how - and i know that the mta wants to improve the project timelines. it's not just a challenge with the larger projects but the smaller ones. it's sometimes very brain damaging to move projects forward >> yeah. >> and that's for small not hard ones that have a lot of community support without a lot of controversy. so in terms of confident levels that once the mta finishes the analysis this is a realistic timeline. given the time it will take another 5 years to deliver the project is too long but but why should we be confident. and in the context the mta was prepared to force that project to be side lanes and it wouldn't be beneficial and mta was barreling in that districts and because of some creativity thinking we were able to come up with a resolution for the center lanes. given 3 history and this history why should we believe it will be deliverable >> we see it differently. we work very closely to come up with the center lane proposal and to speed it up. while it wouldn't get you the full beneficiary it will get i incremental improvements. the commu

with the box had to remove it and there was an uproar. i know that mta is going to return that but in neighborhoods there are neighborhoods that point art on something that may not be attractive of itself. we have the amendments i've distributed we're only approving the encroachments on 25th avenue and or tag. so colleagues, can we take those amendments without objection? >> just to clarify we strike the 4 and maintain the 2? >> yes. and actually in the resolution that mta had originally submitted i think neither of those numbers was there it said we're including the two locations. >> okay. >> and then on the third page there's also a clarification so can we take those amendments without objection. there's adopted and favored to the full board? okay without objection that's the full order >> madam clerk, call item 4. >> it's an ordinance with the planning code rifkt use district. >> and supervisor cowen has requested we continue this item to october 7th. so i'll taken a motion after public comment. is there that i public comment on the expected motion to

with the box had to remove it and there was an uproar. i know that mta is going to return that but in neighborhoods there are neighborhoods that point art on something that may not be attractive of itself. we have the amendments i've distributed we're only approving the encroachments on 25th avenue and or

i i don't think anyone is satisfied where it end up but i wanted to thank the mta for trying to balance the need and there's still ongoing meetings. this is probably the first time that my staff and i have spent a lot of time on this >> i don't want to call out polk street. the one thing we have a printed document but there are other areas where a similar concepts are being proposed. it's meant to be an example. i think from the cities prospective the merchants shouldn't have to go and beg for how deliveries are going to be considered and our liveable streets designed. we need to understand what is happening on our neighborhood corridors. they're not as wide as admission street or some of the streets south of market. so the constraint of the narrowness - there's improvement to be made in terms of how we do our priorities and goals. and that perhaps, you know, bicycle lanes may not be in this form or fashion be always appropriate in a commercial corridor and if we need dedicated bike lanes maybe there's another street. i think it's important to know where we're started from there was a i

if i could get a response from staff or the mta on the feasibility of that analysis? >> feel free to come to the mid again. on this item on page 182 with respect to the scope of the awarding contract. we included an optional task just to - i want to emphasis this is a short-term improvement of the extort transit district that's something to the development agreement that's going to be put into place. and the sfmta information on this the mta is interested in the operational benefits which could enable the transit to into up to the market street tunnel. and to not prevent access it that facility. i'm understanding clarifying the revenue service ridership potential just recognizing it's two different ridership or travel routes so it could go up to the park and the rail line would cut off past bay shore. we can look at this in the stud but julie asked we confer with her whether there our report or consultants. if you can be flexible on how this can be done arrest or. >> one of the things we've been talking about because of the issues we've been talking about we're about

and i think in the end the mta is very good at the doing parking enforcement with they enforce a certain impact of the law. but i personally think a lot of folks agree that parking is one of the areas it's harder to enforce could use more attention >> and i agree with you. >> thank you. >> continue with my presentation with a few more slides. this is the breakdown of the citations vs. downtown and this is parking meters one and 2 which include south of market and the financial district and broadway. in terms of streets mission street is our number one street by sheer nature it would be the heaviest transit routes so it's a priority that our agency anyway's there are no double parking. and streets like hate and chet north nut and that's for our transit line. we looked at corridors like church and 16th and 18th and third street their less than one citation for day in a typical year in those corridors. so what are the challenges? i think we've touched on a lot of these but if the loading happens all at once everyone is there so double parking ensues. sometimes, we try to provide parking zon

we would like to thank the mta for the work on this project and would also like to commend the hard work by the transportation authority. we are in full support of this item and we urge your approval. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> michelle brand. >> my name is michelle brand. i would ask this committee to postpone voting on approval due to inadequate eir at this point. i would want to confirm that everybody has received this for adequate review. i just want to highlight the things that i personally have real questions about. first i question whether the broadway tunnel that is capacity to absorb all the traffic going south and the comment that it's unlikely the trucks will deviate to golf street. trucks are already there. no one enforces that trucks over a certain tonnage. i have never seen that enforced. how are we going to deal with that? that's not even mentioned and there is no plan for truly handicapped people which is different from the elderly. no special shuttles during non-peak hours. and no discussion of the danger are of right hand turns which is greater for pedest

the environmental review and the mta think of the city as flat. it has mountains all over it. going four blocks may mean traifrg going back going up and down hills. any eir that doesn't include maps is not a good eir but it doesn't provide the decision markers mta and the planning department with the ability to make effective decisions because i don't assume i know every block in the city by t you have to when you make those decisions and i'm talking to mta to zls is the planning department. and the information should be in the eir and should be given to decision-makers the blocks that lengthen the city are all over is place. and it's different in chinatown and the blocks south of marketing are enormous and the planning department is looking at the blokes as a scope of distance. every time you use the term block it disenpowers the folks. by the time this eir comes back but if the tools are not provided shame on environmental view and shame on mta and the consultant as well. thank you >> is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, members of the commission peter

i wonder about the internal structure of mta. how does that relate to public delivery through public transportation. i would definitely vote know on the bond that is coming up. it will stop the transit effect and i say that's all for the good. you need more coaches and more drivers and basically munis seems to have the lowest priority on the mta agenda. >> anybody else want to speak? >> good afternoon. my name is frances offer man. i'm a professional engineer. i come here to speak about the south of market traffic. in particular to the board of directors tom nol an, jerry lee, and christina. what i'm here to speak about is of course i'm -- the background here of course is we know that we have danger when we put on to the streets large trucks and bikes. there has been a number of deaths, i think three in the last year, all involving large trucks and bikes. the danger large trucks sharing the roads with bicycles was again highlighted on august 10, 2013. when 24-year-old was killed by a truck making a right hook turn. while she was r

apparently bicyclist and taxi cab medallions appropriated by the board are favored over mta service. it should be transit worse. you should really start giving transportation priority. i'm really concerned about this and also i don't like the idea -- supposed they were never given this again? what would it be? something to think about. >> tone lee. >> good evening. my name is toeney lee. you need a backdoor. when the building gets fire or the ship is going to waddle. it's a backdoor for a cab driver. who went through the abuse including mta policy abuse. this is a backdoor for them. i look at it. even though i don't like it. beings need a backdoor. that's why you come with your permit. they are making money on your street and money that you put it on the good street. you cannot eat at all by yourself. used to be we and you eat the money. the third and fourth party coming to eat and you cannot over rule them. you have to lose them. the america cup is today is the last day. over packeting and -- that's obl -- only liberty -- a little bit that we got. this is a change on the public resou

effort to regulate the program mta represents respond and they couldn't speak to the question at this point in time. the c ac also expressed concern with private shuttle, pickup locates not designated as bus stops such as a street corners in locations like 24th and gary are a and asked how this use the city streets by private shuttle impacts planning and implementation. sorry. the qualifications of drivers and employees employed by the private companies to drive the vehicle and impact that has on public safety mta representative respond that they are exceeding the training needs and have began responding with providers regarding the topic. results of the survey concluded by the mta much of the discussion was focused on the question not including in the survey the question beginning how many people would not live in san francisco if the shuttle service was not provided. according to the mta representative this question was asked on different surveys and the answer was 35 percent. in addition to the august c ac meeting the c ac had a special c ac m

i want to thank the mta staff and the staff. again, i've been really appreciative under the helm of executive director lombardy thank you for your sacrifice because you didn't expect it to be as long as it was so i really appreciate that. >> so with that colleagues are we ready to approve a resolution? can we have a roll call vote >> commissioner avalos. >> oh, we've got to do public comment on the closed session. so we had public comment before closed session and now in open session it will be good to take public comment again. any member of the public wish to commit. seeing none, public comment is closed >> roll call vote. >> on item 10 commissioner avalos. >> i. >> commissioner breed. >> no. >> campos i. commissioner cowen >> cowen i. commissioner farrell. i. commissioner tanking >> tanking i arrest commissioner weaning. i the item passes >> (clapping) thank you for your demands that have long been placed on you. i'm very grateful for the work you've put into this process and to the members of the personnel department especia

i wanted to thank michael schwartz and the mta staff. i'm very anxious to make sure our rapid network and the brt systems are moving forward as quickly as possible. chair avalos mentioned our visit to mexico city brt's and they were surprised how long our approval process was. i also wanted to say i think the rapid network we're creating in san francisco is critical for many areas that lack strong public transit support like the west side of the city. so with the van ness' brt's hopefully speedy imelementation that we can work towards the gary brt networks as well. i wanted to say i'm appreciative that the center lane alternative has been the one that's going to be proposed. i think it's the superior brt, the more effect ive ones according to the transportation and development policy that sponsored our trip to mexico city. those that cut corners and don't support the center lane alternatives, i think usually get the weaker ratings and are not as effective in connecting up the city with speedier, more reliable and higher quality transit. i

the corridors in black are the ones for which the mta has designed specific designs and the gray ones are needing more processes pr the their involvin others processes. so the culminate effects are known those program level components have gone through research. to the extent that specific information is known to a specific environmental topic for both components it's been addressed in the initial study in its insure it whether or not the details have been developed first year for example, we understand the tools needed to take care of this. for each the 8 promotions the mta has identified a moderate proposal and the expanded proposals with respect to travel first year by looking at those the sfvt will have neglect to get it approved. they may choose different alternates for example, the motor alternates for the church and the other project. as shown the two alternates have different things like loading and this is for pedestrian and air quality and noise. the expanded part has an impact and with respect to culminate parking one quarter is effected under each alternate. i want to spea

some of the members from the mta, tim, peter, paul. from the ta, michael shorts, sherry -- i always mess up your name -- rachel, and of course kelly change for the leadership. i'll conclude. >> thank you. >> avalos and commissioners, i'm going to briefly go through, as maria said, i'm just going to go through the document and what your approval actions are today. so the van ness brt is the first in the brt network and the main goal is to fill in this main rail network gap in the east and southwest parts of the city. we don't have heavy infrastructure in that part of the city. van ness is the first one going from mission to lombard street. it supports the rest of the rapid network, and as many of you know, the draft eir is out for public review and comment. we're looking for approval on these lines. it supports regional network, which is the golden gate transit, which you can see on this slide. brt is a new mode of transportation here in san francisco. it features a combination of improvements. you've seen some of these in different part

this will be the second issuance of revenue bonds by the mta. of the $165 million $150 million is pledged bicycle pedestrian parking garage and transit projects. the remaining $15 million would be for debt services reserve and financing cost. total debt service over the 30-year term, the bond is $363 million. this is the revenue source to pay for the bonds would not include general fund monies. the annual debt service is about 12.3 million when you diane combooin -- combine it with the 12. this is $18 million and also within the parameters for the net revenues. we recommend approval for the ordinances. >> okay. thank you. any questions, colleagues. we'll move to public comment. any member of the public wish to comment on items 2 and 3. no public comment. public comment is close. colleagues, can we move on these items? >> so moved. mr. clerk, call item no. 4. >> the clerk: item 4: 130651: [memorandum of unrecorded grant agreement - buena vista park project]1306514.resolution authorizing the director of real estate to record a memorandum of unrecor

the mta has put up -- we have asked them to decrease the number of tour buses that were accessing the square. over 2 years have passed and we have not seen a decrease in the tour bus. in fact they have been increasing. we have been having different committees a subcommittee meetings on this and the mta is now proposing a bus loading on hey street. this is unacceptable to our neighbors and community and contrary to all the efforts that we've been doing over the last 2 years. we are here to ask you to please listen to the community, to the neighborhood aroundal mow square and not implement a tour bus loading on hey street, this is for hey and pierce. >> thank you. director, reiskin, when is this likely to come to the board? >> i believe we are currently on track to bring recommendation to the board in november. this is something that i think we had it seen governance committee and gone to our citizen advisory council. there is still at least one public hearing. likely it would be back to this body in november. we have time to continue to work with the neighborhood square association on

i'm director with the san francisco mta. i'm also a resident of supervisor yee's district, district 7. also a long time, proud to say, transit rider and resident of san francisco. this particular project before you is part of the reason why i am serving the role that i am. twenty years ago i was a regular rider of the 49 putting myself through san francisco state university and working at the square and i had to take the 49 up and down van ness and it was one of the most painful rides in the city. later, as i've evolved in my understanding about transit work, i also started to figure out this is one of the most expensive systems to run and the way to move our transit, to move folks around the city. when i learned about this particular project, i couldn't be more excited. the member that stood out for me more than anything else was the 30 percent reduction of operations cost and the way that we would run service along this line. as you all know very well, this particular project has tremendous potential to be a parodyne shift

the other thing i would like to show you quickly from the mta collision report. as you look at the highlights, the no. 1 cause or factor is driving in unsafe speed conditions. driving for the vast roads are probably not going over 15 miles an hour. talking off the record with officers this appears to be a default where officers tend to write when they don't want to take the time to figure out what the right cause with a. we would like them to focus on the cause. if you notice on the motor resist side, speed is only a factor. if you look at the ratio of 100. that says that approximately 1/3 is due to unsafe speed which i assume could be they are not going anywhere. the second thing i would like to bring your attention to is the fact that this is the classification. you can see here it side-swiped head on and classification for the federal highway administration or the state police version and i'm not even sure it ties necessarily with the police. we need to standardize along the lines of what are used with motorist to make the changes we need to make. with that i'm

i'm with the mta and i have staff here. kate toren is our project manager in the blue, virginia is our coordinator for capital projects. sandra padilla on the other side is our new and ak -- accessible coordinator and jonathan chang is our parra transit planner. the other thing i wanted to mention before is kate is going to talk to you about things in the transit area. we have two very active advisory committees. one account parra entrance council. the dates are on our website and there is many in that community. so you can be as active or not as you like. the other is a mobile advisory committee which advises us on all of the other areas under mta other than parra transit. that meets every third thursday from 1-3 at one south van ness. that's at the corner of van ness and market on the 7th floor. let me give you our contact phone number for our program is 701-4485. let me give you kate toren. >> hello, thank you for inviting me here an getting me out of the office and out of my chair. it's nice to be here. i'm going to give

and we have niel from the sustain able streets department in the mta and thank you for your work over the years as well. >> good morning, i am the project liaison with the leavable streets group. i want to thank all of you for your work to really combat bike theft. and we see the role in combating the bike theft in the bike park and just to throw in a few numbers and let you know about the progress, supervisor mar, you mentioned the 3,000 bike racks and this year we are on track to add implement more than 500 additional on sidewalks or on the street bicycle racks and next year, we will be implementing another 500 racks and so adding another 1,000 racks, this year or next year to the over all supply, which will help people find a place to park their bikes also we are hearing the completing of the bike report and this will be finished in september this month and this report is funded by the ta. we are doing a thorough analysis of the bike parking solutions and for the longer term reasons, and so people don't need to park a bike for more than an hour or two if they are going to run a

nevertheless, the city is spending just zero .46% less than 1%, 0.46% of the mta's capital budget on bike improvement. and the recent tragedy in the south of market neighborhood highlighted how the killing of a 24 year old young woman emilie molek highlighted how thoroughly our major infrastructure improvements are need. and i commend supervisor kim for her leadership on the safety needs in that part of the city. and i also applaud the mta for moving forward immediately on a pilot project to place separated bike lanes on folsom street. but we can't just react to individual situations and piecemeal approaches. i don't want the city to only respond death after death until the system is slowly funded and built. we must be proactive and systemic and deliberate and i don't want to wait until someone in the richmond is killed, for example. and i also want to have this conversation well before the mta comes before us with their next two-year budget. if bicycles are to be part of our transit network, it needs -- they need the same funding political leadership and attention other important par

in the last two dispatch surveys the mta did of all the cab companies we came in first and second in respect of all the companies despite the fact that we are with the citywide service with somewhat less of volume of calls with the larger companies. yellow and luxor and desoto. we have a steeper hill to climb and we've climbed it. my concern is that a company like citywide dispatch which is doing, i think a good job in providing service to the public, is nonetheless going to be heavily impacted by this because among the requirements are that there be a digital computerized system in place. it's going to be hard for them to meet that requirement especially on a short lease which i think is february 2014. reason being while we all have computer carts in our cab, that equipment difference from company to company. i don't think it would be possible for citywide to dispatch green cab for instance. i'm not worried about green cab because we can always find a home. >> thank you, anyone else care to address the board on this subject? seeing none. what is your question? >> i have a question.