>> chair borden: first meeting of the sfmta to order. >> clerk: this meeting is being held in hybrid format with the meeting occurring in person ate city hall room 400, broadcast live on sfgov tv and by phone. we welcome the public participation during public comment period. public comment will be taken both in person and remotely by call in. for each action or discussion item, the board will take comments first from those attending the meeting in person and then those calling remotely. the phone number to use is (415)655-0001. the access code is 2495 334 6992. when prompted, dial star 3 to

enter the speaker line. speakers will have two minutes to provide compensate unless otherwise noted by the chair. please speak clearly ensure you are in a quiet location and turn off any tvs or computers around you. please note city policies along with state and federal law discriminate harassing conduct against city employees and will not be tolerated. item 2, roll call. >> chair borden: please call the roll. [ roll call ] director yekutiel is not at today's meeting. you haval quorum. for the record, i note that

director hinze is attending the meeting remotely. she must appear on camera throughout the meeting and in order to speak on any items. all votes will be taken by roll call. item 3, announcement prohibition of sound producing devices during the meeting. the ringing and use of the cell phones and similar sound producing electronic devices are prohibited. the chair my order the removal for any person responsible for ringing or use of a cell phone or other electronic devices. item 4, approval of the june 7, 2022 regular meeting. >> chair borden: directors, are there any additions to those minutes? seeing none, we'll go to public comment. are there members of the public who like to comment on the minutes from the prevent meeting? seeing no one in person.

is there anyone on the phone line? >> clerk: we have one person. >> chair borden: call, please proceed. >> caller: this is david pilpel. on the regular meeting minutes from june 7, 2022, there were couple of things that caught my eye. on page 3, third paragraph fiona hinze that should be restated as director hinze. on page 4 under item 8, public comment, that reference to ali a dupree. i think that was it on this set. if i see anything else of

interest, i will call it to staff's attention. i think it was those two items. were you taking comment on the other set for the special meeting? >> chair borden: no. we were not. >> caller: okay. i'm not sure i saw anything. may be there was something. hold on a second. actually, sorry the regular set, there was one other thing on my public comment. on page 5, hope that the sfmta will be included, it should read, should be included in discussions regarding ballot measures. >> chair borden: thank you. >> caller: thank you for listening. >> chair borden: thank you for your thorough review. are there any other callers?

>> clerk: no. >> chair borden: with that, we will put the matters before the board. >> director hinze: i will move the minutes with those corrections as stated by our public commenter. >> chair borden: is there a second? >> second. >> chair borden: please call the roll. [roll call vote] the minutes are approved with the minor edits. next item is communications. i don't have any to announce. >> chair borden: next item. >> clerk: item 6, introduction of new or unfinished business by board members. >> chair borden: director lai? >> director lai: thank you, chair borden. thank you for allowing me to say

few words. some of you may have heard, my family and i will be relocating temporarily away from san francisco starting later the summer for about 10 months. i unfortunately have to resign from my position here on m.t.a. it has been an immense honor and really truly transforming learning experience for me to work alongside my colleagues. most importantly, working with the community and getting to know my city better. the past few years have not been easy. i really want to thank the mayor and for the opportunity and for the supervisors for their support. we certainly will need all elected leaders for their support. before i joined the board, i had

concerns in a few areas that i know i spoke about during my appointment process and continuously throughout my two years here. those topics include safety, communication, equity and project management, which is synonymous for good government work. i'm very glad to have been to advocate for additional funding and attention on some of these areas. most excitedly about increased safety, budget as well as communication budget in the comings two years. i role hope that the board of supervisors will say yes to our proposed budget in its entirety. i think a lot of what i have commented on is seems like very broad and diverse topics. i do feel like they hit on couple of themes that i feel we

have made progress, very meaningful progress in the last two years. there's still so much work to be done. i am afraid that we have not been making progress fast enough in those areas, that would include communication, equity, safety including vision zero, personal safety. i'm really leaning on the rest of my colleagues here to continue pushing and diligently focusing on issues that may not seem fun and boring at times, truly those are the topics that allows us to be an efficient and good governance agency. i do believe that we can achieve. however, things will be harder moving forward given how things turned out on the prop a ballot

measure. i think the work was already hard to begin with. it is made harder by having fewer resources. i will say on the point of about ballot measure, i hope the topic will be covered later on, we did actually get a majority of the city to agree and reinvesting in infrastructure. it was clear in the voter turnout that we primarilifuls unable to convince a few possibilities of the city. if ballot measures were run by districts, we have gotten the $400 million that we desperately needed. i think there are some really important lessons here for us as a city, as an agency. i think people who know me know that i spend lot of hours on

this volunteer position time and effort that although, difficult is definitely deserve and required. i would encourage anyone who has something critical to say about the city or agency, to jump in and be part of the solution. i'm for all of you out there who is engaging in the circumcision, civic --civic space to come to e with less judgment. because, i personally believe that we're in a time where lot of things are not working well. this is beyond just the city and probably nationally. it will take all of us to learn to compromise, work together, do the hard work and respecting each other to get us back on track. insulting each other into agreement doesn't work very well as i tell my two boys.

[ laughter ] i feel like it causes more divisiveness for a city that's largely in agreement with big issues. i wish my colleagues and the agency and the rest of the city best you have luck for the next 10 months. i look forward to coming back learning something new. >> chair borden: thank you for those eloquent words director lai. i can't reiterate importance of that people engaging in the conversation if they don't like what's going on. we have to dig in and make it happen. director eaken? >> vice chair eaken: thank you. i want to say that director lai, it's a pleasure and privilege

serving with you. we're going to miss you. i want to thank you for your service. the way you show up in the meetings and your diligence and questions and for all of the hours outside of the meetings that you put in that we're aware of. trying to get to those solutions that you spoke of. we wish you best of luck. your presence will be sorely missed on this board. the other comment i wanted to make is that like director yekutiel, i'm also going to be taking a little bit of off this summer to rest and recharge. what i will be doing is traveling to some of the cities in the world that are most on track to sustainability and equity and the goal that we're all pursuing in scandinavia. i will look forward to lessons i learned. i will be back for the first meeting in september. >> chair borden: thank you,

director heminger. >> director heminger: to director lai, i'm sure you'll enjoy boston. they have a practice there that i appreciated called touch parking. if you don't know what this is, you will learn it soon. i also want you to make sure you don't become a celtics fan. [ laughter ] i think that could be a problem going forward. if you don't come back, we're going to come get you. you been a real asset to this board and to the city. i'm sure there are many other places besides this board, where you can deploy your talents. thank you, madam chair. >> chair borden: director cajina. >> director cajina: director lai, it's been a quite moment in time. we passed a budget together. we focused on ensuring that we

had money improving the outreach and engagement. i commend you so much for being a champion for those two things. it can be quite challenging to be part of the solution when you see the deficiencies and challenges ahead of you. you have always been solution oriented. you have always been someone that models that helps us understand that, yes, there's a problem but there's also a solution. it take all of us to work together to achieve that solution. i want to thank you so much for your service. it is such an honor to serve with you. it has been an honor for you, for me to call you my colleague. more so than that, you have been such a great mentor for me coming in this role. thank you so much.

i hope you are not a stranger. you come back. i do hope to hear you in public comment and raise your notes as you comment on some of the key issues we're going to tackle during in challenging time. thank you so much. >> chair borden: director hinze? >> director hinze: director lai has been an honor to serve with you. i always appreciate your questions. [ indiscernible ] i appreciate your reflection how

we can come together in the community. i appreciate your particular attention to the a.p.i. community and helping them to recover after being hit so hard during the pandemic. i really appreciate that. i appreciate the fact that you bring the perspective of someone who is a woman and experienced with transit and also a mother of very young school-aged children.

i know you'll have fun in boston. >> chair borden: i will close out. all of my colleagues said incredible things. it's been such a pleasure getting to see you in action. it's so great to see you just dig in and really just get so engaged and so many aspects of the agency, really take on that leadership role in making sure we have the resources that we need and we are doing the things

as an agency to move forward. we are going to sorely miss your voice and of in that sort of advocacy. i have to say that it's a major loss to have you go. i wish you much success and so proud and excited for you next endeavor and look forward for you being back. thank you so much for your service. at this point we'll open up to public comment. any members of the public like to comment on director's comments may do so now. if there are any callers on the line who like to speak? >> clerk: yes, there are. >> chair borden: first caller. >> caller: thank you. lots of good things that i will

speak to general perspective touching on the things that all of you have said. it is exciting to move on to different things. i like boston. i used the massachusetts bay transportation authority system. i hope our new temporary bostonian will get to enjoy that system. all of you in speaking about broader perspective. i do wish to highlight a comment that was made by one of you about muni being one of the transportation services in san francisco. i found there are several that i have used within san francisco, bart and caltrain, goldengate transit bus, things like that. we want to make sure we don't

forget the originality that san francisco is made up of many systems. i thought i would highlight that. i hope that people would never - people who have an issue with muni and engage with you and speaking to you in public meetings and sharing my stories about riding public transportations. i appreciated director lai. i never met director lai. may be some day i will. i don't know if director lai seen me. regardless, i wish director lai well.

>> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: david pilpel. first to director lai, we haven't agreed on everything. there's definitely things we have agreed on. i will miss you and thank you for your service to the m.t.a. board and to the city. i do appreciate and recognize that. i also appreciate the words that you spoke about disagreements and being able to have respectful disagreements with people. i think that is very much needed in our world, in our country, in our city today. i saw the hearings on capitol hill earlier today, it was unbelievable and shocking. i don't think we're that level in san francisco, but there are times when it's incredibly difficult to talk to people that you don't agree with. i think we should all find ways

to do that, big and small. i, also, hope that director eaken has a nice summer away. i guess i am concerned that that reduces the size of the board for upcoming meetings. hopefully there will be a quorum where necessary. the work of the m.t.a. will continue. i will leave it at that on item 6 and speak to you again on future items. thanks. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: to directors my name is francisco. what i like to say to you all, good leaders know the way and show the way. as a director, most of you all

should be educated on the issues and learn to do a needs assessment. in order to do that, you have to know the history of muni. for example, some years ago, one mayor recalled the money that was meant for muni and spent it on brand new cars for police. when you create a vacuum of that nature, many other problems come in the way. as to the director going to boston, i don't think i met you, i heard you asking the right type of questions. in order to ask the right type of questions, you have to be a leader. you have to stand your ground.

as directors, not you, but directors before you, adversely impacted taxi drivers. that affects us all who participate in the deliberations. anyway, i want to thank each of you directors and i want to thank director lai. all the best in boston. thank you very much. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: hello. i'm richard rothman. i wanted to comment on the commissioner's saying that the public should be engaged. i tried to be engaged with m.t.a., but they don't answer e-mails or they slam the phone

on you, they are rude to you. so many you have suggestions how i can communicate with m.t.a. even the communications department, i sent them two e-mails, they didn't answer my e-mail. i work for the city 26 years. i answered all my e-mails. i just call the department of elections and building inspector, i had a very nice conversation with the staff member. m.t.a., they don't have to answer e-mails. the way you get promoted to m.t.a. is don't answer richard rothman's e-mails. if you want to have the public have communication with the staff, then something needs to change where if they don't disagree with me fine, at least we can have a conversation. they don't want to talk to you. it's very frustrating. i want to see m.t.a. --

[ indiscernible ] you can't make changes if staff won't talk to you or answer your e-mail. i e-mailed a number of times where staff don't answer e-mail. you don't seem to do anything about it. if you want the public to have communication, then communications need to be a two-way street. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> clerk: there are no other callers. >> chair borden: we will close public comment. next item. >> clerk: item 7, director's report. >> chair borden: we have mr. mcguire.

>> good afternoon directors. i like to take a second to thank director lai for her service on behalf of all of our employees. i had the opportunity to be out with director lai as recently as last friday with our juneteenth cable car event. i will start my report today with an update on the proposition a. i'll start by saying, we are grateful, we do thank the 65% of the voters who voted last week, who did support proposition a. the safety bond measure. it is clear that as director lai mentioned in her remark, the overwhelmingly majority of voters do support public transportation. unfortunately, bond measures needed two third supermajority to pass. we take the challenge very

seriously. we're going to have active conversations to ensure we are responding to their transportation needs. we take that very seriously. the reality is, from this point on, every step to getting our major capital projects done is going to be little bit harder than it would have been if prop a hadn't passed. we are going to do everything we can to fund alternative sources. improving muni remains a top priority for this board. we are committed to making that work a reality. we'll be evaluating the impacts

of the funding on our project delivery and updating you soon about specifics about how to we will be rebalancing capital projects. we'll share next steps. shifting over to our vision zero update. unfortunately, i have several collisions to tell you about today. in the early hours of the morning this morning, in the mission district a pedestrian crossing 16th street at south van ness avenue was struck by a vehicle speeding northbound and a pedestrian was killed. rapid response team is on the scene today. we'll have an update on their finding shortly. on june 14th, just a few blocks away mission and 21st, about 1:00 a.m., a driver was making a u-turn on mission street and broadsided by another vehicle driving northbound. the driver was killed in the crash. other driver left the scene.

this is also being investigated by a hit-and-run crash. on june 9th this was a fatality of a motorcycle that struck the side of of semitrailer truck in the tenderloin. the collision remains under investigation. our rapid response team is going to accelerate some work we had planned to retime the traffic signals to meet the latest standards for pedestrian crossing times. that is not necessarily something that was prevented this crash, it is some work that we're moving up in the queue to make sure this intersection gets more attention. there was a crash this weekend in the marina district that thank goodness that did not result in fatalities. it did involve one of our vehicles and our staff. a muni bus at 22 fillmore bus was traveling when it was struck by a speeding suv traveling on lombard street on saturday. as a result of the crash, the muni bus was struck so hard, it

was someone 180 degrees around the intersection. the operation was injured but okay. the driver of the suv was detained by the police department as suspected dui. thank god no one was killed. at the next board meeting, we will be reporting, talking to you about evolving and getting more in-depth with our vision zero reporting. three of the crashes involved just really outrageous and driver behavior. that has been on rise over the last few months. it has been on the rise throughout the city and pandemic. i hope come back to the board with a deeper dive how it fits in our vision zero project. moving on to central subway, we had an incident in our central

subway at work site at the substation. electric fire broke out. no ones hurt. there were large number of m.t.a. employees and coordinators working last night. no one was hurt. we're investigating exactly what the source of the fire was. we suspended the rail testing taking place at that section of the subway. can't say yet if how this will impact the schedule. we are investigating what, whether any serious damage took place to the equipment we've been building. next up our scooter share program. as you remember last june, three partners or three vendors issued one-year permits that expire on june 30th this year. those permits had option for the director of transportation to extend the permits for one year

based on the track records. based on the review we just complete the, we are going to extend the power scooter share permits for another year until june 30, 2023 at their current fleet size. fleet sizes are 2000 and 1500. staff continuing to monitor the vendors and putting additional attention on sidewalk detection technology. which we do believe is the key to deterring sidewalk riding. the biggest thing we get complaints from the public about. we had a demonstration few weeks ago with each of the permitees. during the demonstrations, we note the that it steams like scooters are able to detect when they are driven on the sidewalk.

that's very promising technical fix to both the parking issue and the sidewalk riding issue. finally, good news here, we congratulated golden state warriors on their nba win. we want to congratulate and thank all the m.t.a. employees who stepped up to make yesterday's huge parade a success. despite that yesterday was day off, it was observed day of the juneteenth holiday, over 500 m.t.a. employees worked over this three-day weekend to rear out buses, make sure we have enough muni service and to keep everyone safe on the street. 69 parking control officers, transit field managers, all made sure that traffic was flowing and pedestrians were safe and bus were moving. we ambassadors

volunteer from all over the agency who gave parade goers the information to get around. we had hundreds of temporary signs posted and special pens team planning our response to complaints. it was a real team effort, just like the warriors win was. it was a team effort yesterday as well. we're going to repeat that effort in couple of days with the upcoming pride weekend. many of the same staff will be out there weekend, especially in the civic center plaza. riders can look on our social media channels to get the up to date information about which buses and trains are running at which routes. we will keep city streets clear and traffic safe for events light trans march on friday the 24th and events to take place

on saturday and the parade on sunday. muni staff participated in a skills competition known in the transit industry as a bus rodeo. this is to allow them to show off their talent and ability in a friendly competition against their regional peers. great experience for our staff. couple of our transit operators competed in a bus driving course. they performed a series of challenging driving parking maneuvers. kevin grady is our reigning champ there. in our mechanic competition they faced off in a challenge. they had to face a series simulated vehicle problems with breakdowns, they had to repair issues. three of our mechanics took

third place in that competition. the competition used different model of buses used to working on. it's great these guys were able to finish there. we'll be hosting one of these next fall and would love to add some of you down there. finally, one more event, fourth of july. as everyone knows, the fourth of july fireworks are huge regional draw here in san francisco. we'll be having fireworks on at 9:00 p.m. from both municipal pier 39. large water front and including embarcadero will be closed to cars. we hope that fourth of july fireworks fans, just like pride parade goers and warrior fans will take public transportation. we'll be operating three supplemental services from

5:00 to 8:30 before the fireworks and from 9:45 to 11:30 after the fireworks. to make sure everyone got a great car free option to get to the fourth of july. that includes my director's report. >> chair borden: do we have any questions? director lai? >> director lai: i guess i will go first. the bus rodeo is something that's new to me. that's sounds exciting. i don't think we heard about that last year. i want to chime in to say congratulations. i do feel like m.t.a. staff are very skilled. julie helped arrange a day where i had the opportunity to drive one of our buses couple of weeks ago, beginning of this month. i want to share how difficult it

is. i have such an appreciation for our staff. they really don't have an easy dealing with customers, dealing with all the buttons, dealing with all the machinery in general. i can barely see far enough back in it mirrors to see the back of the wheel and to be able to participate and show off, that sounds fantastic. looking forward to seeing covered next year. i want to talk about the prop a stuff the most. i think i said that earlier, it's really too bad that we lost and primarily, i think, what is unfortunate for it city, we are losing a very efficient means to fund necessary work. it's not that we don't have

other options. i'm sure that staff will be presenting on this as part of the alternative. i think what i would like addressed, today is not a good day, please make sure that this makes it in the public record. what this means for it city and agency, one thing that wasn't quite clear on the public. just because prop a, $400 million bond isn't funded, that doesn't mean that the city were saving on taxes. it's not like we are reducing property taxes. the capacity of the bond is still there. it's just that the city is essentially saying, we don't want to use this debt for this purpose. i'm not sure that was very clear to folks. may be some folks out that by not funding muni they would save money on taxes. that's not the case. i feel like the 1.5% that was

lost should have and could have been made up. we did not have to lose this. it is definitely a testament to some of the voters, especially certain pockets that showed up stronger in certain neighborhoods. i think that is saying something to our agency. i hope that in staff planning, the next presentation related to financing mechanisms, you can take into account what that means in terms outreach, engagement strategies, both neighborhoods that we clearly did not convince was good use of money, but also in neighborhoods where we study see strong showing of people. people did actually vote yes which is the vast majority of the neighborhoods and to get those folks out more involved

and voting. we need to provide a clear direction to the city and to the board as to which capital projectses are most like -- projects are most likely impacted. we didn't identify all of the actual projects in the bond because we're not allowed to if they're not cleared by ceqa. obviously, we had a clear five-year capital plan. it will be helpful to forecast which projects are most likely to be impacted, so we could may be reassess our priorities. i think there's been some misconceptions about this about potrero yard and what this means. i'm hoping staff can respond to that. director mcguire, do you want to address that?

>> which part, the direction campaign projects are at risk? >> director lai: that and this doesn't meanwhile property taxes will be lower. clarify to the public what this means. >> i believe that's the correct description. if you like me to get into the potrero discussion, [ indiscernible ] , can discuss more. we'll be happen to come -- that's something -- >> director lai: brief direct response to that particular question might be caused given the news without getting in the session. >> thank you, director lai. i'm the acting chief financial officer. the potrero yard project, we give you an update two months ago. we're in negotiations with the

lead developer. you knew there will be capital payment for the project based on the schedule. there are a number of facilities projects that the agency required as director mcguire noted. the component of the bond was really to mean a key environmental goal for the city to electrify the muni fleet. potrero yard is a part of that, kirkland yard is a part of that. all of those projects, now prop a has been passed, will be much harder for us to achieve. there are potrero yard is a priority for this agency for couple of reasons. one, it is 100 years old and must be replaced. the system needs to be reliable. we need to maintain our fleet. it is the first major yard that will allow us to store purely electric becauses that are not

trolley coaches within the city. there are different avenues to fund that. those avenues will be more difficult. again, things sometimes work out, politics do happen in the city. that project will continue to move forward. we intend on updating the board in october as planned with the selected developer. we will move forward with the project from there. >> director lai: thank you. i would agree with that assessment that it will be more difficult to fund these projects, but they are necessary. i hope to see that moving forward even if it means the projects will be more expensive, unfortunately. that's just what it means we will have to probably find a more source of funding. on the crashes that was mentioned in your report, were all of them along the corridors

include the bus and the suv crash? >> yes. >> director lai: even more reason for us to continue to expedite our current plan. the electrical fire, i understand it sound like it's too soon to tell what impacts there may be. are you able to give us like aline expectation when you might know the impact on out schedule? >> we'll know the answer to that question this week. it's been on site since last night. they are investigating right now. we'll know by this week. >> director lai: great. well, hopefully, the additional investment we had to do back on the fire suppression system, may be helped us escape more dire situation. thank you, chair.

>> chair borden: director hinze? >> director hinze: thank you. thank you director mcguire for your report. you doing fine job of filling in. i want to thank everyone who showed up yesterday and made everything possible. on the vision zero, we will be taking a deeper dive in the next

meeting. i will wait to dive into those questions. it's good to hear, though, -- [ indiscernible ] anything we can do to help is the situation is good.

congratulations again to all the staff who participated. i would second director lai's request as soon as, decent report back on how results of the election will affect our budget and the various projects there. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. director heminger. >> director heminger: thank you. may be just to continue the theme if i could on prop a. i think we're really not touching on couple of major implications. look, the loss of the measure is regrettable. with the measure like this, you wish you lost by 10 points instead of one and a half. either way, we lost.

that was capital money. capital money is actually easier to find than operating subsidy. that operating subsidy is what is going to be really stressed as we exit the pandemic and don't really know how many people are going to show up at work, like they used to. we have to deal with the fact that the federal money that we've been relying on is now drying up. in my opinion, it's always nice to find some capital money where we can. we've got a deferred maintenance backlog. we'll find something to spend that money on. but the gap between our expenses and operating support, i think is much more worrisome. the measure that we have coming at us now is the sales tax, which is also two thirds vote. at least so far, the t.a. is

saying they want to make that just a capital program, not include operating support from it. which i think, ought to be consider. in any event, what we got are two capital initiatives, one of which is already failed. other of which has to meet the same ballot threshold. that's the bad news. the good news, in my opinion, as an enterprise agency, we actually have under our control, revenue sources that we can raise on our own without getting a two thirds vote from the electorate. now, obviously, there are legal limits to how far we can push that idea. i know there have been some discussions with the city attorney's office about it. i hope those discussions not only continue but intensify.

we just elected our brand new sitting attorney. i have a sneaking suspicion he might be interested in this topic. i do hope as part of our debrief on prop a, that we look at the question of operating support and the question of can we raise some of that money on our own, and not have to worry about whether the recall of the district attorney is on the same ballot as us. the other thing i wanted to raise is little bit briefer. tom, may be i can ask you. this is about slow streets. just to test my memory, i believe we approved four of those, making them permanent several months ago, right? one of them was lake street. >> right. >> director heminger: two

questions. the first question is, now that we've done four, what's the process for doing more? >> you memory is correct. this board made four slow streets permanent. the next step for those streets is to make sure we get them designed right and move away from sandbagging and temporary signs. we need to do that the rest of the slow street network, we need to have robust conversation with the community about what the ultimate extent of the slow street network is and the design tools are. >> director heminger: do you have a timetable for the pacing of how we might be seeing these decisions come to us? >> clerk: given this is separate from the director's report, we should probably bring that back -- >> director heminger: i noted he had ongoing activities in his

activity. this is one of them. [ laughter ] i thought that's what that was there for. i'd be happy to have it offline. what worries me, we taken action to make the lake street personal. there seems to be a healthy debate about whether we should have slow street on lake. i thought that decision has been made. now we're just dealing with the detail of how we install it. it seems to me we got to catch up our reality with the perception that's out there, somehow we get to have another debate about whether to have slow street at all. i'll conclude there. >> chair borden: director eaken? >> vice chair eaken: thank you. i would echo many of my

colleague comments about the breakdown of the prop a results and update on future of slow streets. it does feel we're entering a new phase of our vision zero. i don't really understand why it feels particularly devastating in recent months. i'm looking forward to hearing the update about how we're going to be changing our vision zero reporting. i would bring into the conversation, the resolution that supervisor preston introduced regarding a potential townhall following every fatality and coordination with the board of supervisors and other agencies, not looking for response now. may be when you come back. you will share our approach, how interfacing with the board of supervisors is a part of that new approach. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. are there any additional comments from directors before i open to public comment?

for members of the public, this is your opportunity to comment on the director's report and subsequent comments from board members. if you like to speak and you're in the room, please approach the podium. [ please stand by ]

their design proposal last monday for two weeks of public hearing, a proposal recommends four, from 22 to four. that means there will be ten block two-block sections from 15 to 24 with nothing slowing down cars, actually maintaining a permanent slow lane. the community is confused, saying you voted for a permanent slow lane.

if you do this, this is going to create confusion, and people don't understand what to do next, so we ask that you support what you voted for, which was a permanent slow lane. thank you so much. thank you very much. >> thank you. are there any more public comment? seeing none, we'll move on-line. are there any members of the public who wish to address the board? >> yes. >> okay. go ahead. >> oh, good morning, commissioners. i hope you've had a chance to

read my packet that i sent. you said that people didn't want to talk about prop a, they wanted to talk about closing of the great highway and closing of the j.f.k. you know, you put these measures on the ballots, and you didn't [indiscernible] in the outer richmond sunset that voted for prop a. most of them were in the low 50s. there's interactive maps that you can look at. the other article i sent, was vision zero is failing because there's been too many time is .

next speaker, please. >> thank you, again, chair borden. for the record, alita dupree,

she and her. i just found out that prop a didn't pass. i can't vote for it because i don't live in san francisco, but i hope that you will find alternative means to be able to fund rebuilding muni because there are a lot of things that i want to see in muni, such as the electric buses and the phasing out the facility. these are things that people don't see. it's like you can build a house, but if the foundation isn't any good, the house is going to fall down, so i ask you to continue funding these developments without delay. i am looking forward to the scooter program being extended. i advocate that anyone who gets on a scooter should be speed

responsible. i'm not going to put my license at risk. i do hope that when you get into sidewalk detection technology, that it doesn't falsely alert a person who's walking a scooter mid look. there has to be a safety built in. technology is a good thing, but you don't want anybody to get lost in the wash because they are walking their scooter in accordance with the law.

thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> this is herbert winer. you can fool some people all of the time, some people some of the time, and some people none of the time, and that's exactly what happened with prop a. the chickens have come home to roost. basically, muni service has not improved, and you can't talk bond issues with zero results and the continuing deterioration of muni service. now, basically, the neighborhoods have not been served. they have to walk longer

distance to the bus stop, and bus service has not improved. you have to listen to the public for ones, and you have to start making the appropriate changes. otherwise, you're going to lose more customers, and your measures are going to crash. you have to start listening to the public, and neighborhood groups, and concerned individuals. basically, m.t.a. stands for the misery transit agency. one of my sayings is if you're not under the bus, you're under the wheels. so this is my wake-up call, and you better listen.

>> thank you, -- thank you. next speaker. >> i have a concern and a proposed solution. my concern that the js 15-minute headway is a single outlier. every single other one runs at

ten or 12 minutes. my proposed solution is to convert one or two s-runs per hour, which currently with extremely low passenger loads to equalize js loads. i would urge the m.t.a. to study this and implement it as soon as feasible. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> just a reminder, this is public comment for items that were discussed on the director's report. >> hi. can you hear me? >> yeah. >> hi. my name is susie [indiscernible]. i want to push back onthe

claim that the pride parade was a success. signage at bus stops that the buses would reroute. no one was it mentioned that buses were running on mission street, and as a result, m.t.a. decided it doesn't care anyone who lives [indiscernible] and on the bayshore. i spent five hours, from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., walking up and down mission street, helping non-english speaking workers and others. on mission street, countless people were confused and angry.

muni has no presence on the ground at all, and [indiscernible]. over the course of the night, i helped hundreds of people that were angry, abandoned, upset, and confused. the biggest thing i heard was that people felt like sfmta didn't care and hadn't communicated to them at all. this parade was not a success and i want sfmta to do better. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> hi. my name is [indiscernible]. i know you're fielding a massive amount of feedback and can't imagine it's an easy job. thank you. i'm a decade long resident of d-5 in the lower haight. i am a car owner and just purchased an e-bike at the start of this year. i love slow lake street. i use it when i navigate the northwestern part of the city on my bike. i know so many more people who say the same and would shift their mode of transportation if the infrastructure was planned for and, more importantly, implemented. i ask you to please replace the temporary barriers with permanent barriers and

obstruction lake street to arguello to the west. >> just a reminder to people calling in, this is not general public comment, this is the time to comment specifically on director mcguire's comments and then the comments of directors. next speaker, please. >> can i please be put back in the queue? >> sure. great. can we get the next one? moderator? >> i am speaking on slow lake street. [indiscernible] thus creating an unsafe streets for kids and people with disabilities to use

along with cars, so i'm asking for the m.t.a. board to demand the m.t.a. staff redesign the streets with safe intersection.

>> hi. this is jason, and i live in 94129, and just was voicing my support for a more slow lake

street. definitely was discouraged by the designs that came out after all the comment periods and all the work we put into it. i also drive and have an e-bike, as does my partner. over the last year, slow lake has allowed us to do a significant part of our trips and commuting by e-bike. it's vitally important that we have a very small fraction of roads that are bike and pedestrian concentric. i want to emphasize how

important they've been for us to be able to get around the city in noncar fashion. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. moderator, are there additional callers on the line? >> hello. my name is [indiscernible] and i called to say director mcguire's comments on the [indiscernible] over the weekend. [indiscernible] not seeing operation jolly competence when it comes to [indiscernible] the massive backlog of buses on mission street, the bus that i was on got rerouted blocks and blocks out of the way because traffic was completely impassible.

on the ground, there was massive confusion about where to go in the face of signs that were missing information and some missing altogether. i did not see any [indiscernible] on the ground saying things like safety, [indiscernible] not picking up at geary and kearney. this left a bad impression on people who aren't taking transit, and i really want the sfmta to learn from this experience when planning things in the future. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> can you hear me now? >> yes, thank you, mr. pilpel. >> thank you. david pilpel. yes, i think that there was a

failure of the parade. i'd be happy to discuss this at another time, which director mcguire indicated would be happening, or, they can vote no on the tilly tax that will be happening. any action that you take on slow streets will annoy people on both sides, both in favor and opposed, and further reduce trust in the m.t.a. it's a tricky situation. federal operating funds are indeed drying up. in my opinion, m.t.a. is squandering valuable time on how to deal with that, and the fiscal cliff still looms larger and larger in the

not-so-distant future. it still sounds like discussions are underway about ballot measures for operating funds, both at the regional and local level, and i continue to encourage to -- thanks -- to engage in those discussions and talk about them at the m.t.a. board. and finally, i am still concerned about s.b. 917, i believe, the coordination bill. it's yet another distraction to providing the quality transit service that people want and need and deserve. thanks for listening. >> thank you, mr. pilpel. next speaker, please. >> hello, directors. this is david alexander. i live in the richmond district, and we have two young kids. we get around walking and transit and biking. just flabbergasted at the

developments with slow lake. i get it that the political machines run strong in this city. i totally get it, but using that as leverage, using further elections as leverage on the accessibility and the green network on residents is just pretty low. my family is affected by it. we usually take it to [indiscernible] san francisco unified public school, and it just feels like folks can go and put their hand in the cookie jar and make these changes, and people are listening to it. that's the scary part, actually, because we don't have a car. i just want to thank director heminger's comments about slow lake, just really hammering down the fact that it's been

approved twice. also, with the diverters, they must be permanent or else folks are going to zip through? folks have been ripping down signage, literally defacing government property. m.t.a. needs to hammer down because folks will get injured. slow lake is loved, and i really hope that m.t.a. and brass take the next step seriously. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm stacey randecker, and i'm a 20-year resident of d-10. i'm just in shock how we keep going and keep having these meetings and keep wringing our

hands over prop a. 49 years ago, we became a transit first city. what does that even mean, when we need to go to the ballot to fund transit? it should be first. we should be funding it ahead of all other modes of transportation, which we absolutely subsidize by all the roads that we have, all the parking that we build. vision zero, you have 18 months to reach it. we've had 19 deaths this year, putting us on track for the worst year we've had since vision zero was announced. state of emergency, the board of supervisors declared that two years ago, but for greenhouse gas, we've done nothing. we've done nothing to reduce transportation by personal

motor vehicles. it's 95° right now. in the past ten years, we've only had three days hotter than this. wake up, this is happening all-around the world. you need to take radical and swift action, get cars off our streets, charge real property tax rates for residential property. the state won't let you? who cares. get creative, but if you don't start limiting the number of cars and their ability to travel all over at every rate of speed and smash into your $600,000 buses and us, what are you doing? stop wringing your hands. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is david hampshire, and

i have a lot to say, so sorry if i speak at the pace of an auctioneer. i live with my family in district 8, and we thank you the sfmta for your leadership. during the depths of the pandemic, my then four-year-old, now amazingly seven, learned how to bike on slow lake, and now, my daughter is doing the same. slow lake has created a better and more cohesive neighborhood. we were absolutely thrilled that the city decided to be an international leader on liveable cities designed for people. my kids and i went biking on lake street, and it was great. a terrific summer activity, but it was incredibly stressful. there were drivers that think the rules don't apply to them or don't care and just speed and weave all over.

it looked like the wild west. it made me furious at the drivers, but it isn't wholly their fault. the city hasn't made rules clear and consistent. no one knows what they can and can't do. i understand the city is still working on plans how to implement slow lake permanently. there's a lot of disappointment of expectations that's better than what we have, so i have two requests. speed it up. without action, someone is going to be hit by a car, and someone may die. this is taking forever. please pull it together and get this done and fast. every day of delay is another day of needless risk.

two -- >> thank you. your time is up. next speaker, please. >> hi. good afternoon. my name is alec starr. i'm a lifelong district of district 1. i live with my parents and two small children. i grew up driving in the neighborhood and used to cut on lake street over to my house when park presidio from the bridge. it was definitely the most efficient way to travel. when slow lake came in, it changed my behavior, and i'm so happy for it. i make great use of slow lake. my family rides our bike to school every day. before slow lake, we were one of very few families, and the number of families who bike to work and school has quintupled. for the last couple of weeks, i was doing a lot of driving as part of my work, and i noticed

how easy it is to not slow down when there are speed bumps. a lot of our speed bumps are designed if you take them just right, you can keep going at 25 miles per hour. i also don't have my child, who's nine, cross the street to go to the grocery store because of lack of attention by drivers or who just do the california roll at stop signs. the design of slow lanes is dependent on speed bumps and stop signs make me worried about the future of the street. pedestrians and drivers all ask for clarity and a safeway for drivers to get on and off that street. you need diversion barriers placed more frequently, and i really appreciate that you guys can help make sure that your plan is a success by directing

your staff to do so. thank you. bye. [please stand by]

>> as permanent slow street barriers signage at every intersection. just keep it to the cliff. we love it. we go up and down all the time. literally our 6-month-old, first time out of the house was a walk on slow lake street. thank you so much for the work is doing. we appreciate what the sfmta staff is working on. really hope that you guys these thoughtful comments to heart and keep slow streets slow. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: hi. i'm a d1 resident and a father.

i love using slow lake by myself and with my family. use it many times for example to go to the clementine holiday celebration. used it many times to bike with my kids. i use it all the time to get to places to other destinations. if it wasn't slow street, might not be able to make those trips at all, or i might have hopped in a car instead. i want to thank the board for approving slow lake about year ago. really appreciate all the work on promoting slow streets across the city. i'm concerned about the latest

design for slow lake and i want to make sure that rather than decreasing the number of barriers and diverters, make sure there's as many barricades and diverted as possible. make sure it's extended along the entire length of slow lake. again, i really want to thank sfmta staff, sfmta board for all of their work on this. again, also, hope they listen to all of the thoughtful comments thus far. thank you. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: i like to make comment regarding the parade. i was on a 398 bus that came from the freeway on to 9th street. it took well over a half an hour

before -- towards mission street. the operator of the bus called in to central control and then finally obtained the reroute at which time many of the passengers were able to disembark the walk to our destination. my observation was, did sam trans not inform the route and breakdown with muni was there a breakdown not effectively communicating with their operators to employ a reroute. eventually the bus did go over to tenth street then to go to eastbound street. at that time, i finally disembarked. i think communicationing with our -- communicating with our

transit partners is important. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: my name is jack. i want to call in to say that after seeing the proposed permanent design for slow lake street, i'm designed, even with the 22 existing diverters, i walk on lake almost every day. i see multiple drivers driving unsafe speeds. to keep lake safe as a street for pedestrians and cyclists, we need more aggressive traffic mitigation, not less. i have a request to traffic diverters at ever intersection along lake street. additionally, i think that the traffic mitigation should go all the way to 25th and not just

24th. it's dangerous to allow drivers a chance to drive on lake. thank you. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: hi. i want to thank the board for approving lake and other streets in san francisco as slow streets. i'm advocating on behalf of our children to keep lake street as a slow street. i live on 30th avenue, i commute every day by bike to my work. i grew in germany where it's quite common that young children commute by bike to school. as a teacher, i can attest the

benefits when students come to school after some exercise, they have so much more focus and may be more importantly, seeing their smiles when i check with them in the morning and saying good-bye to school. they are so proud. it really means a lot to me to teach that and to see so many more children on the lake street. i want to ask that the

barricades replaced. thank you for your continue work on this. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: my name is michael. i'm a district 8 resident. i'm calling for alternate response. i have been running dozen and dozens of miles all around the city especially on slow street. i get honked at by drivers all the time when i'm running down the middle of page street. there are signs at every block.

i challenge anybody listening to this call, to stand on lake street and tell me with a straight face what a driver will do. this lake street design is going to get somebody killed. this is supposed to be a permanent slow street. we should be done arcing about improvement in the richest part of the city. i am tired of this. thank you for your time, do better. >> chair borden: next speaker please. [ indiscernible ]

[ indiscernible ] >> caller: thank you for advocating for more slow street and we have more robust success design now. [ indiscernible ] >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> clerk: there are no other callers. >> chair borden: with that, we will close public comment. move on to our next item.

>> clerk: item 8, citizens advisory council report. there's no report expected today. that places you on item 9. public comment. this is opportunity for member of the public to address the board on matters within the board jurisdiction and not on today's calendar. >> chair borden: if you had your chance to speak about lake street, please do not do that. i open up to public comment. i don't see anyone in the room. >> clerk: nancy. you still wanting to speak. okay. leslie sheehan and jordan smith. >> chair borden: all right, online callers. are there any callers on the line? >> clerk: already no callers on

the line for public comment. >> chair borden: next item. >> clerk: next item is 10. the consent calendar. all matters listed here underconstitute a consent calendar. will be acted upon by a single vote. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the board of directors or public request. in which event the matter shall be remored from the consent calendar and consideredded a separate item. i'm getting the word now there are three people that jumped on the call for public comment. i'm not sure how to handle that. >> chair borden: sure, as long as they are not people not called before and speak about

the same topic. we will reopen public comment. out of respect for people calling in and missing the cue, i will respect that. please proceed. >> caller: this is i wanted to speak on item 9. i got passed over. don't do it again. i'll bow out. thank you. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: hi. just to add on, vision zero, i know you're all concernedded about it. i really know that you want this. i did want to bring to your attention that vision zero task

force scheduled to meet in june but didn't. there was no announcement. that's the cadence. there was no meeting. no nothing about it. i find in really concerning that they would skip a meeting when traffic deaths are at pretty much 10-year high. if you could look into that, i appreciate it. please do all you can to implement the movement of cars. they are hurting and killing us. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> caller: this is david pilpel. two items under general public comment, as i started to allude to earlier, a shorter l bus

operating from the zoo to west portal enforcing transfers at west portal, starting july 9th. as i understand, is in the plan, it's not emphasized what was promised during the construction project. what was promised was that the l substitution bus would operate the entire line from the zoo to embarcadero or ferry plaza, and allow one seat ride and not force people to transfer at west portal. they are forced to do there, there are accessibility issues, safety issues at west portal. if people choose to do so, that's fine. but, it was promised that the entire l would have bus service. there's a concern about resources, then as another caller suggested earlier,

service can be reduced on the f line to some extent because the l on market street duplicate the l. other item is about the other july 9th muni service changes. that, again, only goes partway to restoring service that was promised back in december, 6 1/2 months ago. i am very concerned that staff not work to undermine those changes by shorting the runs and having low reliability on the services that are restored. it's difficult to allocate shortages in operators and given the ongoing challenges. somehow, service on the restored line and the lines that have crowding conditions should be prioritized over other places. ultimately, there should be a staff all operating positions throughout the agency. thanks for listening.

>> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> clerk: that was the last caller. >> chair borden: with that, we will close public comment. move on to our next item. we are moving on. >> clerk: i will read the consent item into the record. item 10.1 requesting the controller to allot fund and draw warrants against such funds in payment of the following claims against sfmta as listed on the agenda item a-c. item 10.2, approving various routine parking and traffic modifications. items a-cc, item 10.3, amending the transportation code to reduce speed limit from 25 miles per hour to 20 miles per hour for the 23 city street segments

listed on the agenda. item 10.4, authorizing the director to execute amendment number 2 to sfmta contract number cs174, professional project management and construction management support services for van ness corridor, transit improvement project. in the amount of $415,600 for a total contract not to exceed $7,790,000 to extend contract to june 30, 2023. 10.5, authorize the director to execute modification number 1 to contract number 1305, ucsf platform to extend the contract term by 129 days to a new substantial completion date of

august 6, 2019. item.10.6 to execute a new lease and sfmta as tenant for a 5-year term for additional two-year extension on bancroft avenue with initial annual operating expenses estimated at $75,600 and to execute each extension option at the director's extension. if it rent for it extension term is no more than fair market value at that time. item 10.7, approving sfmta our community our shuttle bayview

hunters point for the equity project, which is administered by the california resources board, authorizing the director to execute the grant agreement for funding to comply with the requirements and provide committed resource contributions to the project. that completes the consent agenda. >> chair borden: directors, are there any item you like to see severed from the consent agenda. >> director heminger: items 10.4 and 10.7. >> chair borden: consider those separately. at this time, we will open up to public comment. we'll take all the items except for 10.4 and 10.7.

are members of the public online who like to comment? since there's no one in the room. >> clerk: there are two callers. >> caller: this is david pilpel. i have a general comment about item 10.7. can do i that now and get it done? >> chair borden: sure. >> caller: on the consent calendar, generally, seem like some would lend themselves to map and photos of the locations like the bancroft lease, the chase center platform project. some of these other items, not necessarily all of the traffic changes. at least those that are relatively big items.

specifically, to item 10.7, the staff report does not mention a web page regarding the bayview community shuttle program. if there is a web page for it, if somebody can look that up, relay that publicly. it will be nice to include web pages for specific projects in the staff report. i'm not clear where so much service is currently being duplicated in bayview-hunters point when the t, 15, 44 and 54 and this new shuttle program. i'm in favor of appropriate level of transit service for everybody. but having duplication in that area or frankly elsewhere in town means that resources going to provide duplicate service and shorting other parts of town.

if all of those buses are full, great. more power to them and that's fantastic. i think that should be rationalized. let's take the grant money. thanks for listening. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> clerk: looks like that is the only caller for item 10. >> chair borden: with that, is there a motion on the consent calendar minus 10.4 and 10.7? >> moved. >> second. >> chair borden: please call the roll. >> clerk: for the consent calendar minus the two items severed. [roll call vote]

those items pass. >> chair borden: we'll move on to items 10.4 and 10.7. director heminger. >> director heminger: i have a question and maybe a different approach on 10.4. this is the van ness project. which seems to be opening to rave reviews. it was worth the wait. what concerns me here is the project is open. we're talking about extending a contract for another year. i just got to believe we can do that faster and cheaper. especially we're hiring them to advise us to do the work we're doing. i would strongly urge you to consider and i'll make a motion at the appropriate time that we

change the extension time to december 31st, just half a year, and change the amount to $250,000. which i know is a drop in the pocket compared to whole project. may be better late than never. that's my suggestion. if you like a motion, i'll make that motion. >> chair borden: why don't we wait to see if there's other items? did you have something on 10.7? >> director heminger: i did. i have couple of questions. >> chair borden: if you want to make a motion, that's fine. >> director heminger: okay, i just did. >> chair borden: is there a second? >> i got my colleague here as well who can help with the details. the gist of this is that while the project is open to the public, there's quite bit of

closeout work that needs to be done. these big capital projects do have large documentations that need to be done. one area that i'm worried about with the van ness is potential claims that the contractor written to the board and written to us about. while this is half million dollars, -- >> director heminger: you may be right. i would rather just put this project on a short leash now, which would mean half a year and half the amount. if it turns out that you can't make that deadline, you have come back and ask. i sort of like to give you a little incentive to see whether we can bring this thing in just little sooner at a little less

cost. >> chair borden: are there any implications about the changing the timing that would effect work or anything happening? >> good afternoon, board. sorry, i'm not used to being in person after all this time. we can take the approach that you're suggesting. we do have, as tom mentioned, tens of millions of dollars of claims the contractor has against the project. this extension is primarily to keep on key people who have been with the project for many years,

and can be in room with us when we are negotiating a settlement of these claims. they have been in the room when the decisions are made in the field for construction and evaluating the contractor schedule on a month by month basis. we can work the way that you're suggesting, but if we can't reach a conclusion in six months, then we will be back here again asking for the additional time. my experience once the attorneys are involved, they don't move quickly. that's why we ask for years time with it. >> director heminger: i think i want to give them an incentive too. >> chair borden: directors, any further questions or comments or thoughts? is there support for the motion? >> i'll second the motion.

>> chair borden: director hinze, did you have something to add? >> director hinze: i would support director heminger's approach. if you think it's feasible, i will be in favor of that approach. i want to make sure that you feel like it's something that's worth trying. >> with respect to director heminger's comments about the contract amendment and the

m.t.a. can't change the contract amendment, my recommendation will be to direct staff to go back and negotiate with the contractor in light of director heminger's direction and staff can bring the item and revised amendment back to you if they are able to reach a agreement with the contractor. >> director hinze: to that point, when do we need to start this work, how quickly we'll be able to negotiate? >> we have been in the process of working with the contractor on these claims for over a year and a half now. chipping away at different items. my one concern with having to

come back that the hntb contract expires next month. if we don't renew it, it puts us in a awkward situation where we have to contractual relationship with the staff. we renew it or extend it. >> director hinze: does it expire at the end of next month? >> at the beginning of the month. >> director hinze: oh. i'm interested to see if my other colleagues have thoughts. >> chair borden: director lai? >> director lai: thank you, chair. is it too late for us to add this item on the special hearing

if we had to postpone it until next week? >> clerk: it's not too late, no. >> director lai: so we have an opportunity. i would support director heminger in this, if others agree. i think just on principle, i know i've given the feedback before to staff, i think it's a little unfortunate when staff brings to the board items that are to expire and don't give us an opportunity to provide guidance and tell us that your backs are up against the wall, you have to approve it, otherwise the agency runs out of time. i think this is another example of that. i hope that we don't continue the habit. staff knew that the contract was about to expire, could have brought it to us earlier. i hope in the future we can be little bit more diligent with this practice of bringing things to us in a timely fashion.

i would probably agree, these things don't resolve itself quickly. i can understand the year. i think keeping it on a short leash is probably the tone we want to strike at this point. it's already open. everybody needs to get off of the project and move on. i will be in voting to continue it to next week. >> chair borden: thank you. director heminger? >> director heminger: thank you. this will be my last word. if there is a way to act quickly, then i'm okay with some kind of delay until next week. building delay defeats the purpose of the idea. my guess is, the contractor is going to take whatever money and whatever time you give them. am i wrong about that?

>> you're talking about the construction contract. >> oh yeah, walsh. >> sorry, i misunderstood. >> director heminger: i understand the point we can't impose a change on them, you negotiated this contract before us. i'm sure they'll take half a loaf. >> if we go back and say you have six months and half the amount of money, they will provide the service they will provide for six months. it's resolving the claim within six months when we've been chipping away at it for a year and a half. it's going to be the challenging part. >> director heminger: i think you're right. i think that's okay. >> chair borden: where are we on

this? >> vice chair eaken: is there not a way we can pre-approve the director transportation to negotiate this so this doesn't have to come back to the board? >> because it was agendize for a particular time and amount of money, i think it's best if you like to make changes to that to direct staff bring that revised amendment back to you once it's been negotiated. >> chair borden: directors what do we like to do? >> director lai: i think the motion has been made and seconded. >> chair borden: we have to basically take -- not continue it with the direction of the six months. >> director lai: i guess i can make that motion.

>> chair borden: we're making a motion only 10.4. >> director heminger: i have a motion on the table. i need to withdraw it if we're going to do it something else. >> chair borden: we can't pass the motion the way it is. >> director heminger: not to prolong this, i am concernedded about the advice we're getting, that we can't make any change to any contract that comes before us without having to send it back down through the loop again. would that apply if we added $10, we have to go back through the process again. there's got doing to be something we're doing the same thing just for a shorter period of time. >> we are. it should go back because it wasn't agendized with broader authority to execute an

amendment within certain parameters. >> director heminger: if it said up to blank, we could have done it? >> if the agenda language and proposal was broader -- >> director heminger: may be there's lesson learned. we won't burn so much time if we have that sort of built into what appears before us on the agenda. in the meantime, i will withdraw my substitute motion. i guess i'm back to director lai. there is meeting, next week, i move that we extend -- we put that on that meet's agenda and we direct staff to negotiate the changes that i have indicated.

>> chair borden: staff, do you think you'll be able to negotiate the change in a week? >> we will do our best. it's pretty much telling them this is what we are going to do, and adjusting things appropriately. i don't think after six years on the project, hntb will walk away. >> let's see if we can make this little easier. city attorney, can the board add to the resolution a requirement that staff need come back to the board before spending more than $250,000 on this contract? can they add that to the resolution and approve it as is? if we will come back if we have to spend one dollar more. >> are you proposing the same contract time. >> yes, if we go one day over six months or one penny over

250, we are required to come back to the board. >> that's not what it was agendized for. >> they would approve it as is but they are adding this line to the resolutioning that will require staff dome back to report to them if we spend greater than $250,000 or anticipating going beyond six months. it's just an addition. we will be required to report back to you. >> if that's acceptable to the board, but a report back is different than changing the contract amendment term. >> i think the point to the board, they want the control to know and we will do our best to meet that, we will have to come back and explain why we have to go longer than six months or more than 250,000-dollar. if it's about the board having the control and having a strict deadline, i think this is a simpler way to add that as an amendment to the resolution. i take it peter would prefer not

to come back. he will meet that, or he will be right back here. it's no different if you cut it back to 250, we came back and we needed to do it again to add another 250, we'd be right back at the board. >> chair borden: i guess the question i have, though, the contract has a larger sum. do we really have any authority, you come back 250 to do anything differently? ultimately, the contract is already been authorized at that level. i guess it's more of a question, it's more a performance at that point. >> director heminger: you can speak for yourself, jonathan, i understood you to mean that we would sign the contract for half a million and you would have a bar against spending more than $250,000. >> until we came back to this board. >> director heminger: the contract wouldn't change. what will change is our

relationship. >> correct. you are directing us if we spend more if we have dome back to the board. >> director heminger: that's agreeable. >> chair borden: i think we can do that. >> that works. >> chair borden: that's the motion. [ laughter ] specifically on item number 10.4. let's deal with that one and take the other one separately. >> clerk: so, the roll call is for the amendment which is to amend the resolution to return to the board for any amount exceeding $250,000 or beyond december 31, 2022. >> i think the motion that's on the table is for the continuance. >> director heminger: i will withdraw that one too. the third time is the charm. >> clerk: okay.

roll call vote for that amendment to the resolution. [roll call vote] the amendment passes and ethen you need to approve the resolution as amended. >> chair borden: we can take the other item with that. let's make a motion for the two items together for the amended version for item 7. >> director heminger: what you said. [ laughter ] >> chair borden: second. >> director hinze: second. >> chair borden: call the roll. >> clerk: this is item 10.4 as amended. >> chair borden: no, taking both of them, amended version of item

10.4. >> director heminger: i don't think we should put them together. >> chair borden: we'll go ahead and vote on the main motion for item number 10.4. >> clerk: 10.4 as amended. [roll call vote] that passes. now you're on to 10.7 discussion. >> director heminger: i'll be brief on this one. can someone lay out for me what the implications of the contract terms are here. this is a $10 million grant. it's to defray the operating cost of some new shuttle service. >> that's right. this is accepting the funds. >> director heminger: is the $10 million good for how many months or years?

>> hi, this is robert. good afternoon. the item before you is to accept $10.5 million. that money must be spent by march 2026. >> director heminger: how much a year is that? i can't do the math. >> we're providing three years of revenue service. we're expecting to spend about $2 million a year. on the revenue service, the money will go to planning and community outreach. >> director heminger: couple of million bucks a year, okay. what happens when the grant money is gone? >> the goal by 2026, we can get

this shuttle continuing. otherwise, we rely on the funding and we may have to end it when the funding expires. >> important part of this is evaluation too. community shuttles are tricky business for us to be in. we go in that with our eyes open. this is the top priority from the bayview community based transportation plan. >> director heminger: given the fact that it's a priority, i think there's going to be quite a bit of community concern if we tell them the grant money is gone and we got to stop. that's the primary reason i wanted to mention this and call it out separately. as you said, tom, eyes wide open. we're going into a situation here where we're going to bill d an exception. if all else fails it's the muni bus that defrays the service.

is there a charge to use the service or is it free to passengers? >> this is robert lynn again, we're going to tie it to muni. it's a cost to muni riders. >> director heminger: the answer is yes, there will be a cost to the passengers? >> yes. >> director heminger: thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. you want to make a motion? >> director heminger: i'll move the item. >> second. >> chair borden: please call the roll. >> clerk: on item 10.7. [roll call vote]. the item passes. brings you to your regular calendar. >> chair borden: that's muni

forward. >> clerk: item 11a, presentation discussion regarding the muni forward program and item 11b, approve the sfmta's title vi service equity analysis of central subway project light rail transit project. >> great, thank you. good afternoon directors. sean kennedy. i'm the transit planning manager.

i guess, it's become intimate in here. that's kind of too bad, i have some great stuff to share inwill start with my yearly update on the muni forward program, talk through results that we've seen as well as where we're going next steps wise. then the presentation talking through our title vi analysis of our current plan. there's no surprise here, obviously there are lot of competing needs and issues on our street space. what is kind of different in san francisco compared to our peers and other cities of of this size, we do not have a very extensive subway network. about 80% really high percentage of riders are on our surface system. we create the the muni forward program. i do want to highlight two things. i know you all seen this slide,

i want to rehighlight two things based on the previous discussion earlier this afternoon. one is that we integrate our service planning and delivery with our capital program. where we put our muni forward program and try to essentially use those capital dollars to get a lot more service investment out of what we're putting on the street. secondly, we do incorporate the vision zero. about 30% of the vision zero network is on the muni forward network. we incorporate all of the vision zero elements in that work. to date, we have either received approval from this board or actually built 80 miles transit.

we have kind of a tiered set of programs or projects that we do that work in. we have the traditional muni forward corridor work, which i will talk about more here. then we have a temporary emergency transit lanes where it's corridor base end and focused on improvements which i will talk about how we going next there. then our hot spot program, which is really focused on our 10 top intersections of delay in the system regardless of how many people are riding the bus there. i want to talk about all three elements. first, our muni forward overall traditional projects, corridor based. we look at the entire stretch of line, like the 5 fulton, for example. these corridors and these

numbers you see up here is pre-covid. you seen these results before. it's nothing new. what i wanted to rehash or point it out again, we've identified and figured out how to get ridership back. this is no silver bullet. we're not some brilliant people sitting up there in a tower thinking of stuff. this is really how to do it. we proved pre-covid wise in an atmosphere where we seeing decline in ridership. nationwide, we were seeing 4% to 5% decrease in transit ridership. even as a city, muni was seeing 1% to 2% decrease in ridership on the system. except we made muni forward improvements. increasing reliability, decreasing transit travel time

brings riders. that's what we want to apply as we're hoping the city get back up and running. one of the ways we're doing that is quick build. we're planning to get much quicker results even in the ones we showed you in the future. post-covid, we plan to implement a number of crypto changes. during covid, this map shows we identified segments of corridors not even entire corridors. just segment of corridors where we can real improvements in travel time if we're able to take the bus from traffic and other issues. with those locations, we implemented quick build approach to put in temporary emergency transit lanes up. all six projects here were not

only implemented have been finalized and approved by this board for permanent installation. they are about 15 to 16 miles total of temporary transit improvements that are finalized. i wanted to highlight, today, we actually have produced a report in our best bureaucratic fashion. i hope that you all get a chance to check it out and anybody listening out in the public, saw our website. we sent it to a number of interested stakeholders already. we looked at all the tetl. we implement six. they all have different metrics of things that are impressive about them. some are reductions in muni collisions and other issues. one of them not been finalized yet, that is our hov pilot project that we have with

caltrans. really groundbreaking work that is not been done in urban hov lanes on a caltrans right-of-way. caltrans asked for couple of more years of pilot work to finalize that project. we will be coming to you in next couple of months to extend that particular pilot project. all the other tetls have been finalized and are detailed in this report. really impressive results. i want to highlight one specifically just to show you the flavor of what's in this report. downtown mission from 11th to 1st, we've seen 31% faster travel time on muni during that segment, with the tetls.

really impressive. it compliments the other work we did severely years ago with with the red lanes. this is a gift. we created a gift that shows like where the transit lanes have gone. you can see in the upper right-hand corner is the year. it cycles through, starting in 2006 and then in 2013, you see red starting to appear. that was our first introducing red on fourth street and it exploded with the red and the temporary transit lanes moving forward into 2022 and coming soon. pretty exciting. it's fun to look and see

spatially how all this is coming together. i did want to touch on this hot spot program. we have initiated this hot spot program pre-covid. i think it was months before covid hit. we had to put it on hiatus due to staffing issues. we identified the 10 top locations in the city where we were seeing transit delay. once again, irregardless -- there's no waiting for ridership, it's just looking at where we're seeing slow speeds. many of the lines on this top 10 list are some of our smaller lines like the 37, the 19, 54. lines that are quite ways away from receiving a full muni forward corridor treatment. really just kind of rounds our transit program to make sure we're focusing on areas not just

related to where we're seeing heavy ridership, really the system in general. this program now will be picking up again in the late summer. we hope to implement changes on these first initial top 10 locations and then make a new list that will always be a top 10, we'll always have work to do. we're going to focus on these top 10 first and move on to another list. hopefully, around new part of the 2023. then, muni forward in general, there's five corridors right now that are under construction. we are also starting outreach on at least five more corridors in the next 12 months. one of those is the 29 often talked about. we once again, we're starting to work on that project right before covid and are picking that work back up again. we are starting outreach

meetings around the 29. then, other than the 29, we're really calling that the year of the rail. we'll be focusing on all service rail corridors. the l, which is already under construction from the muni forward standpoint. we'll be focused on all the rail lines as we look into the new year. that kind of brings us to central subway. i'm about to go over our title vi now. this isn't update on the overall project, just on the service plan. what we're looking to happen there. i will say that this is an administrative step that the m.t.a. requires for all funded projects. we've already done title vi analysis on this project. but, six months before revenue service begins, they want you to redo that analysis with new

data. it's available as well as any changes to our yoo service plan that you might be encountering. this is really an m.t.a. request that we do this work six months out. i will talk through the service plan and the analysis. i want to say up front that -- we want to be returning to you all if there's any major changes. this is really the service plan where we're at now. it's a snapshot in time, looking out knowing what kind of operator availability and resources that we have. this is a reminder central subway about two mile segment, three new stops really extending the t line on its initial and originally configured alignment from fourth and king up to chinatown.

there are a number of service management challenges that are directly going to impact the ultimate service plan. i highlighted three of the big ones here. i'm not saying what i will talk about is the final service plan. we're going to be doing testing over the next several months to figure out what that final plan is, based on some of these constraints. i think one of the biggest constraints for the system is the idea that we are now separating the kt. the k will be turning at embarcadero station, which if you include all the trains that currently turning there and add on the k, we'll be back to, pre-covid turns in the pocket there at embarcadero, which led to delays on the subway and things like that. we are going to be testing out several different options on

sending the j through the tunnel, through the pocket tracks and out on to the system. we're going to be working on over the next month or so, figuring out which one of those makes the most sense and which one worse. what we studied in this title vt from a title vi perspective. this is the potential service plan. i want to highlight -- once again, huge caveat. i don't want anybody thinking that this is definitely going to happen. this is one of the options that we're looking at. all of the lines stay exactly

the say. except for the n judah. that is based on trying to look at the crystal ball saying, hey, there probably be more demand to get downtown on the n. that will come boo more clarity in the next few months. we are assuming that at least one line will hopefully see some increase in service. we're assuming that's the n. other thing you will notice is the j, i have it going to harrison here instead of the embarcadero and be replaced at the embarcadero turn around by the k. t line will stay at 10 minutes. the m and the shuttle will stay at 10 and then the j at 15. future wise, if you look at the

e.i.r. for central subway, it was approved idea of short line that would use mission bay loop. that's one of the main reasonses that it was built. this would have have long line t and short line t. so four minute combined service. there's a lot of things to work through and get through before the service plan is realized. might be quite a while. i don't have a date on here, we don't want to guess how long we can get to that service plan especially with the short line. we'll hopefully get to the online eight minutes sooner. ii

did want to point out, this was the goal. we know we supposed to be aiming for, eventually. the outreach for the central subway itself has been quite extensive. they've done a lot of multilingual outreach, really tailored to the project phases, including having citizens advisory committee and doing lot of work. we plan to continue to use levers and communication channels as we talk through the community. as we do changes and continue to test out the system and see what really works better, need to continue to work with the community through that same channels that have been set up

by the project team. that brings us to the title vi analysis. like i said, administrative exercise based on what the feds want us to look at. you see no disproportionate of burden with the existing service plan. we will come back to you. i'm sure it will be different from what i had up there a few minutes ago. we'll be coming back to you if there's any changes. i wanted to give an idea what we were looking at. with that, be happy to take questions or comments >> chair borden: , the report that you have, the executive summary it's really nice. i love the way information is laid out. very easy to read. thank you. directors, you have any question

or comments? director lai? >> director lai: thank you for this report. always good to see the updates and reflections on this. i do have a number of questions. i really like how we're seeing very clearly where improvements are, same question i think i asked last time. where are we seeing any slow downs at any of the routes? >> that's a good question. are you talking about slow downs where we haven't done improvements, are you talking about where we've done an improvement and may be not seen the result we were hoping. >> director lai: yes, i'm referring to both. any slow downs that we're seeing across our lines. >> yes.

places where we haven't done improvements, we are definitely seeing the return of traffic and the return of congestion to those lines. the 43 and 44 come directly in mind. there's a number of lines where we have not been able to do game changing muni forward improvements. it's pretty close to 100% in most corridors and some it's over 100% of covid traffic. we are definitely seeing some impacts for sure. there's one line that i would say where we put in a treatment and it didn't work out the way we were hoping, which is actually on the 44 line at o'shaughnessy, it doesn't work out. we took that out.

>> director lai: it will be interesting to continue to track where things are slowing and by how much as gauging the improvements. we should continue to track where we're not making improvements. as you mentioned, travel patterns are changing. it will continue to evolve. i will use this opportunity to talk about tetl. i think it's great. it's great that we have these

red lanes. we see lot of interruptions that i can see in your reporting, some of the lines where we're not, i think reaping more benefit. it is related to may be enforcement activity or blockage. more importantly, i think it's pretty dangerous, i observed many times where we have dedicated red lane, buses are having to weave out of the red lane and not using the red lane. it seems like kind of a waste. if we have the devoted lane to transit, the transit isn't able to use it. that is frustrating for drivers. also, it's very dangerous for cyclist who are trying to anticipate the movement. just hoping that in the continued assessment, we can focus a bit more how we can make infrastructure that we have and

continue to make those function more. do you have any feedback on that? i'm curious if this is related to the one california where we're seeing a lower level of improvement and then a lower responsiveness or support from the community. i think it's like less than 41% support like the other one which is overwhelming support. >> i think that's a great point. there's a lot of reasons why red lines -- they are not a barrier. things happen and double parking, deliveries, but also the overall usage of the lane there. it goes to enforcement and getting enforcement out of there. we are going to be kicking off our information campaign about red lanes themselves and how

people should be using them. there's a lot of confusion. it seems obvious to some of us in the industry. i think some people just don't know how to use them. are they allowed to get in there to take the right turn, for example. what does that mean. there's an information campaign and then just enforcement like you were saying, continuing to work with the community on coming up with a plan that works for all. >> director lai: i'll say this one more time, i feel like we don't often advocate for drivers needs in the city and there are lot of people in it city that still rely on personal vehicles. there's nothing more frustrating than being backed up in traffic, seeing there's a red lane next to us and there's the bus right in front. just hoping that we can continue to coexist and find ways to make the roads and system work for everyone. i wanted to ask about the central subway frequency and

generally slide 17 on the peak frequency. i don't know if you want to pull that up. i think you were listing peak frequencies for the existing subway line for those existing numbers. only new numbers really central subway numbers. thank you for clarifying that we're aiming for like a four minute wait and the central subway. otherwise, it will be kind of a waste for us to spent $2 billion or so on rail line people would have to wait 10 minutes in between trains. if you looked at the existing rail wait times between the various lines, it might seem like it's a similar wait but it's really not. because of the majority of the lines kind of land in the same stops between embarcadero and

west portal. there's a lot more frequency. there's lot more lines being run. i'm glad to hear that we are aiming to run both long and short central subway. i think the part that makes me uneasy is this lack of clarity around when we might be able to get the frequency up and using terms like eventually we'll get there. hoping that upcoming muni forward presentation, there could be more of a time certain information about when we are working towards what. the last question is related to title vi. i'm not familiar what the technical requirements are, it struck me as -- i know you presented on title vi before,

every time we looked at this number, it's like a single grouping of people of color. is there any requirement from the government or even just with our own tracking where we're looking at the title vi impacts based on different categories of ethnic groups or places of origin? >> the administrative analysis tv title vi does not distinguish between groups. we'd be happy to look further into those distinctions if we can talk offline about what you're looking for.

>> director lai: we have many different ethnic groups that make up san francisco. i don't think that the treatment are all the same. i think it's a little bit troubling to only think of minority and non-minority. i don't think that's how san francisco is expressing our racial conversation. i think that our work needs to reflect that. thank you. >> chair borden: director heminger. sean, my question might be facilitated if you can get the slide up. it says service management challenges. first of all, i think i need to

walk through these bullets. it steam -- it seems like the first bullet contradicts the first. but, my main question is, they leave you with can the impression that we sort of messed up in closing the subway or did we have to cut a corner here or there? the problems with the bart system are legendary. they had to save money in construction so they put that oakland y in that screws the whole system every couple of days. is that what this says? does this say something else? may be i'm not understanding what it's saying. >> i asked sean to include this slide because i think it's important we start having a conversation about what is going to be in amazing piece of infrastructure, saving lot of time getting people through the

heart of the city but did have significant value engineering tradeoffs that are going to make it challenging to operate. for example, the two places to crossover are between brannon on the surface. if we have a disabled train at union square, we have the option of reversed towing it out of the subway three blocks or we have the option to push it to the end of the line and deal with it at the end of the day. that's just an example of a constraint we're going to be practicing, we're going to be figuring out the best way in advance to deal with something like a broken down train. in a perfect world, where we have an additional crossover at

the midpoint of the subway, we would. >> director heminger: you're saying that was value engineered out? >> it's before my time, but that is my understanding. >> director heminger: how much would we saved by doing that? before your time too, tom? >> we trying to get it open. >> director heminger: it's a shame though. we spent lot of money on it. [ laughter ] >> what i wanted to say, i think we do need to have pretty serious conversation with the board about the design measure and process. it's something that should be agendized and discussed. >> director heminger: the milk is very spilled now. there's nothing to do about

that. these are -- julie, i commend you for asking sean to include them. it's a bit of a confession, almost. one of these talks about the operators having to switch vehicles. >> what we're going to be doing at the terminal is following what los angeles does. >> director heminger: when you say the terminal, do you mean chinatown? >> yes. what los angeles does at their terminals is, in order to really keep the vehicles moving, but make sure the operators have a break time is they do what's called a fall back. the operator pulls into the terminal and operator that's been there for 10 to 15 minutes, hops on their train and heads back out. it's a way of very efficiently turning trains. we've been practicing it with the shuttle in the market street

subway. it's been working very well. it's a strategy that's relatively new to san francisco but certainly the industry relies on in a lot of different cities. >> director heminger: i was just at an event at m.t.c. they were reviewing the challenges bay area has and building infrastructure projects. one of the solutions suggested, it was by the guy working on the bart extension to san jose now, he actually helped me when we were building bart to the airport. he insisted on having the operations people at the table from the start of design. that sounds to me like a very smart thing to do. it could have been that one of these things where you lost your crossover, the operations guy could have said, i'm going to lay down in front of the train on this one. you're going to keep it.

>> chair borden: any additional comments by directors? it's great lesson learned. it will be helpful to have a hearing before the fall on the lessons learned. if there are no other comments from the directors about 11a and b. we will move on to public comment. anyone in the room -- doesn't appear anyone in the room to speak. i will open up to public comment online. first speaker. >> clerk: there are couple of callers. >> caller: this is david pilpel. i only talked to sean kennedy

twice in the last two months. he has not been particularly accessible or responsive to me. but that's going to change because we're going to talk after this meeting. on the tetl program, has running time been removed from the schedule. if there's an example that can be shared with the public of cost savings from running time where a vehicle got taken out of the cycle. on rail service, i thought a rail service plan was promised months ago to get into the details of various capital ideas and service plans. i have not seen anything on that yet. to reduce turn backs at embarcadero, i would try this. i would run j, k and the m to embarcadero and operate all three lines out of green division.

i would run n to caltrain. i'm happy to talk about that more if anyone cares. passenger south of the channel should not have to transfer and walk from one platform to the other at fourth and king, including in inclement weather to continue to the embarcadero and the market street subway. the first time someone has to do that and gets hit or killed at fourth and king, will be a bad and sad day for m.t.a. it does not appear staff ever brought central subway operating plan to forward. i don't get that. operating both long and short line in central subway will require major shift in ridership from surface travel i like to see how that develops.

>> chair borden: thank you mr. pilpel your time is up. you'll be talking to mr. kennedy. next speaker please. >> clerk: that's only speak we have. david while you're on line, getting back to you on previous item on 10.7, you would asked about a web page for the bayview item, it's www.sfmta.com/project/bayview-sh uttle. staff will take into consideration your suggestion to include links to project pages to future calendar items. >> chair borden: there's no additional callers or the line. we need to approve 11b.

>> director hinze: motion to approve the item. >> second. >> clerk: for item 11b. [roll call vote] the motion passes. in places on item 12, discussion and vote pursuant to administrator code section 67.10d as to whether the invoke attorney-client privilege to conduct closed session conference with legal counsel. >> chair borden: any members of the public that like to comment on our invoking our ability to go into closed session? there's no one in the room. anyone on the phone line?

>> clerk: we have one caller on the line. >> caller: this is david pilpel. last time today. i don't know the specifics of these cases, the law does not currently require you to disclose the basis for the claim or the settlement. whatever gave rise to these circumstances, this is proposing to pay out more than $9 million to two incidents. i hope you will discuss them in closed session. whatever occurred, if somebody got whacked or something else happened, i home corrective action has been and will be taken involving whatever staff procedures, if we're paying out more than $9 million at every moating -- meeting out of the operating budget to pay judgment and claims. that's a problem. these matters date back almost three years.

i am concerned to that end. i'm sure the board takes these things just as seriously as i do. thank you for listening. more fun next week. >> chair borden: thank you mr. bill pell. -- mr. pilpel. stay cool. any additional commenters? >> clerk: no, there are no other callers on the line. >> chair borden: with that, we'll take a motion to go into closed session. >> motion. >> second. >> chair borden: roll call please [roll call vote] >> clerk: the motion passes. we will go into

>> clerk: the board met in closed session to discuss the listed cases with the city attorney. the board voted to settle both cases. item 14 motion to disclose or not to disclose information discussed in closed session. >> motion to not disclose. >> second. >> chair borden: please call the roll. [roll call vote] >> clerk: the motion passes. that complete the business buffer. >> chair borden: our next meeting is our special meting on the 28th. adjourned.

[roll call vote taken] >> we have a quorum. >> this meeting is being held in-person at san francisco city hall room 400 authorized by the code -- i'm so sorry. 54953e mayor breed's supplement for emergency proclamation. i would like to remind all individuals present and attending the meeting in-person that all health and safety protocols and building rules