good morning chair, supervisors i am neil patel project liaison with the sf mta. i started my stint in the pedestrian safety advisory committee in july of last year and definitely made a commitment to bringing information to projects that liveable streets were working on early in the -- the whole life span of the projects. we're one of the empplepting arms of the mta that does most for pedestrian safety however this is a city wide issue. every department does something to improve public safety so i think i made great strides to get information and send invites to the members so they can hear other community members perspectives and according to zach margs comments we made great strides including them earlier in the process. in regards to the budget and the funding for outreach and zach marks did put in a request for $300 for outreach and sunday streets, having a banner and things looking nicer and after talking to our director ed reiskin we secured that funding. i believe a check has been cut and if it's not to mr. mark it should be there soon. we ask there be a re

there are a number of other things that we have done in the department. as mta takes the lead it's a matter of making certain that we provide as much data that we can. we are effectively the source of which the data comes, in terms of where the traffic collisions are taking place. in july of 2013 we embarked on data sharing and data base with mta as well as the department of public health that allows for immediate access of our data unfortunately that process is still a paper driven one in terms offed police department generating a police report. we're moving in the direction of instant population of collision data into a central source but in the interim we have this system that's working. what it does effectively is decrease the time that it takes to have the data compiled u analyzed and reported. our prior reporting every time was through the state wide traffic integrated system and mandated by law and every agency has to. there is a turn around on that time as every agency is providing it. what our system decreases the turn around time. we're hoping to the p

we believe the mta has really not done their homework on this and not evaluated the site.ing objection regarding the fact that a number of blocks on park merced we are not notified. we were not visited >> of tonight's hearing. >> that's correct. i've gone on the record with ms. goldstein we wanted to put this off and make sure we're going to do the best we can. we have a standing objection with or berry well, they have a $600,000 contract to remove trees in golden gate park. a number of mta imply book violins that i want to go through quickly if you'll allow me to i have only 3 and a half manipulates. or berry well, is spoept to have a certified flager. they don't have one that person needs to be certified by the state they've never provided a flager especially one that's certified and they have to provide a san francisco police officer to direct traffic that's required by the blue book session 3.4 of the blue book. another issue not considered by the mta is the fact increase has to be a sidewalk closer. generally accordingly to the mta blue book they'll not issue a permit

and specifically and i know that we have a presentation here from the mta and i want to thank mr. hailey and his staff for answering all. questions we had and the information they provided. i think it's an opportunity for us to really have as much transparency how the contract here happened, how is it that we got to the point of having vehicles delivered to the mta before the contract was actually approve d by the board of supervisors, and for reading that article and some of the information that has been put out there you know it does seem that there's an argument to be made that this contract happened on a handshake and i don't know that's necessarily how you want to see contracts being done, not only by the mta but by any government agency, and what i am especially concerned about is that at some point in the process of reviewing these vehicles there was an internal review that was being done by the mta to decide what was a better investment with respect to the engines at issue, whether or not bae engine or allison engine was a better choice or better purchase for the muni rider

robins and the mta on how out reach is done and the engagement of different neighborhoods when they raise the concerns. and i know that 12th avenue is an alternate street when the boulevard becomes too heavy with traffic for some of the bus drivers and i want to be sure that we endorse the rules about the double parking and installing the buses in different areas throughout the city. and to develop the clear guidelines to allow or to restrict the buses and the private tour buss that travel down those streets and i am going to encourage the residents from not only my district but other residents to work with the mta and how we can protect the public safety and keep our residential corridors as livable as possible i want to know if jerry robins can present and i know that there is a powerpoint given from his office. >> thank you >> good morning, supervisor mar and yee, and i am jerry robins with the sustainable streets division with the sfmta i have a five-minute powerpoint with an overview of the tour bus regulation issues that we deal with. thank you. >> tour buses do have complaints abou

. >> i just want to follow up, so what has the mta done after that terrible accident injuring five people on 12th avenue, have been there some restrictions on 12th avenue and if you could get back to the question of if a bus is supposed to go down the boulevard and veered off into a residential area, what conditions allow them to do that. >> they are not restricted from many of the streets that don't show up on the map. so they have the right to do that, but should do that cautiously. >> and if you could talk about the fisherman's wharf and how the restrictions came about and i know that there are restrictions on the loud speakers from the top of those bus and driving around and then there were some restrictions made over the past few years. >> sure. >> by very active residents around the alamo square and also in the fisherman's wharf area. >> we received a number of complaints from an area between fisherman's wharf and china town about the tour buses driving through the area with the loud speakers squaring and pointed to the crooked street and people were allowed of hearing the same loud

>> $230,000 request by the mta. >> in partnership? >> everybody else, we more or less heard from, so, yeah. that's the one outstanding one. >> and then the other announcement is we hope to finalize our agenda for the joint puc environment commission on friday. meeting should go about up to two hours. >> the agenda is a joint agenda, so, you go back and forth? how does that work? >> so, we've been -- this meeting will help inform thoughts and i've had -- i think i had heard from maybe commissioner wald had given me some ideas. so, ideas from her and ideas here today i think give a clear sense of what to propose and i've already proposed to the commission president some of those ideas. they wanted to hear the 100% renewable energy discussion, where our rules and responsibilities overlapped. the catalyst from puc, they were talking about look at food waste and someone says, well, turning food waste into energy. and then someone says, hey, let's go talk to the department of environment and the environment commission. >> there's a whole bio

the museums. but we're only starting with mta and puc sites. why are we focusing on those. they have significant land holding and have to report their property to the city ordinance but there's a little bit of easy around the process there's a separate process going on to look at the john updyke how to approve the city process. so that's separate but we're indefinitely coordinating on what he's doing and lastly even though those sites are owned by enterprise agencies they should benefit the public. as ken mentioned we don't have a list today of specific sites we can say we're looking at some mta sites such as a folsom doing something there and for example, the puc there the balboa park plan that's been discussion. we feel first, we need to do the site specific analysis are reeven able to develop those sites before we can talk about the work so most importantly we need to have the community discussion and say 1972 e this is a potential development site and most importantly i should mention we want to test the program so we want to make sure we track this cooperation and make

reach that they have shown that they are doing now, and so i am really, i am really appreciative of the mta work with the staff as well and my colleagues and comments and i want to associate myself with as well. thank you good. thank you. >> and commissioner weiner? >> thank you, mr. chair, i will be supporting this as well and i know that there was concern that the plans and programs, committee but i really want to reiterate the comments that commissioner mar just made and i know that any time you make a changes to our public transportation system, it can cause concern whether it is changes in bus stops, or routing or anything else. and but i think that it is really important to keep the big picture in mind that the reason that the tep exists is because, muni is on. er, the slowest major public transportation system in the country, and average vehicle speed is 8 and a half miles an hour. on average, and that is what the muni vehicle is helped fast or slow and they travel around the city that has dramatic consequences in terms of people being able to rely on muni to get where they are going

and julia leads the team of attorneys that serve the mta. their - she's been doing that for quite a long time and gun bovldz the duties of the judging r general council and provides great service to the agency in terms of legal service but she did a lot more with policy and management advise most of it solicited and some number one solicited but she's helpful to me as i transitioned in she has a knowledge that expands beyond the knowledge she's thought of a thought of participate on our executive team she technically works for another team but i consider her to be part of the team. we're not also the eyes it client we have a lot of complex and difficult issues and a lot of interesting personalities but she's also been at least in my time here and her entire time really incredibly hardworking and dedicated and committed member of our team someone who puts the agency and the people we serve first. it's bittersweet we recognize her achievement it's the end of an era in terms of her service here i wanted to thank you you julia for your service >>

the transit impact fee that comes into the projects mta is expecting 6.5 million in the years 2015 through 17. and mta expects to use these, these moneys to enhance the money on the lines, impact on the project including the jackson and the 19 polk and the 49 van ness, and there were 400,000 for the bike projects that has been received. we have not figured out where the money will go and they are determining where to use those funds and the same is true is there is a pot of funding for the campus and for the enforcement and the traffic safety around the campus and mta is working with the stake holders to determine how to use those funds specifically. employees will have available to me a cliper card at 50 percent discount and that will be in place fairly soon. >> and lastly the garage, sees that there is part of development agreement, a fee placed on entry and the garages and the estimate of the revenue is $300,000 per year and that will not start coming in until the garages open and the hospitals open and that mta is available to the mta for the general transportation purposes. there was

in general we like the direction the mta board is going and looking at boarder sections like disabled and the seniors disability and really standing with us on free muni for youth as we're getting bus drivers organized we want to among those progressive decisions. but we want to say in particular our priority is including 18 years old. are we're going to be bringing a lot of youth to the next meeting and we're to bring them a 4 o'clock when school is over >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> those are the last folks. >> hi, i'm from power and i work with a lot of families in our community and bayview and mission mainly and also i want to thank you for this amazing promising program really it's a program that shows how when the community comes together and gives priority to the most important things we have success. as you can see it wasn't increasing in the process it was really, really good. our youth don't have to be afraid anymore to go to school they just go and it's a big difference for our working families that are struggling really, really hard in order to keep here in the ci

did the mta or mr. hanly with hold information from the public about the purchase and i haven't seen any information that indicated that was the case of the information was printed in our pack get mr. hailey discussed it at a budget and finance committee publicly and i appreciate that because mta took the initiative to bring that to the forefront and make it clear to us that this company had brought in this fleet without any approvals, without any commitment, without any commitment from the city and mta made that clear. are these buses going to substantially be less reliable than their allison counter parts? unfortunately there has been no demonstration around evidence to suggest that is the case and i think supervisor campos' raised a really important question is before we move in this direction we should know what is the best and make the decision as to what is the best for the residents of our city and i think that's important to follow up with us to give us that information. it's my understanding tha

but in fact, you and the mta have not answered the questions asked for years, how is this better, for people who are vulnerable, whether it is a person with a baby in a stroller, and a toddler, and having to cross an extra couple of intersections whether it is a senior or a person with a disability. we are not hearing any answers, there is an avoidance. the fact that this is meant for engineering design, was used last week and saying that figuratively some of these concerns don't matter, but the packet that you have before you shows the specific stops being eliminated and so the money is going to go towards eliminating stops and that is something that nobody has adequately addressed. and you are going along, a path that may in the future be dangerous and i am going to say it again, it could open up the city, for liability, because you are just not addressing these safety questions. >> thank you, for your comments, next speaker please? >> yes, my name is jackie sacks and i want to echo what he just said about regarding eliminating the stops and everything, but one thing that you are no

and this has been forwarded to us from the mta. teas cavanagh from mta will be presenting today. [speaker not understood], will you be presenting? go ahead, as this is a i believe a major encouragement. >> yes, good afternoon, supervisors. nickel strong with the department of public works [speaker not understood] [speaker not understood] and mappinging. we've been working on this project with tess cavanagh who is present sitting behind me from mta. this is a major encroachment for a total of several dozen mta rest rooms and kind of bringing them out one step at a time. this is phase ii. the board of supervisors recently approved the first two locations via an ordinance from last year -- i mean via resolution from last year, i apologize. and this is phase ii, which will include two additional rest rooms, one with an existing traffic island at third and mckeefe and one on the south side walk up hudson avenue easterly of third street. this will be in conformity with the general plan. we held a public hearing on all the locations back in 2012 and we didn't receive any input from anybo

the mta has informed us their fine with those requirements so withhold for them to do it for their operates. the other thing inform keep in mind you have a public agency and employees who's job is to monitor those contracts and operators. private operators you don't have that same level of day to day scrutiny. commissioner dwight >> has there been any objections. >> we've provided information to one of the jar parking lot and offered to meet with them. they ended up not following up with us. i interpreted that as perhaps you know it's not a big deal. i offered to meet with them and he suspect they would have been here today. they economy about it we e-mailed them >> commissioner white. >> what are the pregnancy of the private parking lots we're talking about in the city. >> i don't know what the percentage is. the private parking lots run the impact bit there are some small ones and there are the larger ones i don't know wasn't the breakdown is >> andrea the vast majorities of parking lot operations are private. i don't know the exact number there are a number of you can count on your hands

, chester and the team have done a terrific job and we could not do it without the partnership of the mta and your office as well. thank you. >> okay, thank you, thank you for your presentation. and, we can go on to the public comment, any member of the public that would like to comment on the end report, please come forward. >> having been on the cac since 97 i am familiar with the annual report and i am very much in support of it and i appreciate everything that everybody has done. and continue to do, and i hope that you helped them lead the way for the san francisco will definitely become a first rate first, from the city. and that sort of thing, and i think that everything that should, and everything that has been said, is great. and i strongly approve of everything and i strongly hope that you do the same thing, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker please? >> good morning and thank you for the opportunity and my name is roland and i am from san jose, and i would like to turn your attention to a couple of slides, in the presentation. and you should look at slide number 3

recounting on the history of this item to tell people who maybe weren't at a previous meeting that the mta came and gave us a presentation on the history of the key stop system and how this was the first phase of bringing accessibility to our light rail system starting back in the 1990s and that there is a delicate balance between accessibility and neighborhood impacts and that is some of the history i think that has helped to inform the decisions about where the different way side platforms have been installed. we are talking of course really about just the retrofitting of existing light rail vehicle lines, because all of the new lines that have been constructed since the 1990s actually do have the fully accessible way side platforms. the two best examples of that would be the t line that serves our southern around eastern part of the city and the expansion of the f line down market and along embarcadero. new lines clearly are subject to the full accessibility requirements, but what we are talking about is trying to retrofit our existing lines. >> i would also like to add that crucial par

the mta you got divisions made fwharps easy not because they were right. this is the legacy that's taken many years to overcame and will take many years still but the trend is in the right direction from my prevention of watching closely the things to fix another muni is getting smaller from the pcos and this engineers and accountants and the members of the executive team and this board i see a tremendous commitment to making decisions based on what's right for the people over the long haul. i appreciate your brave and doing the right thing. thank you it's been a privilege to support you in that work. i know you'll keep up the good work (clapping.) director reiskin. >> just 3 quick items for the balance that have my report the first one has to do with the hundred and 50 company permits for company taxi permits that you authorized a year or so ago. you actually authorized one hundred to 50 permits 8 thousand series permits we distributed one hundred and 50 to 10 taxi companies we set a fee and this $2,000 amount was meant to make those more affordable than t

the museums. but we're only starting with mta and puc sites. why are we focusing on those. they have significant land holding and have to report their property to the city ordinance but there's a little bit of easy around the process there's a separate