favor of a development of this project

but one that matches more closely the 11 argon footing. i ask the planning commission to take that into consideration. thank you very much. >> caller: hi. my name is sarah. i'm a resident of the community. i just wanted to kind of add along with a lot of people within the neighborhood that we hope to see something a little bit different for the building not only are we in favor of housing, but in favor of housing in that lot behind us. and, you know, it's just i know we keep saying that, but it's really important that we're not just as somebody referred to the group. but people that just want to be respectful of the neighborhood and what makes sense. for me, that's the main, my main concern is the safety of the community. i don't know if you have the

video of the skateboarders that my husband provided. what i'm terrified of is that when this is connected, whatever the street that they're building is connected from corbett to market, this is going to give so many kids the opportunity to fly down this ramp onto market and we've already seen how many accidents and kids having to be called and there's ambulances taking them and that's just when they're going down a small ramp. here, they would be flying down straight to market and, to me, that's terrifying and it really goes against the fact that we want to care for our community and this is just building this building because it's within their criteria and speaking to familieses, sorry, i'm going to go back on something, speaking to am families, the family that

we're talking about that can't afford how toing, i don't think they can live in a 309 square foot unit. it's going to be students or who knows. but every other unit is going to be market rate. they're penthouses. and also, you know, there's no parking which this is not an urban neighborhood you don't see bikers or people walking very far because it's a hill. this building is literally going to be looking into peoples' homes. thank you so much. appreciate it.

>> caller: good evening. in my middle years, the city changed and now in my declining years, the city has changed again. this project is for the present. it provides affordable units on transportation corridor. it has all the hallmarks of what the city will need in the future and there has been as the previous caller said the number of buss as it creates over time give up our cars. also, having lived here for a long time i've realized that the animosities or the emotions we have of these projects we don't -- if the planning commission decides to approve it will decline overtime as new

people move in and people get to know their new neighbors. so this is a really good project and i encourage you to approve it. thank you. >> caller: hi. i didn't really understand what home-sf was so i went to your website and this is what it says on the planning department website. home-sf is san francisco's local density bonus program. it's designed to incentivize more affordable housing in commercial and transit corridors through zoning modifications. i don't think market street is a transportation corridor. and i know there's no shopping

up there. so i just wanted to read you your own website. thanks a lot. take care. bye. >> caller: my name's davy. i've been a san francisco resident for eight years. i'm in support of this project. i think it's a very reasonable development. i think most importantly, it provides housing for families with incomes at all levels. i wanted to underscore i guess what everybody else is saying. we are in a supply crisis and i think we have to all come together and try to be brave and allow other people whether they're san franciscans or not to be able to afford housing. so i think constricting the supply certainly ensures that

neighborhoods stay affordable and keep that up and we'd like to see that in our communities in san francisco. so please support this project. thank you. >> secretary: okay. final last call on this item for public comment. you need to press star three to be added to the queue. public comment is now closed. and this item's now before you, commissioners. >> i'm definitely in support of the item. great use of the home-sf program. commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i share the concerns expressed by many of the neighbors regarding a particular application of home-sf for this particular

parcel. i think it's ill advised to see a home-sf project. now that the location will say it's which is perpendicular to the main development on corbett and on market street. therefore, the building proposed five stories over a basement would create a tall 50' wall that blocks coming to five parcels on corbett coming from corbett towards the three parcels on market street. but five stories over basement as it was read into the record,

the intent of home-sf is for buildings and corridors and near neighborhood commercial districts. i am not in support of the project. >> president: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: thank you. i just want to ask a few questions. some for staff and some for the project sponsor. i first want to understand the origin of home-sf as she just said originated and expanded to be citywide and i understand it to be our local density bonus program to try to incentivize more housing and more affordable housing as opposed to the state program which many are familiar with this commission, we have some challenges with that program. so if staff can explain when perhaps if you're aware that this expanded to be allowed in other areas besides just neighborhood commercial

districts. just a little background on that expansion that the board of supervisors approved. >> i was hoping kate connor was still here because she's the best person to refer to on this. i was here when home-sf was adopted, but i wasn't involved so i honestly don't know all the details. i'm sorry. >> commissioner: that's okay. perhaps you can just explain a little bit in that it is applicable on this parcel and parcels that are zoned up even though it's not in a commercial district. >> that's correct. there's specific zoning districts where home-sf projects are permitted and this district is one of them. i'm not aware of anything in the home-sf program where it specifically says, you know, it has to be directly adjacent to a neighborhood or a neighborhood commercial

corridor. >> commissioner: so it sounds like maybe some language on our website might need to be updated to relate to its current iter ration. that might be the previous iter rations of the program because i think certainly that can be confusing thinking about it because this is clearly not a neighborhood commercial district. can you talk a little bit about just kind of how the code applies here. of the in particular, i'm curious if there were nonhome-sf projects here, what would be the height of that building if there were to be another project? >> the max height is 40' in this district. so the as proposed, the home-sf is less than 6' over the max of 40'. >> commissioner: right. do you know the height offhand if you add anything mechanical on that roof. obviously, it would take up the entire roof, just kind of what that max height would be at

that point. >> the highest point is the stair penthouse. they actually tried to reduce it as much as possible. i'm not seeing the dimension on my plans. sorry. >> commissioner: that's okay. you may be able to find it as other questions are asked and i have a couple for the project sponsor. but the bulk of the building is just 6' over the code compliant the allowed height if this were not a home-sf project. >> correct. and the height of the elevator and stair penthouses are accounted in the maximum height requirements. >> great. thank you. and then can you speak to -- we've heard some callers concerned about the view impact to their property? do we have code language that protects private views from those private homes across to this other property? >> no. in the city of san francisco, the only views that are protected are those that are

from public accessible areas. >> commissioner: great. thank you for clarifying that. and one thing i did want to ask. i don't know if you want to do this or the project sponsor. just show a little bit of the access. we heard some comments around the alleys and the extension of corbett to market connection. i don't know if the project sponsor wants to walk through that if they have slides that kind of illustrate that. i would be curious on just a little more about how the residents of this building would get to and from different locations or get into the building itself. >> sure. i have the plans. i can share my screen but i don't know if the project architect would like to explain it. if not, i can. >> commissioner: is the architect with us still?

i don't know if their line's unmuted or not. >> absolutely. good afternoon, commissioners. >> commissioner: hi. >> great. thank you, commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: we'll bring up the slides first and then you can walk us through a little bit about the access to and from the building and how that will be developed. >> absolutely. staff, if you please show sheet a2.1 of the floor plans, that would be great. so basically, the main access would be from 23rd street, the frontage of the building and, at the moment, that area is not improved. but as far as these plans, we are going to improve and expand

the 23rd street to the front of the property. the secondary access to the public right of way to the back of the building which is argon alley which that area is mostly designed for emergency access, but the main access would be through 23rd street. >> commissioner: great. and you'll be improving the connection from corbett to market, is that correct? and that would be on the front entrance of the building then? >> partially correct. we're improving and providing connection from 23rd street to the connect -- to the overpass that is connecting corbett to market. >> commissioner: okay. so that's the piece that you're kind of filling in or improving. >> correct. >> commissioner: okay great.

>> that would be -- go ahead. >> commissioner: continue. >> so just as the site with that connection and the street extension, that would be fully compliant with the standard and ada requirements. >> commissioner: okay. that would be an ada accessible improvement accessible to the public as well. thank you very much. while we have the plans up, i wonder if you can talk a bit about the basement unit. we've heard some concerns about the lower level unit. could you just describe about what that unit is like and kind of its access to light and air for though lower level basement floor unit. >> absolutely. so the basement floor has one unit facing the rear yard and both bedrooms, they are facing the open space and code

compliant light well and yard. basically, they both are code compliant bedrooms and basically if you look at sheets at a. 4.1, it shows the extent of the graveyard and excavation we are providing basically to open up the front of that unit. >> commissioner: okay. >> it also has an office which is also not required to have access to. >> commissioner: great. can you talk a little bit about as you've been having community outreach, have there been any changes to the project that you've made just anything

you've discussed. >> absolutely the project owner, neighbors and some of the feedback was implemented into the project from getgo. that including the 25 setback on the fifth floor and also the overall height of the project could be based on 5' to 6' higher. we drove down the project for the ground. but part of our effort that the project neighbors and also planning department, we have removed the elevator penthouse which was about 16' high

penthouse. lowering around the roof deck and roof top. >> commissioner: great. thank you very much for that insight. and those are all the questions that i have that relate to the plans on that. i did want to know and i think a question i've asked before is just about the b.m.r. unit designation and i believe that's not up to discretion of the project sponsor to designate which units are the affordable ones. i think it's a one-bedroom, a studio, and a two bedroom. it's not the discretion of the project sponsor to designate which unit is the below market rate unit. i know we've heard some concerns about that. that's not something for the project sponsor to decide. i think that's important for the public to know. i see our planner nodding. thank you for acknowledging that. i just want to make a couple comments. i'm supportive of this project and i know there's a lot of

folks who called in both supportling and opposing this project. one thing i think is really important and especially right now in san francisco, we have unfortunately had a lot of public officials who have abused their position and we have just a lot of corruption quite frankly that's happened that's being investigated and that's continually being uncovered and i think it's important to note that that's something that ends up reflecting on all of the boards and commissions of the city and it degrades the public trust in the boards and commissions and in the planning commission. but i just want to assert that there's no -- we take very serious. i know i take very seriously our charge to guard the public's interest and for me what this is about is if this is a code compliant project that our city code has gone through the democratic process of deciding what we want to build in san francisco, where do we want to build it and how do we want to build it and the

board supervisors have decided that this is what a code compliant project looks like and we've worked hard to create a local density program. a number of other requirements and this project meets all of those requirements and so there isn't any, you know, back room deals or whatever else people were asserting is happening with this project. this is about what does our planning code say, is this project compliant with the planning code that's at least for me. and so i just want to try to at least speak a little to that. and what i'm evaluating is the use that's proposed. it's not my job, i don't think it's an appropriate role for me to evaluate who is proposing the project. what i'm evaluating are the codes we have and whether or not this project complies with those codes and i find this project does comply with those codes and meetsed standards.

and i'll be supportive of this project today. >> president: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: my main issue here and i think commissioner moore brought it up is the home-sf application. before i would say to the consumption, when the state density bonus were being proposed in the state legislation, home-sf at the same time or many advocates, many groups were also looking into the way to counter the state density bonus legislation that were not yet approved but were being legislated. so the idea of the home-sf as far as i remember was a way to counter the state density

legislation and the idea was that to have this home-sf project in neighborhood commercial transit corridors because the idea was in state density bonus legislation was proposed around those areas. that's what i remember home-sf is being used for and the intent of that. obviously, there may be a different kind of interpretation we are seeing now since this is not in h.r.1 or h.r.2, it is in r.m. however, this is still not in a transit corridor neighborhood. so this is my main issue now is the home-sf in the context of how it was being proposed back then. so for this reason, i do not see that the home-sf actually

applies for this. >> president: i would entertain a motion. >> commissioner: before i make my motion, can i just have the planner just confirm again the home-sf is applicable here that this is a zone and an area of the city where home-sf applies. >> yes, that's correct. i was just trying to pull up the application form because there's actually an eligibility checklist on the application form and this project site meets everything on the checklist. >> commissioner: i see that commissioner diamond. i don't know if she has a question or make a motion. i don't know if you want to hear from her first. >> president: commissioner diamond, go ahead. >> commissioner: i had one

more question and that has to do with access and egress. where and how will emergency vehicles, construction deliveries, home move-ins, and move-outs, you know, taxi drop-offs and pickups occur? is that all off of 25th street and will it be improved to the level that it can support all of those services? >> the plans have been reviewed through the street design advisory team which includes members of the department of public works and fire. the sponsor has reviewed these plans. it was one of the requirements to make sure that fire access could be provideded on this site as it is currently situated and it does meet the access requirements without putting in another road. there's a hose length requirement that they go by which is i believe 150'. so the fire department has

determined that from the streets that are existing with their hose length, they can reach the site. in regards to the access, my understanding and the sponsor can correct me if i'm wrong, the paved area in front of the building is want to provide access for moving vehicles, move-in, move-out and i would assume drop-off for those who might be disabled. it's not for parking otherwise. i don't know that it's even specifically for pick-up, drop-offs of ubers and lyfts. i would imagine that would happen down on the street, but the sponsor can correct me if i've misspoken. >> commissioner: and construction vehicle that is are delivering all the materials that are necessary to construct this? how are they getting to the site? >> you know, usually that would be handled by the department of

building inspection when they're reviewing the plan. often times, they'll have to have a construction management plan. in this case, as i see in a lot of different areas, sometimes they have to, you know, get permits to allow things to be on the street or, you know, they can use the site as best as they can in certain situations. in this one, do i agree it's a little more challenging, but our democratic of building inspection is very experienced with this and these unusual lots as san francisco has a number of complicated lots. >> commissioner: can the project sponsor weigh in on all those issues and where you are in your discussions and the intent? >> absolutely. as we mentioneded, the proposed

city improvement will provide a 20' wide access to the widst of this lot in front of the property. that's about 20' wide by 25' access to the property and that meets dpw and san francisco. >> commissioner: and this is 25th street. emergency vehicle access, move-in, move-out vehicles. >> of course. it provides a 20' wide property which is wider than many other alleys. >> commissioner: i'm sorry to push you on this, but i'm trying to understand. are you saying that the discussions you've had with

building so far leads you to believe you will get those sign offs for construction vehicleses, emergency vehicles and move-in, move-out vehicles. it's just like a yes or a no. >> sure. absolutely. so discussions that we have with the fire department and public works. >> commissioner: okay. >> in short, yes. that's correct. >> so i have a question for staff. how is this enforced. do we have a condition of approval. who pays for this? you know, i don't see any conditions about this so i'm wondering procedurally if we were to grant approval how this issue gets worked up. >> certainly. so any time somebody proposes to do work in the public right of way, they have to get an

encroachment permit from the department of public works. in this case, it would be considered a major encroachment permit and through the encroachment permit and agreement, it's standard that the property owner is responsible for paying the cost of the construction of the improvements as well as the maintenance of the improvements that are put into the right of way. >> commissioner: okay. and that is part of getting the encroachment permit, that the appropriate sign-off from public works building whatever would be necessary in order to ensure that they have the appropriate widths and lengths to meet these standards, whatever the standards are? >> yes. and as i said through the street design advisory team, this project has done extensive i would say review with the departments because, you know, staff also wanted to make sure and had concerns to make sure that fire and emergency vehicles had access. so they have gone over this

quite thoroughly with the department of public works and fire. >> commissioner: okay. thank you very much and i would hand this back to commissioner tanner. i think she braced me with some time. >> commissioner: thank you. and good worthwhile questions. i'm appreciative of your questions, commissioner diamond. i would move to approve this project as proposed. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: there's nothing further, commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter. on that motion, [roll call] so moved commissioners. that motion passes 4-2 with commissioners moore and imperial voting against.

commissioners, it has just been brought to my attention that item 11, case number 2021-000209cua at 733 treat avenue a conditional use authorization request needs to be continued so i'll let staff address that to you since it was literally just brought to my attention. >> good evening, commission. we are needing to request that this item be continued because there are specific findings related to the financial feasibility of legalizing unauthorized dwelling unit that we actually do need additional information in order to make the findings and update the motion. so we are asking to have this item continued until is it

november 4th. >> secretary: november 4th would be the earliest date as far as i understand it, but i just want to be clear that november 18th is very impacted and there's no chance that if it doesn't happen on the 4th that it happens on the 18th. it will need to get pushed to december if it doesn't happen on the 4th. did you have any comments? are you with us, mr. kevlin? ella, you did have a conversation with mr. kevlin. >> yes. i was just on the phone with him. just recently. so that might have been why he got disconnected.

>> secretary: okay. very good. will mr. kevlin's line is up muted. if he comes back. at this time, members of the public, there is a proposal to continue this matter to november 4th. we should take public comment, members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the consumption on the continuance by pressing star three. seeing no members of the public requesting -- i take it back. go ahead, caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: hi. my name's claire. can you hear me? >> secretary: yes. we can, claire. >> caller: thank you. my name's claire. i was born and raised in san francisco. i live a block away from the proposed project -- >> secretary: i'm sorry to interrupt you, but right now

we're just taking comment on the matter of continuance. so. >> caller: continuing. i see. >> secretary: it's sort of come up at this late hour that staff is identifying the motion before the commission is not adequate for the commission to take action and so we need to continue this matter. we're going to take public comment just on the matter of continuance. >> caller: okay. i understand. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. okay. looks like one more. go ahead, caller. >> caller: hi, just to clarify, this is continuance for the treat street project, correct? >> secretary: that's correct. right now, we're going to push it to november 4th and see if staff can't resolve the issues. if not, it will need to be continued further. >> caller: thank you.

>> secretary: okay. last call for public comment on the matter of continuance for the treat avenue item. okay. seeing no additional requests to comment from members of the public. public comment is closed. and, commissioners, that stated, this item is being proposed for continuance in the report. >> president: commissioner moore. >> secretary: commissioner moore, you may be muted. >> commissioner: i'm sorry. would staff be so kind to repeat why the continuance. i could not actually physically hear you at the moment when you talked. >> certainly. while, there are set findings for demolition of a residence or dwelling unit 317 and that does apply to both unauthorized dwelling units and legal dwelling units. for unauthorized dwelling

units, there's also a fiscal feasibility analysis that is done typically between, you know, whether or not it's fiscally feasible to legalize the dwelling unit in the existing building as opposed to removal of the dwelling unit. in this case, it is -- they are demolishing the entire building and so we do not -- you know, after further discussion, we don't have adequate information on the fiscal feasibility of legalizing the unit in the existing building in order to provide the necessary information in the motion for you guys to make the findings. >> commissioner: thank you so much for explaining that again. i appreciate it. >> president: anyone want to make a motion. >> commissioner: move to

continue the case. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to continue this item to november 4th. [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6-0. items 12 and 13 have already been continued both to december 2nd. placing us on item 14 for 2021-003396cua at 790 valencia street. ryan, are you with us? >> yes. >> secretary: okay. the floor is yours. >> give me one second.

thank you. >> secretary: i'm sure you weren't expecting to go up this quickly so i'll give you a minute. thank you, jonas. good afternoon, commissioners. ryan balba department staff. referring to sections 303, 303.1 and 762 to establish a formula retail use doing business as an earthbar with the existing retail space at the ground floor of an existing five-story mixed-use building. the valencia street n.c.t. zoning district requires a conditional use authorization for the establishment of a formula retail use. the proposed hours of operation for earthbar are from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. no tenant improvements are

proposeded. new sign adjust will be a process under a separate sign permit. there are currently nine vacancies within a 300' radius of the site. there are 40 existing commercial store fronts within a 300-foot radius of which two are formula retail uses. the proposed use would bring the percentage of uses to approximately 8% within the 300 foot radius of the project site. i'd like to read a correction for the record, there was a typo on the motion that stated 4% of the store fronts in the area are daily needs. the correct percentage is 40%. the motion also included a typo regarding tenant interior improvements. no tenant interior improvements were proposed. the packet publication, the department has received two letters of support.

one with 14 signatures from local merchants and another with four hundred two signatures from the department in summary project is on balance consistent with objectives and policy plans. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. the applicant has a brief presentation to make and i will hand it over to them. thank you. >> secretary: sorry. i'm just looking for the right number to unmute here.

we got a request to unmute the phone number, but i don't see her phone number. let's try her computer. ms. mcgee are you with us? >> i'm here. thank you so much. >> secretary: thank you. you have five minutes. >> i will be brief. i was trying to loop in my project sponsor, my clients. i think what we're going to do is i'll be super brief on this presentation and hopefully they will call in during public comment. i think our time should all fit underneath the project sponsor five minutes. with that, i will get started. are you guys seeing the slide show? slide one? >> secretary: your slides are up. >> great. okay. with that, i will begin. good afternoon commissioners. i'm a planning consultant representing the project sponsor earthbar. i have the ceo here today and

operations directing questions and i'll keep my presentation brief. on this slide, we show the image of earthbar in the mission district. in 2020, project juice and earthbar merged and earthbar is considered a formula retail and therefore requires a c.u. to continue at this location. please note as ryan was saying, the proposal proposes to keep everything the same including the name 'earthbar' the lay out, and the signage of course. next slide. ryan outlined how the project meets the relevant conditional use criteria in the staff report and i want to highlight what i believe are the project's three main benefits from a planning standpoint. one, it provides healthy

opportunities for the local community. two, it continues to activate a retail location on the commercial corridor. and, three, it will maintain the project induced workforce of 11 employees some of whom are pictured here on this slide. in addition, merchants in the local community. and 43 signatures of support from customers. project use has been active with the local community. they've participated in street closures, donated meals. helped to build parklites and hosted events on valencia street and earthbar looks forward to continuing this in the community. and with that, rerespectfully request that you approve this project. thank you. >> secretary: thank you, ms. mcgee for that brief presentation. if there are no immediate questions from the commission, we should open it up to public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the

commission on this item by pressing star three to be added to the queue. you'll each receive two minutes and when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is clay and i'm the ceo of earthbar. the project use has strived to create the ultimate experience. >> secretary: your presentation really should have been part of the project sponsor's presentation as opposed to public comment. they didn't use their full five minutes so like i said i'll give you a couple minutes here. go ahead. >> caller: okay. thanks. i really appreciate that. since 2013, project juice has strived to create the ultimate experience. now, in this new chapter of our story, we have the opportunity to create a more profound impact in the mission district by merging with earthbar, a health and wellness

establishment with over 50 years of experience. project juice has been community focused ever since. in march of this year, we donated money, spread the word and attended the ceremony to help the valencia street campaign. we've also nurtured dozens of partnerships to the share space program. earthbar plans to do the same as we continue to acknowledge that we are nothing without our community. allowing project views to become one with our means that we will be able to keep our vision of wholistic wellness alive in the mission district. together, earthbar and project views are stronger and this merger will help retain an active store front along the retail corridor. we will have the same team, the same menu and the same mission. just more to offer. commissioners, i respectfully

ask that you support earthbar to continue supporting the wellness journey of our community and team members through a wholistic version and a journey that was started by three courageous female founders. thanks for your support and listening. >> secretary: okay. thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star three to be added to the queue. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is now closed and it is now before you. >> president: i will be supporting the cua today. commissioner moore. >> secretary: >> commissioner: moore, you may be muted. >> commissioner: i'm sorry. i'm in support of the cua.

move to approve. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners. if there's no further deliberation, there's a motion that's been seconded. on that motion of commissioner tanner, [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. and placing this on your discretionary review calendar item 15. 2021-003776drp-02. at 3737 22nd street. this is a discretionary review. mr. winslow. >> greetings. good evening commission. the item before you is a public

initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application 2021.0220550. the proposal would also include a new roof deck above the first and second floor additions as well as new roof dormers to accommodate an elevator. the existing building is a category a historic resource built in 1908. the discretionary review requester jeff horde of 3733 22nd street resident of the adjacent property to the immediate east is concerned that the architecture hit that of the surrounding buildings and mr. horde wants to ensure the facade design is consist went other homes on the block. to date, the department has received no letters in support and no letters in opposition of

the project. the planning department's review of this proposal confirms support for this project as it conforms to the planning code and the residential design guidelines. the project extends the basement and 13th floor 6" beyond the existing rear wall and maintains a 5'' setback for 12' of that extension. the down sloping typography with the residential design guidelines related to scale and access to block open space and is consistent with other development on this block. the proposed second floor extends 2.6 and a half inches and the proposed third floor extends beyond the rear building. the proposed dormers are set back for the department standards and has to be minimally visible. the project proposes to retain historical materials on the front facade with double hung

wood windows consistent with the size and scale of the adjacent buildings. the size, location, and distance of the project's rear decks from neighboring buildings are like wise adjacent to text. there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends approving. this concludes my presentation. >> secretary: thank you, mr. winslow. mr. horde, are you with us? mr. horde? >> hello, my name is jeff horde has mr. winslow stated i live at 3727 22nd street. this stretch of 22nd street is pretty special for the community. for halloween, we're the destination for several hundreds of trick-or-treaters and their parents. if for christmas, neighbors and

tourists come to the block to see holiday lights and decorations. we also have a number of tourists and neighborhoods to walk the concrete jungle. these homes have also been featured in several books on san francisco architecture and our point of pride for us who live on the block. when 3737 this project was sold to developers, the neighbors were concerneded about what changes would be in the community. and then move on to the next one. i completely tone death to this house's role on the or if this was an attempt to attract a buyer. all i can say it's out of character relative to the adjacent homes.

this committee i've always believed was responsible for standing up to the profiteers and the general tri fiers on behalf of the neighborhoods in which those people make their money. please stand up for us. reverse your staff's preliminary register to deny this review. as you know, this is a historical block and i believe that means we should take the steps to the character that makes this block so special. please do this for us who live here and do it for those who live here. this megamansion is being built for someone who could afford a $6 million home. that perspective new owner is taking the place of a working family who lived there for over 40 years of mexican descent and raised six kids there. this block deserves to be defended and i hope this committee exercises both its authority and the scope to do that. this is a special block and i really urge you to please thank you for your time.

>> secretary: mr. eastwood, are you with us? >> yes. >> secretary: you have three minutes. >> good afternoon commission. my name is lucas eastwood. i'm here to respond to the discretionary review filed by mr. horde for the project at 3737 22nd street. i'm speaking on behalf of the users. this is not a speck, this is not a flip. we're proposing to take a currently habitable home clear to multi-generational home for their children and aging parents. with modest dormers, a minimal addition to the rear yard along with utilizing the nonhabitable area behind the garage and at the basement level, we'll be able to create a home where they may live, work, and grow as a family.

both neighbors utilize the permit and rear yard extension as well to create usable indoor and exterior space that they are investing great resources to do so as well as restoring the facade. neighborhood outreach, slide one. from the very beginning of this project, we made numerous attempts to discuss this project with the neighbors. we were successful in the rescission of one d.r. with frank at 3741 22nd street located directly west of the project. however, despite numerous attempts we were unsuccessful in engaging mr. horde. frankly, he stonewalled us and we were not afforded the opportunity to discuss this project with him after the meeting. we would have loved the opportunity to have private discussions with mr. horde rather than spending the commissioners and the public's valuable time on such matters.

we're utilizing the same permissible two-story rear yard extension at 3741 22nd street did with their project under application. slide two, please. the third floor and main mapping expands the structure 1' 8" into the rear to align with 3733 22nd street. both 3741 and 3733 rear yard extensions extend further into the rear yard than our proposed extension. slide three. the vast majority of the square footage is being added within the existing envelope at the currently inhabitable garage and basement level. slide four. the total gross square feet, slide five.

the total gross square feet beyond the current envelope is 577 square feet. the additional square footage being added is within the existing building envelope. historically sourced. slide 6. i know the complaint includes our proposed front elevation. we found a photo from the '50s or '60s judging by the car. finding building's already been altered -- >> secretary: that is your time. you will have one minute rebuttal and the commissioners may ask for additional clarifying questions. at this time, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star three to be added to the queue. through the chair, you'll have one minute. >> caller: hello commissioners. my name is gretchen van horn.

i am the property owner and the taxpayer at 3723 22nd street. i am in agreement with the comments of jeff horde especially with respect to the historical character of the facade and the popularity of our neighborhood with san franciscans and tourists alike. this proposed facade by the sponsors has been ignored in the elevations that i have seen. with respect to the proposed facade, the project sponsors indicate they agree with the san francisco preservation quote not to invent new. now, if my opinion, this is a missed opportunity to restore the historical facade of 3737 to its original character. not just the redwood which had been revealed under the existing facade rather its original detail. it did not invent new

decorative details, it would simply restore the intentions of the original builder to create similar exteriors for the four consecutive houses. so commissioners, i urge you to deny the sponsor's application in order to give them more time to work with our community to restore a facade consistent with the character of the row houses. that concludes my rebuttal. >> caller: commissioners, just for the record, this is jeff horde again -- >> secretary: okay. i'm going to make last call for members of the public to submit their comment by pressing star three. >> caller: hello. can you hear me? >> secretary: we certainly can. >> caller: hello. my wife is deborah comb. we live directly across the street from the project.

our address is 3742 22nd street. when we purchased the property back in 1996, it too was covered in asbestos siding. we removed the siding and brought the building back close to its original look. to do so, we drove around with our contractor to locate a building with the same style. fortunately, for this developer, they don't have to hunt down another look alike as they are right next door. we live in a historic neighborhood and are not allowed so much as to change our facade. disturbing the balance of our home will directly impact our visual aspect as well as those that tour our neighborhood. this design does not belong here. particularly due to it being located in the middle of the matching homes working on one of the ends, we might not feel so strongly on this issue. modernizing the material makes sense. degrading the look and feel of

the neighborhood is insulting to those of us who've done the right thing over the last 25 years. >> secretary: thank you. that is your time. >> caller: hi commissioners. gretchen van horn here. in reading the executive summary, i was dismayed to discover -- >> secretary: are you party to the d.r. requester? >> i am a neighbor. >> hi, this is jeff horde again. >> secretary: mr. horde, mrs. horde, you will have an opportunity to address the commission under rebuttal. okay. right now, we're just taking public comment. >> caller: hello. my name is deborah comb and i live directly across from 3737. i've lived here and owned this

home for the last 26 years with my wife. i'm really baffled how 3737 could get or give an exemption of not restoring the facade. as we are in a historical district. in the fact that it sits in the middle of three other homes that are identical to it. in 2017, our garage had a leak and we needed to do repair. during the permit process, we were told we could not change anything in regards to the front of our home because we were in historic districts. we were also informed in charge of additional fees for our permit because we were in a historic district. in addition to repairing the garage leak, we also wanted to repair our -- replace our

windows, our front windows and our garage floor. we were then told that we can only -- >> secretary: thank you. that is your time. >> caller: pardon me? >> secretary: that is your time. members of the public, last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star three. only for people who have not yet spoken or who are not party to the project sponsor or to the d.r. requester. you have one minute. >> secretary: is this ms. cone. ms. cone as previously stated your time is up and we were just asking for members of the public who have not yet spoken to submit to press star three if they're interested. ms. cone, i'm sorry i can't unmute you, you've already

spoken and you've gotten your one minute. so at this time, public comment is closed, but we should take -- provide rebuttal for mr. horde. mr. horde, you now have one minute. >> thank you. for the record, one of the developers came to my home this past sunday and asked me to withdraw my d.r. request. he said that he had his architect prepare a facade that was more consistent with adjacent houses. he showed it to me on his phone. i asked him to please send me those plans so that i could review them in more detail and not on a 3" by 5" piece of plastic and he refused to do so and because of that i had no choice but to deny him on request and i asked the planning commission to please get involved on staff recommendations. thank you.

>> secretary: thank you. mr. eastwood, you have a 1-minute rebuttal. >> hi. yeah, just to address mr. horde. you know, we have made numerous attempts over the last three months to talk to you. so, yeah. we have certainly attempted to engage you and product a dialog. with regards to the facade, we did pull off a few pieces of the cement siding to reveal a redwood tongue and groove horizontal siding which we will restore along with all wood window replacements with a lifetime matter. we agree with planning and preservation not to insert new decorative details. that's all i've got. thanks. >> secretary: great. thank you. okay. commissioners, that concludes the public hearing portion of

this item and it is now before you. >> president: i'll be supporting staff's recommendation today. commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i am in support of the project. move to approve. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: further deliberation commissioners? there is a motion that has been seconded to not take the approved project as proposed. on that motion [roll call] so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0 and concludes your agenda for today. thank you all for your attendance and your patience.

>> president: thank you. take care.

>> secretary silva, can you please call the roll? >> yes. [roll call] madame chair, you have a quorum. >> that brings us to our next item. >> item number 3, announcement of prohibition of sound producing devices in the meeting. item number 4, approval of minutes for the october october 5 regular meeting.

for members of the public, the phone number is 888-808-6929, the access code is 9961164. to address the board, dial 1 and then 0. >> are there any additions that you're aware of? ok. moderator, are there any callers on the line for the public comment on item number 4, approval of the minutes from october 5 meeting? operator: you have one question remaining. >> welcome, our first caller. >> hello. and your first caller is -- >> i knew it was you. >> caller: yeah, well, that's ok. let's see. i only got through page 8, but i have some minor edits on the minutes. starting on page three, hard

to manage different screens here, um, page three -- the joe kinsler public comment, appreciated director tomlin effort? maybe that should be apostrophe s. and then page three later on in the minutes, stacey rendecker, i believe her first name is stacy. on page four, again, joe kinsler, thanks staff for their work. was excited to ride muni the following week. maybe that needs an "and" after excited. for their work and was excited. maybe after "work." there was something else here. i think on my comment there,

public comment on the delay and commended on meeting materials being available at the 1 south van ness office. insert "the" before the number 1. on page six, the staff member who presented on that item, keenway key, i believe his last name is spelled k-y-i. and then again on public comment, stacey randecker, a spelling issue and i didn't get a chance to read through page eight, if i have anything further on page eight i'll communicate that to secretary silva. but i would recommend those minor league edits to you. thank you very much. >> thank you. moderator, are there any additional callers on the line? operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> that will close public comment. do we have a motion to approve the minutes with the minor corrections?

>> thanks to his edits, yes, i will move. >> second. >> i think i heard a second. yes. secretary, will you please call the roll? >> on the motion to approve the minutes with the corrections. [roll call] the minutes are approved. >> please call the next item. >> item number 5. communications. >> those who attended the last meeting you might recall that we lost three members of our taxi driver community. joseph tracy, dave longier and john penman. mr. tracy received his taxi driving permit in 1975. he initially drove for luxor cab and later yellow taxi until 2020. mr. longier received his taxi

driving permit in 2002. he initially drove for bay cab and yellow until 2021 and he drove taxis in toledo, ohio. prior to driving a cab, he taught english to students in china. mr. penman received his taxi driving permit in the 2005. he worked for the national veterans taxi cabs until 2020 and formerly was a driver for supershuttle in south san francisco. we want to thank and acknowledge the service of these members of our taxi community and close and adjourn our meeting in their honor today. also, due to the covid-19 health emergency, this meeting is being held virtually with all members and staff participating via teleconference. and our published notes for this meeting and on our web page, we ask the public to participate remotely by writing to the board and leaving a voice mail message. we get lots of e-mails and voice mails and i want to thank you all for your comments, particularly those received in advance of today's meeting. you are alwayses welcomed to

continue to write us at mtaboard@sfmt.com or call 415-646-4470 where you may leave a message in advance of our meeting. if you -- whether this is your first time or

>> i think i heard a second. yes. secretary, will you please call the roll? >> on the motion to approve the minutes with the corrections. [roll call] the minutes are approved. >> please call the next item. >> item number 5. communications. >> those who attended the last meeting you might recall that we lost three members of our taxi driver community.

joseph tracy, dave longier and john penman. mr. tracy received his taxi driving permit in 1975. he initially drove for luxor cab and later yellow taxi until 2020. mr. longier received his taxi driving permit in 2002. he initially drove for bay cab and yellow until 2021 and he drove taxis in toledo, ohio. prior to driving a cab, he taught english to students in china. mr. penman received his taxi driving permit in the 2005. he worked for the national veterans taxi cabs until 2020 and formerly was a driver for supershuttle in south san francisco. we want to thank and acknowledge the service of these members of our taxi community and close and adjourn our meeting in their honor today. also, due to the covid-19 health emergency, this meeting is being held virtually with all members and staff participating via teleconference. and our published notes for this meeting and on our web page, we ask the public to participate remotely by writing to the board and leaving a voice mail message. we get lots of e-mails and voice mails and i want to thank you all for your comments, particularly those received in advance of today's meeting. you are alwayses welcomed to continue to write us at mtaboard@sfmt.com or call 415-646-4470 where you may leave a message in advance of our meeting. if you -- whether this is your first time or your millionth time participating, you may note the technology that allows us to hold these meetings, if not seamless and sometimes there are gaps and silence as staff is transitioning or between speakers or sometimes we even lose the phone lines. please know that we're doing our very best to make sure that things run smoothly and will not continue the meeting if we lose the phone connection and people are not able to give their input. secretary silva? >> this meeting is televised. for those of you watching the live stream, be aware that there is a time lag between the actual meeting and what members of the public are seeing on sfgov tv. if you are watching and wish to comment on an item, please call the phone line when the item is called. for members of the public who wish to make comment, the number is 888-808-6929. the access code is 9961164.

please make sure you are in a quiet location, that you mute any tvs, radios or computers. directors, that places you on item number 6. introduction of new or unfinished business by board members. >> are there any items new or unfinished business? >> director hinze? >> the only thing is with the passage of ab-43, i was wondering if at a future meeting if staff would have our report to the board on maybe their plans on ab-43 and implementation and maybe [inaudible] as part of our vision zero tool box. so that was the only piece of new business i had. >> thank you. >> any other items or unfinished business from board members? >> chair boarden? >> yes? >> i want to publicly welcome my niece leila into the world. she was born on saturday at 12:45 a.m. >> congratulations. >> thanks. >> any additional questions or comments among board members? seeing none, we will move to public comment. that is -- this is public comment on our new unfinished business by board members so the comments from director yuck teal or comments from director lindsay may be commend on at this time. moderator, are there any callers? operator: you have two questions remaining. >> first speaker? >> caller: yes. hello, my name is james reagan. i've driven a cab in san francisco for 44 years. and i got a [inaudible] in 2013. it was an easy loan from the san francisco credit union. and because the credit union had received assurance from the m.p.a. that they had -- that the [inaudible] would be good collateral. s so the taxi business has been decimated and there is no markets for medallions, my

medallion has been foreclosured upon and, you know, the m.t.a. and the city, they paid penance to city employees. they would never consider not making those pension payments. but the m.q.a. is [inaudible] is in a position where we, you know, we're losing everything. you know, it's just not fair and even the people at the

m.p.a. know it whenever i'm around there. they seem very uncomfortable. and they know the situation. i've talked to a few of them. for some reason, there's not a political will to make the medallion hold their [inaudible]. and i think it is really unfair. you know, they're ruining lives. you know? and i think people at the m.t.a. know it and i wish they had the courage or whatever it takes to do something about it. so thank you. >> 30 seconds. ok. thank you. >> ok. i'm finished. thank you. >> this is just a reminder. this is for the -- this time is to comment on new and unfinished business by board members. so, items that are not on the agenda should be under public comment and if they're related to an agenda item, they should be made at the time of the kor responsibilitieding item that number is called. so, with that, we'll go to the next. >> caller: ok. thank you. >> yes, no problem. thank you. >> caller: all right. >> moderator, next caller, please. operator: you have three questions remaining.

>> next speaker? >> caller: mazeltov to director yuketiel on his new niece. it's nice to hear good news these days. >> thank you. next speaker. operator: you have two questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> caller: thank you, chair borden. this is kids safe s.f. mazeltov to director hinze's request. i'd love to see the agency get aggressive with the use of ab-43 to [inaudible] on our streets. we know that speed limits have a direct correlation to the safety of the street. and while not as effective as physical infrastructure, they do make a meaningful impact

and i applaud the agency as well as supervisor haney for their work in the tenderloin and applaud the agency and walk s.f. and their entire team for all of. their advocacy and hard work on helping to push ab-43 through at the state level. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. operator: you have one question remaining. >> next speaker. >> caller: thank you. this is joe kinsler. i hoped that the board will add to new business a thank you to all the transit operators who have vaccinate and the director for the vaccine mandate. i cannot -- i cannot thank enough director tumlin for imposing the vaccine mandate. i just rode your beautiful muni streetcar buses and muni metro a lot last week and it

was really nice knowing the high vaccination levels and commitment to quality and public safety. and i just think it's so wonderful to see director tumlin stand underand defend vaccines. i have another meeting starting at 1:30 but i wanted to call and reach out and let him know that he has big fans here in washington state. thank you for all you're doing. you may mute me now. >> thank you. next speaker, please. operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> we'll close the item of new and unfinished business by board members and move on to item number 7. >> item number 7, the director's report. >> director tumlin. >> thank you. it has been a very busy two weeks so we have a lot of work to cover. i'll be covering our vaccination rate, transit service impacts, vision zero, a legislative update, a budget update and finally updates on a couple of key projects.

so, let's start with vaccines. as the previous caller just stated, we're so grateful for the thousands of sfmta employees who have gotten themselves vaccinated and are doing everything that they can to pay attention to the science, to protect themselves, to protect san franciscans and protect their colleagues and their families. yesterday was the last day for employees to get a johnson & johnson shot or their second dose of a pfizer or moderna shot in order to be fully vaccinated by the november 1 citywide mandated deadline. as of today, about 83% of the sfmta staff are fully vaccinated. about 275 employees are not in compliance with the city's vaccination policy. we're also currently processing just over 100 reasonable accommodation requests. we've denied so far 10 of those. unfortunately the largest job classifications impact reasonable doubt our most important positions for

delivering service to the public and that includes transit operators and parking control officers. as of today, we have 70 reported transit operators are unvaccinated and 48 have not reported at all. that's out of over 1473 who were fully vaccinated. for parking control officers, we have 197 fully vaccinated. 14 partly vaccinated. eight reported as unvaccinated. and 24 nonreporting. so we're working hard to continue to bring those numbers down and the vaccinated numbers up because we do not want to lose a single employee and we know that the best way to protect the health and safety of our workforce is getting shots in every single arm. so in order to support higher vaccination rates, we're having our h.r. team and managers do one-on-one

meetings with every single afmta employee who's either unvaccinated or underreported. we've done question and answer sessions from the departments of public health. chair borden vid a video message for our staff and we've had a number of portal messages about the health science and about free vaccination events at our workplaces. so, we're continuing to work really hard on all of that because with a deadline that is rapidly approaching and on the transit side of the house, we're already missing the significant number of transit runs due to operator unavailability. so, that is already impacking our service. we're expectinging, if we're unsuccessful november 1, that there will be additional unexpected guests and service and lower than scheduled frequencies. as a result of this, we anticipate that next bus predictions will be

unreliable as we work to cover open runs. we are taking a whole long list of steps in order to minimize any sort of disruptions. this includes aggressive promoting overtime in all of our divisions. maximizing overtime for street supervisors and the transportation management center team so they can adjust in real time to spread out service, to respond to crowding or missed runs. we're using all available customers to let customers know about service impacts and working with the city on changes to improve our flexibility to cover open shifts. on the parking enforcement side, we're expecting to have to partially suspend abandoned vehicle enforcement, including commuter shuttle service enforcement as well as parking meter enforcement. in the worst case scenario, it may impact our ability to enforce placards and reduce

our operational details at chase stadium and we've continuing to pursue additional overtime for personnel so we can continue delivering the best service we possibly can while ensuring that we're fully compliant with the health mandate. i want to give a couple of updates on transit service. as i mentioned before, we're currently experiencing a high number of missed runs. especially on the weekend when we have been unable to find operators willing to work overtime to fill service gaps. we are, as you know, hiring and training aggressively and we will be graduating a new training program class on november 5. which would have otherwise helped to better restore service, but we're concerned that that new graduating class will be conflicting with the potential loss of operators who are refusing to comply with the vaccine mandate.

we're continuing to try to push headway management in order to smooth out missed runs. but we are continuing to struggle and we apologize to all of our passengers. who had to wait longer than expected for their bus. and i do also know that our teams have been working really, really hard to try to figure out how to allocate the new staff that we're continuing to hire and train and to allocate the new staff that we expect to have on board this winter. after speaking to all of you, the transportation authority board, our citizens advisory councils, we've met with over 30 stakeholder groups and have received over 5,000 survey responses in multiple languages. the customer feedback that we've received, our service strategy suggests that there are certainly some key lines and certainly segments of key lines that need to be

restored in order to deal with urgent community needs. we're so grateful to all members of san francisco communities who have responded so thoughtfully about exactly why and where they need certain transit lines in order to take care of their daily business and participate as full san front sister cans. we're also hearing a lot from people who are concerned about significant crowding on our busiest lines so we've also been sharpening our pencils about how to best allocate service in order to increase frequency and reliability where it is most needed. the team is finalizing a lot of staff work, incorporating all of that feedback. we're expecting to build a new policy to all of you on october 26 and the ticket to all of you as the full board

on december 7. we're continuing to work with community and policymakers in order to develop an expansion of the rapid network and other frequency improvements to address crowding as the system continues to recover, particularly after winter of 2022. on division zero, we had two new fatalities in the last reporting period. unfortunately on tuesday, october 5, a person operating an s.u.v., while under the influence, was traveling southbound on richardson and made an illegal left turn, fatally striking a motorcyclist traveling northbound. the driver has been arrested for vehicular manslaughter and driving under the influence. they surveyed the site at night and found the pavement and markings in new condition with a new bulb that had just been constructed. it's set to be constructed to a walk speed of 3 miles per hour as part of a promise on

lombard. the second southbound no left turn sign was discovered missing and is being reinstalled as part of the rapid response. and the second incident occurred on thursday, october 14. there was a pedestrian fatality from a hit and run collision at mcallister and van ness. the rapid response recommendations are still pending. the state legislative session ended with the governor acting on a number of key bills, sponsored or supported by the sfmta. they are now on recess and will reconvene on january 3. we're prepare ago list of priorities going into the second year of the current session and plan to come back for approval of those priorities in the coming months. as you know, the governor did sign ab-43. this is related to speed limit settings and was authored by assembly transportation committee chair laura friedman.

one of san francisco-and the sfmta's top legislative priorities and foundational element of our transportation policy agenda. ab-43 provides citis with some more flexibility and speed limit settings adjacent to playgrounds, health care facilities and pursuant to the final amendments taken to advance the bill, provisions related to business activity would take place on january 1 while other provisions would be specific to specified actions to be taken to the state including the implementation of an online ability to pay program. the bill also includes other provisions related to speed limits that the citis can use in order to avoid unnecessary speed limits -- speed limit increases based upon the antiquateedd [inaudible]. while there is work to be done to allow safety to be

the priority in speed limit setings, we really want to celebrate this win with the work that mayor breed and other families for streets and the bike coalition and all the citizens that wrote in and tweeted their support. thank you all for this win. we want to go back for more, but this gives us good ground to work with. we're happy with the passage of ab-197. this allows all public transit operators in the state to use forward-facing cameras to enforce the parking violations in transit only lanes and expanding the authorization to include enforcement in transit stops anywhere. sfmta was an early leader in the use of transit-only camera enforcement and has the only permanent program currently in california authorized in 2015 and operating under pilot since 2007.

there is a new 2.2 billion federal competitive operating grant opportunity that was announced recently with the federal transit administration and will be managed in part through the transportation -- metropolitan transportation commission or m.t.c. this new grant has created urgency for m.t.c. to allocate all of the remaining rescue plan and a.r.p. covid relief fund. as you know, in the last rounds of a.r.p. fund

distributions, the sfmta urged f.m.p. to allocate these funds. previous rounds of funding distributions have focused on revenue losses, compensating public transit agencies for their empty seats. here at the sfmta, though, we have an interesting confluence of factors which include ongoing, major losses of our key sources of revenue that will be lasting us several more years. so while we continue to suffer from significant financial losses that are suffering from missed runs, lines that are not back in service and severe crowding on many of our lines.

so we have urged m.p.c. to consider service restoration and the needs of passengers, not just the needs of empty seats. and seeking to fund additional commute express runs to job centers that will continue to be lacking office workers for years to come. it is unfortunate to distribute this final round of a.r.p. funds meant that equity was not able to be used as a core consideration. we understand that equity

analyticks are hard and that the data readily available in the national transit database does not necessarily lend itself to thorough analytics and we want to make sure that the m.t.c. commission can continue to work hard, to consider equity in all of its funding distribution. we call on m.p.c. to put money where the writers are. we'll receive augmented funding that will be considered by m.p.c. with the overall funding distribution as soon as their next meeting on october 27. the amount of the augmentation is to be determined but could raise sfmt's portion of the funding by up to $30 million. so, stay tuned on that and thank you for your continued support in delivering more service to places where the riders need it the most. finally i wanted to give some key updates on a variety of projects where we're making rapid progress. first off is the geary rapid project. we're having a ribbon cutting ceremony tomorrow at 12:30 p.m. at the peace plaza to mark the completion of this critical project that is helping to revitalize one of

san francisco's busiest corridor with reliable bus service, safer streets, upgraded facilities and new trees all of which was delivered on time and on budget. you can register online. the ribbon cutting will take place in front of the pagoda at the peace plaza on geary between webster and laguna. this will be an outdoor event with limited seating and limited mobility. so, please come join us tomorrow if you are able to make it. next up is the van ness improvement project. a project that we have learned many lessons on and applied those lessons to our wildly successful projects like geary rapids. the van ness project is now approximately 88% complete with substantial completion expected at the end of this calendar yore and the start of bus rapid transit ?fs early next year. the red transit-only lanes are finished as well as the overheadlines and utility upgrades, work on the roadways, about 96% complete

and sidewalk work about 91% complete. we're now finalizing the final elements like bus shelters, curbs, pedestrian mold-outs and landscaping and we're really proud of our partnership with the office of economic and workforce development that distributed $185,000 in direct grants to 23 businesses impacted by our construction. you'll see on the agenda later for this meeting, item number 14, is request for contract modification that addresses some roadway work that has already been completed. we've also been busy in our partnership with the recreation and parks department on j.f.k. in the eastern part of golden gate park. we've had a survey for golden gate park available online and in paper in five different languages and so far over 5200 surveys have been completed, including more than 500 paper surveys collected at community events all over the city. there have been 20 outreach

events completed since mid september. and we have an additional 15 scheduled outreach events through november that exists on equity priority communities, the disability community and park adjacent neighbors. we're scheduled to appear at our youth transportation advisory board on november 1 and our citizens advisory council on november 4. we are hoping to take a proposal to this board in late december or january with a propose told go to the full board of supervisors targeted for late january or early february. and finally, we're very happy on the central subway project that we've been successfully running a single train in full automotion mode along the corridor. as we tested the new automatic train control system and have now started testing two-car trains. all of the station es ka lays

toer and elevators are fully functional. the ticket vending machines are being installed now and that should be complete by mid november. and we were very excited to take mayor london breed on a tour that included taking her on a train ride between union square, market street station and the china town gross beck stations just a few weeks ago and that is the end of my report. i'm happy to take any questions. >> great. board members. are think any questions for the director before opening it to public comment. director hinze? >> thank you for that report. my question is going back to the vaccinations updates. hypothetically, say we terminate someone affectsive november 1 and they get their vaccine the day after and two weeks later they're eligible -- they're vaccinated and they want to return.

do you know -- can you shed any light on what the process would be for reinstatement of said person? >> we are eager to bring back all of our employees and get themselves vaccinated. and so we're working right now in streamlining the rehiring process. so it would be a rehire and the folks that would lose their seniorities but they would be welcomed back quickly. >> ok. >> we need all the staff that we can get. >> ok. >> thank you, chair. >> thank you. any other directors before i move on to public comment? seeing none, so this is time for members of the public -- oh, director heminger. >> thank you. >> thank you, madame chair. i'll leave the vaccination question, i think, director hinze has covered it.

on j.f.k., just to remind us of our role here, we're not a decision-maker. we're a remer. so, is what you're bringing to us in a few months' time going to be a recommendation to the board of supervisors? >> that's right. the board of supervisors has the authority over streets in most san francisco parks, including in golden gate park. we do not have authority there. but we have been providing a strong advisory and support role to recreation parks department and all of the transportation-related accommodations and we are eager to hear the advice and recommendation of the sfmta board, particularly for transportation-related issues relative to j.f.k. but also potential actions on adjacent streets or other

accommodations that may be part adjacent and under our jurisdiction. >> the other question i had, jeff, and i'm probably not alone, i was somewhat confused in reading one of our summaries of the options that are under consideration. bringing the cars back, everyone gets that. but there seems to be two options. one of which i think has been put in play by the district one supervisor about some kind of limited access around 8th avenue. and i sounds just like a mess to me, especially from a safety perspective to introduce a bunch of auto traffic in the middle of what people are now used to as a bicycle and pedestrian facility. so can you try to clear up what that -- what the other option, others than current condition versus restoring auto traffic prepandemic, what are the other options?

>> so, we have been struggling to accommodate some requests by the district one supervisor as well as department institutions in order to provide closer in pickup and dropup as well as direct access to the loading dock. so there was an idea for managed access that we've been struggling to figure out how to design in a way that is safe and so the best configuration that we've been able to come up with that is -- that minimizes the operational complexity and safety concerns would be to allow access from 8th avenue on to j.f.k. with one way, one lane of traffic along j.f.k., along the north side of j.f.k. from 8th avenue to transverse.

this would accommodate a small number of curbside pick up and drop-off and potentially 88 spaces. and it's one of the three options that is being considered in the -- in the sort of primary survey work that we're doing. and tom mcguire, who's our streets director is also sfraibl you want more detail on this. >> couldn't the pickup and drop-off function be done underground in the garage? >> yeah. so, as i hope you all know by now, the 10th avenue entrance to the park lees straight into the garage and the garage is free for 15 minutes to use it for front door pickup and dropoff at both deyoung and academy. this is a little-known secret and there is a very limited signage at the parking garage entrance off of fulton. and so one of the easiest

solutions for expanding front door access from both the north as well as the south is to take better advantage of the enormous, mostly empty parking garage that is underneath the concourse. and there will be a lot of recommendations relative to the garage in the final report and hopefully that will go to the board of supervisors for legislative action. >> yeah. as i understand it, the garage has this very unusual governance structure. right? where, unlike a lot of other city garages, it's not managed by us. it's not managed by the museum either. is it the legacy of the folks that put the bond measure on the ballot sort of have seats on a board that determines pricing and so on? >> yes. i will not even -- although i studied the garage issue extensively, i will not pretend to understand all of its complexity.

we will point out that it is a significantly underutilized resource. >> i want to point out that it was not agdized for today's hearing. we don't want to go too far down the path talking about this topic. so, we'll be having a hearing on it, it sounds like. so we could discuss those issues then. thank you. >> thank you. >> i guess i'm done. [laughter] directors, are there any other additional questions or comments among you? seeing none -- sorry. yeah. >> thank you, chair. sorry. maybe you're not seeing the chat function today. so, just to backtrack a little bit, director tumlin. can you clarify for us, given the possibility of us facing it seems like by my count maybe a little over 100 operators. are we actually still on track to increase 10% service? >> so it's -- depending upon

what the numbers end up being in november, it will potentially delay our 85% service until later in the winter. what that delay will be will depend upon how many operators we, in fact, lose. and that how quickly we can accelerate hiring and training. >> ok. so, fine. i guess november 1 that we already know now that there are people who have not yet responded or obtained a vaccine. so, at a minimum, it sounds like we have 48 operators that have not responded so maybe they have gotten a vaccine on their own and just responded. but there's at least 707 that we're losing it sounds like? >> no. those folks can still, if they -- if they gets vaccinated at any time, we can bring them back. >> reinstate them. got it. ok. great. and then if you could just remind us, i believe at our last service increase

hearing, staff had mentioned that the plan was to continue the process during this month as we finalize the service increase plan. what are the remaining engagement opportunities for this month? there are a couple of virtual meetings that had been planed? >> there are several and if transit money manager sean kennedy is available he could respond directly to that. >> i'm going to take a stab because sean had a conflict for this meeting. we wrapped up the phase of the project where we were sharing three different approaches for the service as jeff indicated, we got a lot of really good feedback. we hosted a virtual workshop on saturday and we're hosting another one tomorrow. where we share what we heard in that survey and collect any other information. we're also -- we've also

already had dozens of conversations with community groups and other stakeholders. that tends to be a very rich source of feedback because this is more dialogue and we'll continue to do that. and we're working to bring some preliminary recommendations to the october policy advisory group meeting of this board along with responding to two board of supervisor hearings in november. so our goal is to have several policymaker dialogue about the recommendations before bringing it to you december 7. with the last workshop opportunity on wednesday and then continuing with ad hoc community discussions between now and december. >> and details for all of

those events are available at sfmta.com/2022network. >> i also wants to share that the workshop tomorrow will be multilingual and we'll have interpreters so we do encourage people to participate in the language they're most comfortable with. >> great. thank you. thank you, chair. >> director eaken? >> thank you, chair borden. just two quick comments. one is just a thank you, director tumlin, for all of the creativity and outreach that you are doing to staff. i know this is just one of the many challenges you never envisioned. [laughter] it has to be extremely challenging. and also just very supportive as director hinze said in anything we can do to make it as easy as possible for those who, sadly, may have to be terminated to rejoin the agency once they're fully vaccinated so thank you for

the creative problem-solving work there to see any paperwork or red tape that can be cut to welcome people back. and the second is just to join you in the celebration. i know the m.t.a. staff have worked so hard on ab-43 and that was touch and go at points. it wasn't a sure thing by any stretch. is and that is a huge victory and that was our number one legislative priority throughout this year and great tots see so many san francisco partners stepping up to push that in sacramento as well. and thanks to mayor breed. and i wanted to echo director hinze's request for just some more detailed briefing on how we're going to use the new hard-won authority under ab-43 to the maximum effect in san francisco. thank you, chair. >> thank you. and i'm looking at my thing. i don't see another hand raised. >> i have one. >> ok. >> thank you.

i'll make it quick. i just want to say, i don't know, i'm feeling like we are in the valley and we're about to start climbing that peak. i was walking down market street and i was seeing a lot of people walk down market street and my crystal ball is tilling me that the city is on the edge of glory and we're going to have -- we're on the ups and we're thinking a lot more people are coming back and taking our system. i'm just going to put that out there. let it be reflected in the record that i'm feeling like we're at the beginning of the good right now. so i just want to put that out there. that is not my question but just something that i feel like needs to be said. what is going on with market street? it has been almost a year since we voted on it and if i remember correctly there was something where we had to make some movement or elsewhere we lose federal funs and i want to make sure -- i know the team is obviously keeping that in mind.

but can you give me a brief update on where that project is? >> so, deputy city attorney, does this count as brief business or can we provide a brief summary? >> yeah. thank you. you can certainly give a brief response to the question. but if it's more detailed, i would suggest coming back at a later date or providing something in writing. >> yeah. i just want to remind the directors that this time is to ask questions about things on the actual director's report and not things that we wish were on the director's report. >> sorry about that. >> i heard you talk about van ness and then i heard central sub waist and i know there's a trifecta the here, but where's number three. >> ok. so, chair, just a very brief update? >> very brief. >> ok. so, yes. the third of our big three major capital projects. so, we're mindful of that

deadline. we're on track to not lose that funding, however we're also working very closely with our partners at public works to make sure that if we, you know, if and when we go forward with construction of some basic state of good repair work, which would be the best use of those funds, that we do it in a way that doesn't disrupt certainly the recovery and the return of business that we noted. so, we're working right now to -- with the public works department to a advertise a skinny version of the project and address some state of repair and knees. but hopefully doesn't disrupt transit service or circulation or anything like that. we won't be moving forward with construction unless we can be sure that whatever work is done is not disrupted to market street's recovery. >> ok. thank you. >> great. so now i'm going to -- unless there is another -- any other comments from directors?

i am going to open up the public comment. this is a time for members of the public to make comments on anything covered on the director's report, which includes what the director said directly and the questions and comments made by directors. if you'd like to speak to this item, press 1-0. moderator, are there callers on the line? operator: you have eight questions remaining. >> first speaker, please. we cannot hear you if you're speaking. perhaps -- operator: you have nine questions remaining. >> please go ahead. hello, are you speaking there?

secretary silva, we're going to go to the third person but maybe check with at&t and see if there is anything wrong with the line. next speaker, please. operator: you have eight questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> caller: thank you. my pronounces are she and her. always good to be back with you. i'm going to speak mostly on the vaccination matter and i reiterate to you that that was a matter discussed in this report so i am in line here. please indulge me. i maintain the importance, once again, of vaccinations. and i ask that you not get cold feet in your enforcement of this lawful order.

requiringing vaccinations. i have been vaccinated myself and i wear masks often. including in compliance with the t.s.a. directive to wear masks on transportation. but even though i am substantially protected myself by being vaccinated, reiterate it is essential because of the threat of what is called breakthrough infection. so that is why i emphasize even more the importance of being vaccinated. the unemployment rate across the country is still pretty high. and they're going -- there are many people out there in the world who are looking for work. and sfmta offers good jobs. i ask that you be willing to

open yourselves up to new people who are willing to do these jobs if there's some who wish to leave the sfmta and that iss a person's right. if they wish to leave employment. i have left employment myself from another jobs that i have in my career. except for enlisting in the military, people are free to leave. so i ask that you stand strong for the good of the people because i want the safest muni that i can get. because even though i am vaccinated, i want everything -- >> 30 seconds. >> caller: the odds in my favor to protect me. i ask that you do your due diligence in enforcing this lawful order. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. operator: you have nine questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is richard hoffmann and i wish the staff would put out a report about ab-43 on what steps need to be taken to get it implemented as soon as possible. and i think fulton street

should be top priority because this should be part of j.f.k. car-free because cars are coming on to fulton street, especially on sunday and fulton street is a very dangerous street. i think ab-43 could be the experiment for fulton street. and the other thing about j.f.k., nobody's really talking about the conservancy of flowers. the two plans they have now are completely inadequate. that argoello entrance. i don't know if you've seen i. but it is not acceptable. i don't know why they're advertising it. and i don't know why i have a proposal that you open up stanyon street to j.f.k. to conservancy west and have cars that have people who have mobility issues drive along the north side.

they will put up lighted christmas trees. they always have a flower show there. so, you know, j.f.k. has to be open to everybody. we need to be equal -- >> 30 seconds. >> and we need to learn to share roads. and that is what bothers me is that nobody wants to compromise. it's either all or nothing in this city. and when i say share roads, i feel like i'm the only person. thank you for letting me speak. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have eight questions remaining. >> next speaker? >> hello. my name is desmond, taxi driver with veterans cab. i just wanted to give two quick comment. one was about forward facing cameras on transit vehicles enforcing the red lane. taxi and muni-only lanes. why not open that up to the

taxi drivers? we get stuck behind the uber drivers in those lanes all shift long and i think it would give some drivers a sense of pleasure to give those tickets. so you know, it's just an idea. would probably create a lot of revenue. we all have cameras already mounted in our cabs and i know there is a lobbying campaign by uber and lyft to get access underway and, you know, almost 50% of the cars are uber and lyft. can you imagine how slow the buses will be runing if you put it in uber and lyft lanes? we need to keep it taxis and buses only. and my last comment about the garage pickups at deyoung, please keep curbsides access for taxis. if you are staged outside a museum or venue or something, people see the cab and they

will hop in. they don't see a cab, they'll get on the phones and walk down the garage, you never get those people. we need line of sight access to these venues. thank you. and you can cut my line off now. >> thank you. next speaker, please. operator: you have seven questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> caller: thank you, chair borden and director tumlin for your report. regarding the golden gate park safety program, thank you to you and your team for your continued work on this project and associated survey. kid safe j.f.k. or the street park playground, incredibly popular with more than seven million visits since its creation. the space is safer than it ever was with zero injuries since its creation compared to preinjury high network status. in addition to creating a safe space for kids, people with all ages and disabilities could enable people to visit the

sustainable modes of transportation like never before while allowing people who must use a car to visit the institutions and park more broadly. including through the garage that was alluded to. with over 5,000 responses, kid safe j.f.k. known as the car-free route options preferred by more than70% of survey respondents. the public has may it overwhelmingly clear which option they support and demand that deyoung and [inaudible] go against the will of the people of san francisco while simultaneously trying to fool the found thinking that they're painted as the evil party. lobbying against the pears what [inaudible]. it's imperative they do more. >> 30 seconds. >> currently people under 18 years old total five. five responses or less than

.10% while people 120924 years old total 145 responses or less than three total responses. given the benefit to kids youth and young adults, these response rates are too low. we need to see more outreach to young adults regarding the golden gate park program. thanks again. and have a great rest of your day. >> thank you. next speaker, please. operator: you have five questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> caller: hi. good afternoon. this is barry toronto. first, mazeltov to director yukitel on his niece. i want to get back to first

mention a few things that tumlin discussed. first, as previous speaker said, we need to be able to be staged and seen at the amenities in the park in order for people to take us. because not everybody has access to an ap or phone number to it -- to a cab company. if they do, they need to see us there in front. plus also if it's a ramp, 15 minutes is not enough time to wait for the customer and load them into the wheelchair to get out of the garage. so that is and absurd, absurd suggestion for taxis. and i have not been into the park since before the pandemic because there is no easy access there. so there is a call for service, i'm not going because i'm not taking an hour to get there and find that the person has already taken off.

and also there is a stop sign at 8th and j.f.k. i heard that nobody stops at that stop sign. no bicyclist stops at that stop sign. i want you to know what you are going to do to deal with that issue. >> 30 seconds. >> regarding the vaccinations, i'm wonering if there is some way that the taxi division can somehow issue some type of identification that says this driver is fully vaccinated. i know we're not employees of the m.t.a. but there must be some way so that we can encourage people to take taxis with a driver who's vaccinated. for safety and health purposes. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you mr. toronto. next speaker, please. operator: you have six questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> caller: [background noise]

[speaking foreign language] >> hello. you are on the line. >> caller: [inaudible]. operator: you have five questions remaining. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello? hello? moderator, next speaker, please. operator: you have four questions remaining. >> hello? >> caller: hi. my name is stacey and i bike pretty much everywhere and my teens take muni. i'm calling in response to the comments on car-free j.f.k. i cannot believe that we're still discussing this and the entirety of golden gate park is not car free. there should be limited access to the parking garage and to the parking lots for sports fields. and that is it.

the planet is burning. cars kill and we're supposed to be aiming for vision zero and we can't improve one iota from 2014 when we were supposed -- when we set out that goal. how can we be so blind? get cars out and that includes taxis. nowhere, no cars. have them queue in the garage. think creatively about hand-outs inside the museum to incentivize them to take taxis or, heck, the bus. have a system. do something. but they shouldn't be on the concourse. they shouldn't be anywhere inside of our parks. i don't want to hear about bicyclists and stop signs. i don't want to hear about sharing the road. there is no sharing! because there's no quality. -- no equality. when a bicyclist can kill the driver of a car, then we can talk about it. but that is a physical

impossibility and you all know it. you cannot share -- >> 30 seconds. >> caller: when there is that much of a difference between life and death. if you care about the people in the city, if you care about saving this planet, you need to think of every way to limit the access for cars and increase the mandate for being a pedestrian-first ste. please, keep cars out of our parks. that. operator: you have three questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> caller: thank you. thank you for having me. this is joe kinsler again. i was able to get out of my meeting and duck back into this one and thank director tumlin profusely for the vaccine mandate. muni was my taxi last week and i so appreciate the

vaccine mandate and, again, all of those operators who have gotten vaccinated. we have to consider being locked up in our homes, a. or, b, using ride sharing and taxis that have drivers that are vaccinated. it is so important to come one this interim pain of, you know, service disruptions to have transit operators and seniors and support staff like the wonderful status report of these meetings be vaccinated. vaccines matter. i just left a board of health meeting where we were discussing vaccine passports for restaurants because we wanted to stop the spread of this virus so we can get ridership back and maintain the strong equity policies that director tumlin is pushing.

even seamless bay area is supportive of these policies. i cannot thank director tumlin enough as well as bart director powers for these policies for a vaccine mandate and i know -- >> 30 seconds. >> caller: it will be a rough ride for a while. but please stand firm. again, thank you director tumlin and i hope that you please mention my comments so that the people who support these mandates are heard equally. thank you for your time. >> thank you. is there another caller on the line? moderator? operator: you have five questions remaining. >> caller: hi. this is sully, cab driver. i would like to let you guys

know about the [inaudible] medallion. we've been waiting for a long time and we don't have any solution or result for this medallion. we're asking for city of san francisco to buy back these medallions because this program is [inaudible] and we cannot stay longer to be continued this job for age, for sickness and other problems. and please i ask you again to purchase this medallion back or release ourselves as the [inaudible] federal union bank and we'll be able to continue normal life. i ask you again and again. please, we cannot take it anymore. we don't want to be [inaudible] business. please, help us to get free.

this business for us is end. and no further questions. thank you. >> ok. next speaker, please. operator: you have five questions remaining. >> caller: hello, my name is patrick and i'm just calling about car-free golden gate park. i've been a long-time supporter of deyoung academy. go there all the time. take my family there. guests are in from out of town, i go there. i know people who go there even more often than i do. i try to go a couple of times a month. and i support not having any cars in all of golden gate park. the deyoung academy has a garage underneath. it's real easy for me to take public transit with my family or friends to get to the park.

it is an amazing experience. you hop on bart, connect on muni and you are there with a short walk. so, we have that huge underused parking garage underneath the museum and drivers who choose to drive an automobile in a city can take a little tunnel off of fulton into the parking garage and park there. and i never needed to use a car in golden gate park and i don't even live near the park. like i said, i live in oakland and can take public transit there. so i'd really urge sfmta to do what new york city did years ago under the block deal, which is they made central park completely car-free and fast forward a few years later, that's been one of the best changes they made over the last few years is making their, you know, park car-free. i think golden gate park would be a much better place and safer place if we got rid of all the cars. >> 30 seconds.

>> caller: including those cars as well. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. operator: you have three questions remaining. >> caller: this is herber winer. i wish to voice my concerns about community out reach. what m.d.a. has done is they framed the parameters of dialogue. in other words, [inaudible] instead of us presenting m.t.a. with choices. and this is especially relevant to the restoration of service post-pandemic. this is very important because you need to have a full restoration of service. it seems if you move forward in disguise, using the pandemic as a smoke screen. and what we need to do is to

restore the transportation, which is so desperately needed. this proposal that is given right now is taking services away from the neighborhoods which needs public transportation desperately. and if you really need more services on the more heavily used lines, simply add more buss to the heavily used lines and leave the neighborhoods alone. now with respect to vaccinations, i have been vaccinated, and ahope everyone concerned is vaccinated. but we need another vaccination. and that is against m.t.a.'s post pandemic planning. that truly is a social disease. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. operator: you have three questions remaining. >> my name is mohammad.

i'm a taxi driver in san francisco for the last 24 years and we have a promise from the board supervisor two years ago to purchase medallion to stop payment or to help them with the loans. we got stuck with the [inaudible], i don't know what to do. we've been saying for the last 10 years and we have no income and one more thing, we waited 14 years on the waying list -- >> i'm sorry. i'm sorry, sir. this is for comments on the director's error. i don't believe taxis were covered on the director's report. susan, can you correct me if i'm wrong. we shouldn't be hearing comment not on the director's report. >> that's correct. this commenter can comment during general public comment, which is the next item. >> that is item 9, sir. >> caller: sorry. >> next speaker, please. operator: you have two questions remaining.

>> yes, hello. i'm a taxi driver. i'm talking because i see all the red line that you have for [inaudible] issued for taxis. and i don't know why uber and the rest of the people and tried to make it and cell phone and all the taxis and that way we can see the -- >> excuse me, sir. are you speaking about rapid transit or van ness? we spoke about geary rapid transit. otherwise, we'll ask you to speak under public comment. >> caller: let me finish.

all the red zones, the new ones there only for passes. passes only. so it should be for taxis, too. so as you can see, we are not many taxis. and there is plenty thousands of uber cars that make mistake and they have a lot of [inaudible] and everything. and the tv never say nothing about them. but something happened to the taxi -- for the taxis and [inaudible]. and that is something else. why don't sfmta send medallions to the uber drivers at $250,000 and we'll see how everything is. thank you. >> next speaker, please. operator: you have one question remaining. >> caller: hi. i would like to let you guys know the taxi business in san francisco is gone.

please be -- >> sir, sorry. just for consistency, i'm going to need you to ask to speak under general public comment as well because taxis were not addressed by the director's report. i said that to the other speakers a well. can you call back in under item 9. it's public comment, coming very soon. >> caller: i understand exactly. but, you know, the point is that you guys do have to know to be part of the city and correct this mistake from the m.t.a. the medallion -- >> ok. moderator, are you able to help with this? operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> thank you so much. secretary silva, can we move forward on the agenda? >> of course. places you on item number 8. citizens advisory council report. and i believe michael chan and chair of the c.a.c. is here. thank you.

>> welcome. >> good afternoon, directors. i'll try to be very quick. the c.a.c. met last week. we had -- with the resolutions to make sure that [inaudible] were able to go remote. we heard three items at the c.a.c. the first one was about para transit, the second one was about the general fund that will fund infrastructure and capital projects in june. and our third item was service plans for the next -- for the next update of service that was originally scheduled for february but as director tumlin mentioned, may be delayed pending staffing changes. we had no resolutions for the board of directors, but i do want to comment on the service plan. we've had a -- some discussion about the trade-offs between frequency and coverage and one of my

comments is just that priorization requires people to feel [inaudible] on both sides and to ask the agency to help explain the value of frequency better to the ridership. as well, i want to also mention that two of our members who are close to community organizations in china town and mission portala felt disappointed with the outreach in terms of paper survey. they received them on friday, october 1 and the survey deadline was on monday, october 4. and they felt that there was not enough -- there was not enough time for them to reach out to their community and get their responses in. the -- one other thing. so, that's the -- that was on the agenda can. we have surveyed our members. we had 15 seats and about 11 of them are filled. we had a list of priorities

about what b.c. would like to hear during presentations of staff from the next few months and our top priorities are very similar probably to the board. near term service planning, number one. number two, state of the repair. number three, budget priorities. and number four, vision hero and we're looking forward to working with the board to co-ordinate and make sure these presentations have an absolute impact. lastly, our representive and vice chair as prioritized talking about changes to jay church, which is for our meeting which is also in the service plan discussion. we had a presentation on j.f.k. drive as director

tumlin mentioned in golden gate park and personally many of our budgets-minded council members also like to understand the near term funding plans for the agency and that is the end of my report. >> ok. thank you so much. it is really valuable to have the citizens advisory committee report. are there any questions for him? director lai, please. >> yeah. what were the sentiments from the c.a.c. around reliability in the equation of considering new frequency? >> well, as you know with the board with members where we had a lot of members and probably 11 different opinions. the comments i heard, we had a few members who were, includinging myself to be frank, about to say frequency and reliability and crowding were a priority. we also had other members who valued having [inaudible] so it wasn't so much about -- it was less about how fast the

bus came or how [inaudible] the ride was, but [inaudible] transfers so that was an imminent shown in the jay church discussion and also some discussions about traveling between the richmond and fort mason, for example. >> ok. chair chan? >> thank you. >> great. any other director questions or comments? seeing none, let's open up the phone line for public comment on the citizens advisory council report. only. operator: you have two questions remaining. >> next speaker, plea. >> caller: can you hear me now? >> yes, we can. >> caller: great. david again. all i want to say about the c.a.c. right now is chair michael chen is doing a fine job and the vice chair did a fantastic job chairing the last meeting. on thursday.

thank you to both of the them and to the other members currently serving. thanks. >> thanks for the feedback. next speaker, please. operator: you have one question remaining. >> caller: good afternoon. this is edward mason. i would like to comment regarding the c.a.c. meeting. there was overwhelming support for not -- for -- against the forced transfer of the jay church at church and market. numerous examples were given of problems encountered with that and also an observation of safety, nighttime transfers and also one comment was made of an observation where a person with a walker inadvertently got their walker stuck in the

track, making the crossing across church street. so we need to be very cautious on our proceedings with the forced jay church transfer. thank you. >> thank you. are there any further speakers on the c.a.c. report? operator: you have one question remaining. >> go ahead. >> caller: this is a 30 years cab driver and i would like to leave you [inaudible]. you guys know how the medallion -- >> ok. once again, sir, i apologize. the taxi item was not on the c.a.c. report. this is the very next item. thank you very much. >> caller: i understand. thank you very much. i appreciate it. >> ok. any final comments on c.a.c. report? operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> ok. great. we'll close public comments on c.a.c. report and note that chair borden is back and

pass off to you for public comment. >> item number 9, public comment. >> are there members of the public who would like to speak on items that are not on today's agenda? if we already discuss it or are about to discuss it, this is not the time. this is the time to address other issues that may be of concern that are within sfmta's jurisdiction. moderator, are there any callers on the line? operator: you have nine questions remaining. >> first speaker, please. >> caller: hello. i'm a taxi driver and medallion owner. i would like to know when [inaudible] is going to buy us out. $250,000, there is no money on the street and the reason we aren't making this [inaudible] is because we make no money. we don't say nothing and there is no business.

all the business, they make [inaudible]. and they don't pay not even a penny for nothing. so, the reason they're [inaudible] please, buy us out or make lyft or uber to buy us out. at the moment that you guys give me the money, i give you my medallion very happy and i want to say thank you very much for your terrible business. thank you. >> thank you. the next speaker, plea. operator: you have 10 questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> caller: yes. hello. my name is matt sutter and i'm one of the purchasers, 771. we now know in the court case between the bank and the city that you have received $1.6 billion for pandemic relief. if the sfmta recommended the bank defer our loans for two

years, and if you truly felt that way, then the board should approve some pandemic relief funds to the medallion purchasers and to keep us from further foreclosers. the majority of the purchasers are in a state of panic and no longer can keep up with these payments. and due to covid, there are no conventions, nobody's going into the office, increasinging gas prices and wintertime is here. so, there will be no tourism. also, most of the k medallions are elderly and have underlying health conditions and should also be considered. it is evidence that the m.t.a. is never going to call this failed medallion sales program failed and we're also asking you to consider issuing a bond to bail us all out. repurchasing medallion -- these are the same loans that the banks gave the people who cannot afford them and it is

time for action on your part before the pandemic, eight of the 11 board of supervisors were in agreeance to start a buyback program. >> 30 seconds. >> on another note, why did the m.t.a. put a ka bash on the central dispatch platform format and why are you trying to stop us from going on market street. that is the only advantage to the cab drivers and citizens of san francisco. the bank will be calling in all of these loans if there is more foreclosures and we need a buyback program implemented right now. this is an unbelievable situation that you have put us in this position and we have no money to pay for our families. people put their homes on the line and it is time to do something. you guys have done nothing for us but try to hamper us. you make changes after the lawsuit was filed. and just flat-out, you know,

malfeasance on your part. why are you guys trying to hamper us and put us in a state of poverty? we're the ones that put money into san francisco. we have also asked [inaudible] to start an app and charge so we can start putting money back into san francisco instead of feeding the tech companies. there's no reason for you guys to the not have a little more, you know, ideas on bringing money into san francisco instead of take it out. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. operator: you have nine questions remaining. >> hello. >> hello. >> caller: my name is benjamin. i'm a 17-year san francisco cab driver. i just wanted to give you a quick analogy. these medallions, they're kind of like liquor licenses and i imagine you bought your liquor license and had your cocktail bar up and running for $250,000 and somebody rents a store front next to

you and start selling drinks. baoers and cocktails. but the customers order their cocktails through nap. -- through an app and you go to the liquor board and say hey, i paid $250,000 for my liquor license. what's up with this guy next door selling drinks through an app. well, can't do anything about it. sorry! can't do anything about it. it's ridiculous. it's absolutely ridiculous. you know, and i mean, i'm of the opinion that those drivers that bought for $250,000, something needs to be done for them. maybe they don't have to be paid back entirely. maybe 50%. but something to ease their burden. it's ridiculous. also, you know, i work the city. i don't sit at the airport. and thety city is busy right now and it's going to slow down. we need more drivers working the city. we need more cab drivers. i'm 41 years old and i think i'm the youngest cab driver any passenger has ever gotten. so it's like how do we attract new blood to the industry? how do we get the next

generation of cab drivers out there? and i think, at this point, anybody who's been driving a cabs for 10 years longer with a consecutive [inaudible] card should be give and k-medallion. let the ps who spent all the money have the airport and that way you get somebody who's maybe an uber or lyft driver who has no future and will be replaced by a robots and you can say, dude, if you drive a cab, you will be able to own your own business in 10 years and maybe the robots are going to take over. but the robots right now can't drives through a puddle or drive in the rain and i hear they're pretty far off and we need more money in the taxis right now. i spent 17 years driving and this past saturday with the phish concert was one of my best 10 days ever and there's people begging for cabs at these events. you know what we need to do? every driver who's had an a-card for 10 years or longer, they get a k-medallion from the city and we get morse people out there working. thank you for your time.

my name is benjamin. >> thank you. next speaker, please. operator: you have nine questions remaining. >> next speaker? operator: hi. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. operator: my name is marcelo. i'm a career cab driver. a k-medallion holder. during the credit union trial, witnesses for this agency denied that the medallion sales program have failed. one of the witnesses even bragged about an opened up buyers pool. the truth is the last medallion sold was almost six years ago and for all medallions sold, 300 have been foreclosed on. you can't deny that the program has failed and you can't deny that its failure has become a drag on the entire taxi industry.

the lawsuit with the credit union is over. but you're not off the hook. we are still faced with a lot of problems. you have to take responsibility for this human tragedy. you really have to change your policies. driving ks and preks out of business, barring them from service in the airport, enforcing them to drive, to either drive until they drop dead or have their medallions revoked, won't solve deaths nor foreclosures that ps are faced with. your policies have failed. the medallion system is broken. and the taxi industry still cannot compete. you really need to completely -- you really need to completely revamp the system. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. operator: you have nine questions remaining.

>> next speaker. operator: hi. we're wading through the electronic promises and that is why you can't hear us right away. we can't speak until we hear the end of the electronic prompt. i'm an immune-compromised 58-year-old man. i'ves been a career taxi driver in san francisco since 1994. i choose to be vaccinated. thank you for allowing me to speak today and welcome to the newborn baby. coming back to work last month as a medallion holder after 18 months, i am seeing more than double my daily operating expenses. this is due to a lack of drivers, complete lack of drivers, gas inflation and then the same old age-old competition and traffic obstructions from t.n.c.s and there's a waste of much time on inefficiently dispatched calls that end up as dead ends on my shift. during the last 18 months while the pandemic

unemployment assistance was available, over 25% of those funds i received went directly to the san francisco federal credit union for my medallion that was completely unused during that time. another 25% went to my medical premiums, which i need to keep going during a pandemic, of course. and anyone could see that. and i went into substantial debt in order to pay the rest of my bills and rent. of the these drivers that i had working with me in march of 2020, they all three quit in the first week. one has decided to retire, another has joined the u.s. postal service and committed to his family to give it a year and the third is now crossing -- a crossing guard in fairfax, making better money than he would driving a cab. what will you do with the 1.6 or $1.8 billion bailout for those at the m.t.a. duped into buying medallion with no backbone to protect us? where is the innovation in that? does anyone there care about those of us who filled the

coffers of n.a. with over $75 million on the medallion sales program? please consider a bond to alleviate the failed paid medallion program. the airport program that allows only paid medallions is only a nod to us. it's at the expense of our comrades, the guys we work side by side with every day and avoids any accountability to the m.t.a. at all. it just puts it on us and puts us in an awkward position with our fellow drivers that are ks and ts watching the ps go in and work the airports. it's not fair. it's not fair. i don't like working there unless they open it up to all drivers. the 8000 series worth of medallions that benefited the companies that you gave those medallions to, upwards of $250,000 a year. that is a low estimate. that is profit after factors in their insurance, their vehicle comps and the management for those cabs. they profited above all their expenses, at least a quarter of a million a year.

on those medallions that were given to them while i was waiting on the list, mind you,s for my free medallion and once those 8000s and the s medallions were put out, then i was asked to pay for a medallion. i would have gotten a free one had those two programs not been put into effect under my fee. so thanks for nothing. i expect nothing. but thank you for letting me speak today. you can cut me now. >> thank you. next speaker, moderator? operator: you have nine questions remaining. >> next speaker. operator: thank you. i'm going to talk about some different things because it's public comment and i can talk about what i want. i was in new york a month ago and i was in the port authority bus terminal. maybe some of you have seen it. i use it every day when i'm there. and there is a sign that said don't let hate rise.

i ask this in our muni that we have a policy, don't let hate rise. and i use airports and every time i go to an airport, i use public transportation. public transportation doesn't discriminate against me. now in new york, it's really easy. they have this transportation system. i use my phone to pay for it. it's called a subway. perhaps some of you have seen it. it's really easy. i get on. and the subway doesn't care if i'm wearing a skirt or if i'm wearing a raiders' t-shirt or that i'm a disabled veteran or that i'm jewish. i want this muni to be a system that will accept people like myself who [inaudible] established definition. so, the nice thing about those scooters they don't discriminate. i scan an app.

a q.r. code that lets me ride. when i ride on the subway, your subway, it lets me ride because i scan a clipper card. i ask of you, i know you probably don't talk or think about it, but i want you to remember that the community that uses muni is very diversed constituency. i wasn't born in san francisco. i was born in new york city. as was my sister, my parents and my grandparents. but i'm just as much a customer of muni. i ask that you build a muni where all can be welcomed and be safe. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. operator: you have 10 questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> caller: hi. it's stacey rangdecker again. i'm writing -- or i'm asking that every sfmta board meeting, that there would be a report on what sfmta has

done to address the most pressing issues that it can in a climate emergency, vision zero, and transit first. transportation is the number one contributor to greenhouse gases in the u.s. so, what did you do in the past weeks to reduce emissions? regarding vision zero, well there are 803 days until we're supposed to reach vision zero yet we're at the very same level as when this goal was established in 2014. we haven't moved the line one bit. so what have you done in the past two weeks to keep cyclists and pedestrians safe from drivers? and if we have lost anyone, if someone has been killed on our streets, what are we doing about it? i don't want to have to wait months. i want to know every two weeks what are we doing to keep people safe where we know that there are problems. and lastly, it's been 48 years and seven months since

we declared ourselves a transit-first city yet i see transit taking a backseat to cars every damn day. why aren't we rolling out the red carpet all across the city? why aren't we encouraging, if not requiring, our city workers and elected fishs to ride the muni and see what our transit is like. we need an sfmta that is going to [inaudible] the things that our city has put out as resolutions to really uphold them. they're the ones to do it. where are we on climate emergency, where are we on vision zero, where are we on transit first? every two weeks, we should be hearing about this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. operator: you have 10 questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> caller: hi. this is a 30 years cab driver. i would like to bring to your

meeting, to let you guys know that medallion, they suffering for years and years and they are right now, most of them to the age where they are exhausted with this business. they don't want to be part of this taxi business. the m.t.a. made the promise is that medallion b retire income for us. this is not just, you know, helping me out. the retirement income right now forced me to the grave. the medallion is not worth it. the medallion is not bringing any money. if they bring the money up the quarter or the half or

the some completely to pay to the federal union bank. this is a complete as the business like the uber, lyft. they make lots, lots more than us and they take over the whole city. please, i ask you guys to bring the m.t..taxi and ask them what they want to do. what is it the result? the only result i see for this purchase medallion, to buy them back because they disguise this medallion as their rerment. if you are not paid for that, what is the reason to suffer to pay to the federal union bank. >> 30 seconds. >> caller: they have not worked in 18 months. this is not right. this is america. please. i want to bring to your guys' attention. you have to help to the purchase medallion. this program felt and cannot continue with the $250,000 [inaudible] under this medallion. the only people suffering the purchase medallion

month-to-month have to pay to the federal union bank. i would like to be retired. i'm 68 years old. i already pay my dues and i cannot continue anymore to be part of the business. please, i ask you again. so many people that are sick, so many people that have a cancer and health problems, they cannot continue. please. if you get retired, you get your benefits and i want to get my benefit, too, and their retirement and this medallion people to buy the medallion for the retirement. we are right now retired but we cannot have any income. please. i ask you again and again, get serious and do something with this purchase medallion. thank you very much. and god bless you. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

operator: you have 10 questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> caller: this is herbert winer. some concerns i have is the way the van ness project is being conducted. i get off venice avenues and i have to walk a block to the bus stop and the bus passes me by. and this isn't only on one occasion. why are you not having stops at transfer points. this is totally, you know, unrealistic. the second thing is the buses are so crowded, including the 1 california which is one of the most heavily used lines. people are sitting next to each other. and in light of this pandemic, this is very dangerous. i've been vaccinated but i

really try to keep a distance from people. you are violating health standards and endangering the public and this is very unfair. and i would like to see the medallions restored to the drivers unconventionally the way it was before m.t.a. started poking its nose into this project. the medallions rightfully belong to the taxi drivers and not m.t.a. and it's basically been a fiasco. please restore the way it was 20 years ago. i think the taxi drivers would appreciate it and i would, too. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, plea. operator: you have 11 questions remaining. >> nex speaker? >> caller: yes. hi.

good afternoon, again, chair borden and fellow directors. i'm -- i want to let you know, we asked purchase medallion holders to call in today, following the disappointment we had in the verdict. ronald lee, again, said the sfmta has never not had the taxi industry's back. to hear deputy city attorney say that and know that it's totally false. it's totally false. we're seeing transit lanes that say muni-only when we know full well that taxis are allowed in those transit lanes. where if you look at [inaudible], we cannot access that street anymore unless you go around about ways and i am not going to serve it if it's going to be too tough for me to get there. considering if you've seen the gas prices lately, have you seen them? i want to let you know that it's just eating into our

income and, of course, we don't want the meter to go up. because we enjoy the business we enjoy is when the surge pricing goes into effect, the t.n.c.s and that is when our business goes up. particularly at the airport and -- and after major events. so, it's -- thank god for that. but i want to let you know that you kind of owe the cab industry, and particularly the medallion holders, some relief and some help and not just keep saying you have our back when you don't have our back. when you want to kick us off of market street and when you want to keep us off of slow streets when we have business on slow streets. i want to let you know, take a look at 16th and chartwell and how are we supposed to get into that street without having to go around about way and a challenging way and cost us time and possibly not even get the fare. so i want to let you know

that you have made it harder, not easier, for us to serve the public at this point. all on the dikts of vision zero which is not really happening because enforcement is lax. so i would appreciate that you take another look at this and that you help out the purchase medallion hollers. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, plea. operator: you have 11 questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> caller: hello. this is evelyn. i'm with the san francisco taxi workers alliance and i'm calling about the crisis of this medallion debt which you've been hearing about today. i hope you realize that for so many hundreds of medallion owners, the trial that ended represented the end of a long, dark tunnel for them. maybe they would haven't received any direct money, but had the credit union

prevailed, the remaining loan balances would have been wiped out. and now that hope and that slight snuffed out. praoem in despair. you know, maybe you believe your reform helped a little, but don't kid yourself. that's not what has been keeping medallion holders going. it was really hoped for some resolution to this crisis. they hope to not have to work 10 hours a day, six days a week. they want to have money for their family and their children. we taxi drivers don't feel like we're on the edge of guyer. glory. we're on the edge of despair and the drivers want out from under this de. some will walk away if they can. others are losing their homes and they can't walk away. their chained to this debt. it's like indentured servitude that you are

keeping people paying and paying and paying in order for a little bit of money. so i hope you will realize that this could be your legacy, that you are keeping these driver, mostly people of color ensnared in debt because you don't want to admit that years ago you made a fundamental mistake. i hope you will choose to help them and do something and it's your choice. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. operator: you have 10 questions remaining. >> caller: yes. how are you doing? first of all, good afternoon. i'm a taxi driver for 20 years. m.t.a. sure took my money and take over the medallion loan. it makes me think about the

ponzi scheme of sfmta. you people [inaudible], you people it's your fault. and it is a debt we cannot repay. an industry that has [inaudible] san francisco. m.t.a. is full of corruption and [inaudible]. i work six to seven days a week and, 10 to 12 hours a day to make money so i can pay the loan. the loan that you guys gave to us. ok? [inaudible] and i developed back pain. ok? [inaudible] ok? i am going into surgery on october 28. what am i going to do? you guys, i hope you sleep

well. and i want you to think about the taxi industry that you guys destroyed. >> 30 seconds. >> caller: bye. >> thank you. next speaker, please. operator: you have nine questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> caller: hey. this is austin peterson, 30-year cab driver, medallion holder. k-medallion. has anybody asked themselves why so many young people have chosen drug addiction and homelessness over cab driving and truck drivering and so many other jobs that have been cranked down to worthlessness? anything -- when i started cab driver there was the promise of a medallion if i worked at it for a long time. now young people come into the industry, they don't have that promise anymore. please fix that. make it so young people want to drive a cab or want to drive a truck. want to work for the city. that is it. thanks.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. operator: you have eight questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> caller: this is mark bloomberg with san francisco taxi workers alliance. and i spoke on this issue at the previous meeting but i just want to back up the drivers who have called in and voiced, you know, what's happening to them, which is -- it's a disgraceful situation. it just should never have taken place. this whole program has been a disaster. it's unsustainable as you well know and the time is long overdue for this pernicious and life-destroying system to be fixed.

many medallion holders were awaiting the outcome of the lawsuit. and just from what i hear, i think there are going to be many more foreclosures that the point. now that the lawsuit is over, you have no more excuses. this is your program. you devise it, you owned it and you have to repair it. and i suggest two principles to guide you in doing that. first, medallion purchases must be rescued from this wreckage. second, this must not be done at the expense of other drivers and the industry as a whole. i want to call your attention to the fact that in new york, which is suffering from a similar crisis, medallion buyers are about to embark on a hunger strike. that is how desperate it's

gotten there. you want that to happen here? do you think that it can't? with almost 300 victims of foreclosure and counting? i urge you to think twice. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. operator: you have seven questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> caller: hello? >> we can hear you. >> caller: hello. yes. my name is waziri. i am medallion holder and i'm driving in the city for 22 years and driving right now for six days, seven days a week. i have three kids and i am suffering honestly to make money for payments or mortgage and everything. i don't really know. the city promised us in the beginning different stuff right now.

we have hard time to make money. we don't really know what we should do. we are living in the united states of america. with freedom and free speech. but we don't see anything here. we need your help, please. whatever you guys can do, this is the best. thank you so much. bye. >> thank you. next speaker, please. operator: you have five questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> caller: yes, hello. my name is roberto marquez and i'm calling -- i'm a medallion holler and taxi driver. and i'm working very hard. i invest up to 14 hours, 16 hours driving and when -- and when i end up, i make no money. if i'm working and making $16

an hour and [inaudible] i make overtime. oh, my goodness about $300 or $400. over here, with the money -- this is something that you should laugh. and i have to be driving. i have to stay in debt because i'm working very hard to make the payments and everything. so what is happening is happening terrible. bad. i have a family of four and we hardly make anything. nothing. before the thing was that i wasn't a medallion lease. i wasn't a medallion list and they were giving these for free. later on they say oh, guys, you have to buy, to buy the medallion. if you want to see your

future. that is going to be -- is going to be very nice. it's a good idea. but it took me two years to decide to buy the medallion. >> 30 seconds. >> caller: because they [inaudible]. so i decided to buy it. i decided two years later or one year and a half, everything changed and uber and lyft took over and you know the rules of the taxi, all the rules that we have in the taxi, everything disappeared because they say now they -- you guys are going to [inaudible] with uber and lyft and we end up with nothing. my retirement became my nightmare. >> time is up. >> caller: it's terrible and very bad. i hope you guys -- >> thank you. next speaker. operator: you have six questions remaining. >> next speaker, please.

>> caller: thank you. this is luke boarhammer. exactly five months ago, [inaudible] was killed and her partner danny was critically injured while crossing pulse street at hayes due to a street design that allowed people to drive cars recklessly and dangerously. five months later t street is just as dangerous. plans were created for a protected bike lane. while it's much needed, albeit for only one block, the design is still lacking notably by, one, leaving

sections of the bike lane unprotected, allowing car and delivery t

>> next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is phillip, several of the board members paying close attention to what is being said by the cab drivers. i've been a cab driver since 1980. i'm sure you're intently working on trying to solve the problems of the medallion program. i know you're obviously considering how to remedy the situation. i hope you consider making the cab industry in san francisco a public utility. if you're able to engineer this aspect, you would be able to

lower the overhead for the cab companies via their insurance. there's probably other advantages to it being a public utility an it will give you one more option to address the problem. also i would like to say that a taxi industry in this nation is one that is an indigenous industry. there's no city that is like another city. each city their cab industry is totally and separate and apart from any other industry. this is something that you should consider. san francisco has had a rich history with the cab drivers and also a lot of those loans were made -- they were liar loans. that was one of the major

problems with the bank. now that you have the opportunity to satisfy the bank because they will appeal. you can address the problem of the medallion holder. you will scrap the entire system and start all over again. i'm sure you will be able to do it in a very fair manner. thank you for your attention. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have five questions remaining. >> i spoke earlier regarding the medallion. i don't know if i'm going to die before i finish the statement soon, some drivers just paying this loan with the stress and

things. we work more than 14 hours a day. we make less than $16 an hour. we get busier since uber and lyft start doing shorter trips. they left a long time ago. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have four questions remaining. >> my name is francis co. i've spoken on this topic many times. i see that you are listening but i don't see any empathy. i'm used to know when the taxi drivers when independent. as soon as they joined the mta, you stole their money.

you need to do a needs assessment on the suffering, the debt, closures of the taxi drivers. if you don't do something shortly, shame on, y'all. >> does that conclude your roa remarks. next caller on the line please. >> you have three callers remaining. >> it's a little confusing with the technology and watching you guys on the screen. i'm a san francisco cab driver and team medallion holder. i waited on the medallion waiting list for 16 years.

when i was approximately about number ten, 15 from the top of the list, you ended the whole program and gave me the option to buy a medallion or go home. i bought my medallion for one year and uber came on and it was the worst economic thing that ever happened to me. i wasted years of my youth and earning capacity. it damaged my life to no end. i would really like -- morally speaking what and what i would like to be done. i'm coming from a position of

humbleness. please find a solution to this injustice. it's completely not fair that a large organization such as yours should take our money and basically run. i understand there may be forces out of your control but the government gets tons of federal matching funds, there has to be a way to help people like me who never made much money in my life. just to right this justice and get me out of this extreme economic hardship. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have two questions remaining. >> hello. i'm a medallion holder number 1284, your position as mta who make regulation who people from

a to b is that right. if you do so, why the rules and regulations on taxi and not on other people? when i buy the medallion i was hoping to have nice replacement for my kids and family if something happen to me. nothing like that is going on. i may not be working. we look for a solution. you're the only ones that can do it. in the courts between you guys and the bank. all you people can do something. we can please you to do so. we can urge you to do something because really the business goes down and down and nobody makes money. that's all. nobody.

we pay bills and spend the rest of things for food and other. what we look for and we look for organizer business and do something for the payment. and do something. this is all we're asking. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have one question remaining. >> thank you. i feel like i haven't talked to you since item eight. three topics on item nine. i hear a certain planning director is leaving. i thank that person very much who may well be listening and

wish that person well in the future. i was surprised that was not announced in the director's report. following on a comment i think was made earlier and comments i've made in the past. please make the e-mails that you receive public, we should find a way to do that or at a minimum a summary list which roberta used to do. by posting the e-mails orr a e-a redacted version of the e-mails that could simply be we received 51 e-mails extending the 21 sun set out to the fair lawns. sum summary so at a minimum we know what e-mails you're receiving.

we should make those e-mails that are redacted public. you have access to those e-mails and we do not. i think we should consider extending the 21hayes trolley coach into golden gate park. that would put some small trolley car in golden gate park. that would provide direct access. give the 21 an end point that it doesn't have right now. i don't know if it's the right answer but it's definitely worth studying. it's it relates to the jfk closures. >> thank you. next speaker please.

with that we'll close public comment. to all the taxi drivers that called in. we are listening and we heard you. the legal battle made it difficult to talk about those issues as well. we did hear you. can you move to the next item please. >> that places you on your consent calendar. these items will be voted on by a single vote unless a member of the board wishes to consider an item separately. if you wish to make public comment please call on the screen. approve parking modifications as listed in the agenda. the programming of state improvement funds for the train

control upgrade program in fiscal year '25, '26. item ten point three approving retroactively a six month promotional program for customers traveling to and from covid 19 vaccination appointments. approving the title six analysis on the fair change on low income and minority change. waiving section a of the sfmta board since public hearing is not less than five days from public notice. that concludes the consent

calendar. >> great. directors, is there an item you would like to pull from the consent calendar. seeing none we'll move to public comment. please press one-zero if you wish to make public comment. >> you have one question remaining. >> yes, please. >> i have comments on ten point two an ten point three. >> go ahead and do both. we'll give you two minutes for each item. >> item ten point two i'm repeating comments i made this

morning at the sfcta board. i'm skeptical of the benefits on the surface portion of the new metro system. i'm opposed to three car and trains on the surface west of church. i urge you to prohibit them either as a condition of approval of this local support resolution or in the future. period. two car trains are okay. three car trains will block intersections and i think are problematic on the west end of church. question what is the impact to passengers from construction of the communication based train control infrastructure on the street? will there be more bus substitution. i can't imagine that's going to be over a weekend. is that days, weeks, months, of

bus substitution on the end. how would that work? i understand that mta staff is developing a written rail service plan covering fleet, all of that service capacity, portals. i urge you to hear that in the future when it's available so we can have a fuller discussion of the system. onto point three i have no issue issuewith the resolution itself. the fourth whereas on march 16th 2021, i believe that should be

21306 -- i don't know why, you find these things. i recommend making that minor tweak to the resolution. that's all on the consent calendar. thanks. >> moderator are there additional calls on the line on our consent calendar. >> you have one question remaining. >> next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm calling about ten point one. i just want to know why we are not rpping the entire city. it seems extremely inefficient to me to go neighborhood to neighborhood instead of saying hey san francisco if you want to park in the city, you're going to pay for it. you can pay at a mighter or have a residential parking permit. you cannot drive a car here.

i think the taxi drivers would love that. if people had to leave their cars at home that don't actually live here, they can take transit or take a taxi. that would leave more space for people to do things. that would have fewer cars because every parking space in this city is an engraved invitation to have a car and keep a car. please, we have a place for you. this is crazy. we're burning the planet, killing people with cars. we're a transit first city. why? please stop with the free street parking. rpp the entire city and let's move on. we can have more money for the

muni we've had to cut back on. we can increase the rates to be more market rates instead of 41-cents a day now for an rpp sticker. we can actually be a transit first city. stop with the piece meal. rpp the city. thank you. >> thank you. any other callers on the line. >> have you sear callers remaining. >> thank you public comment is closed. are the changes that the caller mentioned correct? we can make the motion with that correction and i'll double check after this. >> great.

>> i'll move to approve the consent calendar with the caveat that if that correction needs to be made, it be corrected. >> great. the question that he asked about buses being run on the segment while this work is going on, do we anticipate that happening. >> that would be a question my colleagues would be able to answer for communication case train control. >> just very briefly to address the question. >> hi, everyone. i think we're still working through the implementation strategy. we know that we have a significant subway renewal program some of which is going to require bus substitution and

train control work in the coordinated within that. i don't have anything specific on train control at this time. >> great. this is the consent calendar. we should be discussing it. i just tried to answer the public's question. we'll look for further future in depth conversation. i know it's just about allocating the funds. secretary, can you please call the roll. >> (roll call). the consent calendar is approved. >> that brings us to our regular

calendar. can you please call on the next item. >> item number 11. the community based transportation plan. >> great. we have adrian to present. >> good afternoon chair and members of the board. transportation planner for safety. in terms of introduction i'm the transportation planner and cptp. we're here to seek the board's feedback, answer questions, and seek approval. i will bring up the screen to begin the presentation.

project overview. pedestrian safety. ttp grant program and authorized by the san francisco board authority. adopt the grant before it expires at the end of the november 2021. the goals improve access and mobility for low income

communities and conducting analysis and recommendations. beyond these goals the office requested that the lake merced pedestrian safety represents a collaborative planning process with community groups an other stake holders that identify pedestrian challenges and solutions on drive. a collection of steering committee inputs and comments. beginning in 2020, the project began with past plans including

pedestrian safety and access. transit stop. from january to june 2021. during that time the group established the conditions. performed a needs assessment. pedestrian safety improvements in june 2021 community out reach was conducted in the form of a virtual open house an public survey. coordinating with other planning efforts. the safety process included

coordinating nearby improvement efforts that are listed for you. the bike way feasibility study which was requested by district seven office. we have the 2012 improvement project that was managed by rec and park. park assessment development initiated in 2015. we have the great highway pilot project. and management project. that's managed by rec and park. the ocean beach climate change adaptation project. existing conditions. the project area is located in the lake shore district. it includes skyline boulevard to john muir drive. a path surrounding the lake, the

project area is served by the 57 park merced. low and high density housing institutions. lake merced boulevard is where 75% of injuries and fatalities occur or our city streets. it aim it increase access and mobility by communities and strives to make these streets safer.

between 2015 and 2020 there have been two pedestrian fatalities since 2017. safety issues. the project area is recently connected by many activities like walking and biking. obstacles such as vehicle speeds for the distance to be between forty one and forty five miles per hour. signage, lighting, sidewalks rk in the visual below you'll see unsafe pedestrian crossing there is a bike turn strip lane. the bottom right there's no

crossings from sun set to middle field drive. community out reach and engagement. input from the steering committee to ensure techniques resonate within the community of the project area we conducted. the open house that took place consisted of a project survey at the end. multi lingual surveys near the project area. we also have the multi lingual survey on line. we advertised it through posters along the project area. a total of 449 surveys were

received. the survey were broken into three sections. the relationship to the project area including frequency and mode of travel to get around. whether respondents felt the area was unsafe and tools presented to the steering committee. demographic profiles were the final two questions if they wanted to stay updated about the project that helped us inform us on future out reach efforts in that area. what we learned, steering committee learned that pedestrian and safety improvements are needed. 71 percent agree or strongly agree that improvement it's need to be made on streets where people walk.

the top five safety improvements that resonate are upgraded crosswalks. additional lighting pedestrian or street level is 48 percent. new and additional signals is 4. representations to corridor improvements. survey input are divided in two categories. medium low priority long term improvements. divided by priority level that are high and medium. improving transit that did occur in august with a route and new updated route signage which is

necessary between traffic lanes, we would consult with the transit planning service group. to ensure transit service is not impeded by what is proposed. subsequent projects and further community out reach by recommendations and details to guide further implementation on stacy and merced boulevard. priority level high, medium, and low. implementation. the sfmta works in coordination

is the cbtb high priority recommendations. the quick build project is currently in the planning phase with anticipated construction date of mid '22. quick build and the project managers and future coordinating projects to ensure that this cptp is upheld. to help us understand the performance of the proposed improvements. medium priority and low priority recommendation improvements will require additional planning, design funding beyond the quick

build. this cbtp has recorded desired improvements so that funding sources can be identified in the future. that concludes my presentation. additional information can be sought at sfmta.com. >> thank you for that presentation. i'm happy to see that something is happening to this very problematic area. board members are there any questions at this time before opening to public comment. seeing none, i'll open up to public comment. this is for item 11. if you'd like to make comments or have questions now is the time to press ten to put

yourself in the line. >> you have three questions remaining. >> first speaker, please. >> i'm walk san francisco vision zero organizer. i also was a member of the steering committee. i really wanted to thank the sfmta staff foreseeing this project through. as well as district seven supervisor's office. it's a well known danger. people use it by foot every single day. to get to the biggest green space. to get to elementary school or high school or for exercise as

26 year old was when he was killed in a crash. schools and park should be a priority for the city. in many parts this is starting from zero from a safety perspective. we're glad the study identifies what can be done immediately and with investment to bring down unnecessary and tragic crashes. we need to see the streets redesigned to bring down speeds. we look forward to work with the sfmta. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have three questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hi. this is stacy again.

i'm glad that there's work being done or the the hope of work being done. i'm concerned of how many people have been injured and died on this corridor without work being done. the lack of honesty is really disturbing. the whole idea of out reach and surveys while it seems inclusive is somewhat cruel. if you're anyone that is against bike lanes, sidewalks is basically saying that people's lives out side of a car don't matter. their need for speed and through put is more important. it is a really distorted way of doing business that we say oh, we have to ask people their opinions about how calm we

should make an area. you should make it as calm until there are no more injuries or deaths. cars can travel too fast. if you're not going to put the stuff in the car to slow them down, you have to make your roads safer. maybe go to sweden and ask them how they do it. they take it seriously. whenever there is an injury or death, they change the road immediately. we take years and have to have meetings and surveys while people are at risk and dying. what are we doing. please take vision zero seriously and get our streets safer. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have three questions

remaining. >> i was not involved in this study, i only reviewed the plan today but i'm quite impressed with it. i found the document clear, concise and useful. especially the visual examples. i thank the staff. great work. this is a good example of good product. good everything. i particularly appreciate the coordination with other planning efforts section starting on page ten of the plan. i think in a lot of ways this is a model of how a plan should read. it connects all the dots. i like it. in the future i would be careful to post notices on vehicles and

shelters in the area. maybe i missed them. good work and thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> you have two questions remaining. >> this is nick from the states. i'm a staff member there. it's part of my job to encourage our students to use good walking and biking to get to campus. it's really hard to do with the street the way they are right now. this has the potential to make a difference. we see close calls every week between the sf state students, the elementary school students and day care kids in the area.

i'm really excited to see improvements there. i'm really proud of the staff. they did a great job of getting folks together right in the middle of the pandemic an pretty good engagement online. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have two questions remaining. >> this is patrick. i lived in san francisco for 12 years. i'm calling about the lake merced project. i support making these safety improvements including adding bike lanes way too much car capacity in this part of the city. i want to reiterate how important it is to make these

improvements faster. many people have been killed and injured in this area. we've had several high profile deaths in the past two years. despite all that, those things happening we're seeing hardly any improvements in terms of making the streets safer more quickly. if you go out to these streets right now, they look dangerous. very little thought was put into them. other cities have implemented safety improvements within days r weeks. we're talking a timeframe of years still with this project. i encourage sfmta to act with the authority for the vision zero mandates. it's all there just do it faster. we don't need these slow tedious

projects to change what's the status quo. what we need is rapid changes, implement these things within a platter of days and conduct studies afterwards. we need to change the status quo and make changes after. it's go to go save a lot of lives. >> with that we will close public comment on this matter and this matter is before this board. directors are there any comments or questions or a motion. >> i'll move approval. >> i'll second. >> there are some requests for comment from directors in the

chat. >> my chat is not showing anything in it today. go ahead. >> i'll thank staff as well. it seems like we're getting a lot of support from the public on this item. it sounds like a really successful process. my question is on implementation to another scene that was raised. so many good ideas came through this process. how do we take them from plan to infrastructure on the ground. i was happy to see the quick build piece is forking to move forward. that's not the entirety of

recommendations that those who participated were able to come to consensus upon. i wandered if you could speak more on how we're going to implea. the other ideas in the plan. how can we make sure this actually gets on the ground? >> thanks for your question. as noted in the presentation, we have a quick build project that is in process right now. it's in design and planning and going to be starting out reach really soon. we'll have our first quick build

in and things like buffers that can really aid in pedestrian safety, bicycling safety and all the active transportation and transit in the neighborhood. for some of the future longer term capital improvements things like new crossing or winding sidewalks. we have some budget that will be allocated through future sfcta funding. we're also looking to park merced which is a development happening just south of sf state that is going to be upgrading

four different signals op lake merced buffed for things that came out of this plan. we have different mechanisms for the longer term capital recommendations and we'll be continuing to look at other funding opportunities for those recommendations. >> okay. great. i wanted to touch on speed limits. i thought i saw in the staff report that the speed limits were forty five. we've been experimenting in the tender loin. the very significant disirches differencein collision outcomes. reducing speed limits was part of the quick build.

>> yes. the speed limit is thirty five.

>> we'll be talking more about this when we come back to you with an action plan. the quick build which is scheduled for spring '22 implementation lets us fight

back against the high speeds. give us some flexibility hopefully we can take the speed limits down. we want to do the quick build to reduce speeds and do a traffic survey to show we reduced speeds. it's a complex plan. >> so many students relying on transit crossing the street. it's imperative that we do everything we can to slow down and prevent the collisions. thank you so much. >> i will tag along with director who asked more of my

technical questions. could you talk a little more, i know this is a living document, it's more of a plan than a action document. could you talk a little more about the evaluation of this document and is there evaluation criteria build in. i know there was a tiny section on evaluation at the end of the plan. i know that it was a lot of community involvement that went into the creation of this plan and drafting of it. maybe some assurances as to how the community will stay engaged as we move forward to implementing the quick build and address some of the recommendations. >> in regards to the evaluation process