later than spring 2020, the sfmta will report back on the findings from the bikeway pilot to the sfmta board. before i conclude this presentation, i would like to acknowledge the leadership of mayor breed and the support of former commissioner sheehy, commissioner mandelman, and commissioner ronen for their support of this project, now happy to take any questions that you may have. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss leung. commissioner ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you. thanks for the report. i just wanted to share a few thoughts on this. the feedback that i'm getting from constituents and bikers is sort of mixed, which i think is to be expected given how short the protected bike lane is and how there's sort of a dramatic change between the regular bike lane and the short bike lane, and while i was very supportive of this, a complete study would have been good to make sure that we were -- we had a smooth transition through the whole block. and i'm excited to see what the evaluation is because of the mixed sort of opinions i'm hearing from constituents. but i wanted to talk a lit

evaluation panel and formally part of the decision making process to recommend a developer to the sfmta board. and that there is a more meaningful incorporation of community benefits into the decision making criteria, including making this criteria worth more than 5% of the overall evaluation. we refuse to allow community benefits to be an after thought in this process. there must be a clear and strong path for maximizing the good jobs on this site. the developer and operators must incorporate strong and enforceable goals for targeting hire, retention, and promotion and support for workforce development and training. given the terrible track record of marriott hotels and their treatment of workers, we are calling on the city to not reward this applicant with an extremely profitable development on public land on the moscone garage site. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> teresa imperial, barry toronto, mary mcguire. >> hi. my name is teresa imperial. by the way, first of all, i'm glad that you guys discussed about the castro switch because i was one of those passengers that go

evaluation panel and formally part of the decision making process to recommend a developer to the sfmta board. and that there is a more meaningful incorporation of community benefits into the decision making criteria, including making this criteria worth more than 5% of the overall evaluation. we refuse to allow community benefits to be an after thought in this process. there must be a clear and strong path for maximizing the good jobs on this site. the developer and operators must incorporate strong and enforceable goals for targeting hire, retention, and promotion and support for workforce development and

also heard the presentation from sfmta staff given to the board of supervisors government audit and oversightdecember 5 about muni operator issues. the message from that presentation was, again, about the need for internal coordination so that the perfect storm that occurred last summer with regard to muni operator shortages in the midst of the twin peaks tunnel shutdown could and can be avoided. turning to your agenda today, regarding item seven, the c.a.c. adopted a motion of support in $3.5 million for prop k requests. and the pilot project underway between market and 15 streets on the valencia corridor. c.a.c. members were particularly interested in the performance of the protected concrete school loading islands and the safety of students crossing the bikeway from the island to the sidewalk. in addition, there was discussion about solutions for double parking and bike way blocking on the valencia corridor. improved management and extended parking times, staying loading zones were potential exclusions being studied in the pilot: c.a.c. was enthusiastic about hearing the project's findings

sfmta observation hours we demanded. dozens sent in protests and 70 neighbors signed petitions which were presented to this board last summerand shared with the sfmta staff. it motivates ramped up p.r. campaign to get the site approved, sfmta ignored the signatures. the staff and families got no notices of either the hearing or the observations. to understand the other assisted dying -- side, they did not live within a half mile of the area. and were prompted by a zealot to comment. over 13 of the e-mails were by him. he was copied. over the two observation periods less than a half dozen of those people showed up while dozens of people in opposition. this site, we know the area. [bell ringing] we live there. >> chair heinicke: thank you. >> we're concerned about the safety of the kids, thank you. >> you heard director torres will be pursuing that with staff. thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm also here about the randall site. i live a block from the site. it's an area of southern valley, northern glen park, a traditional neighborhood that includes the fair mount. i'm here to request this board adopt the

two instances and one is through primary offerings and secondarily when board members such as yourselves make comments on the sfmta's financial health. those are likely to reach the marketplace and may be tested against the provisions. what we attempt to do is when we're accessing the marketplace or alternatively, when there are turbulent times, we we encourage board members to exercise caution in making statements about the financial health of the sfmta or when we're coming to market to discourage investment to say there's no risk, you should buy it. those statements will be tested against the anti-fraud provisions of the securities laws. and generally we're talking about material statements and the anti-fraud provisions make it unlawful to make a statement of a material fact or omission. in our context unlike corporate security where's there's strict liability they have to prove we made a neglect statement. so we bro vide the training and -- provide the training and have controls and procedures so if something did slip through in our process, we can at least defend ourselves that we had taken every precaution to e

i am asking sfmta to explain this practice to the board and the public, why and how often it is used, and how we can prevent switchbacks. our office has heard from constituents every single day who have had their commutes and lives interrupted and delayed by switchbacks. they deserve answers, i would also like to recognize my cosponsors for this hearing, supervisors walton and safai. i am submitting inquiry to gather information to inform potential policies to provide financial incentives to single-family and multifamily home owners to construct accessory dwelling units as an affordable housing strategy. we need to explore all possible options to build affordable housing. a.d.u.s are an underutilized solution appropriate for my district, and many others. despite efforts to streamline the a.d.u. permitting process, a very few have been built, only 23 in 2017, the last year for which the planning department has data. the estimated cost to build and a.d.u. is $200,000, which is prohibitive for many homeowners. while streamlining the process is very important, and i applaud all the work t

board meeting. since that time we have met with a.c. transit and sfmta staff, and we have met with a.c. transit and sfmta directors, and this reflects the discussion with them and we've up dated accordingly. mary, please. >> hi. i'm mary prior, coordinator with the sfmta. this slide reflects a projection completed in 2018. several items have changed, and there's savings in several categories, including the transit center operations and maintenance, the asset manager and park administration, and security line items. these savings offset projected items, and as martha mentioned in her report are based on schedule changes, so this is not an overall cost increase to the program, it's a timing issue. there are increases in i.t., cyber security and actuals c t costs. there are also two new line items here. under the landlord services contract, a.c. transit will reimburse tjpa for security services at the bus storage facility that are provided by tjpa's contractor, and there's also a way finding gap analysis that was requested by m.t.c., and we will be looking for a new funding source for this