february 16, 2021 regular meeting. any additions before i open it to the public for comment? >> seeing none. please open the mine for public comment. are there caller on the line? please remind people how they call in if they don't have the number. if you want to speak press 1-0. dial (888)808-6928. dial 1-0 now. are there any callers on the line for item 4. >> you have three questions remaining. first caller. this is for comments on the february 16, 2021 regular meeting minutes. if you are calling on another item, this is not that. first caller. is there someone there? >> my comment is i don't think the option recommended by staff -- >> sir, we are talking about the minutes of february 16th. are you speaking about the minutes of february 16th? >> no, sorry. >> which item? >> the third item. >> which item is that? >> the debate. >> that is not until 2:30 p.m. it is a time certain time. 2:30 p.m. it was publicly noted for 2:30 p.m. we cannot discuss the item prior to 2:30 p.m. thank you. next caller, please. hello. are there any additional callers on the line? if you are on the line, you need to unmute yourself and press 1-0. next speaker, please. hello. >> hello. i am calling the twin peaks. >> that is 2:30 p.m. we are not allowed to address the topic until then. call back in at 2:30 p.m. to speak on that topic. it is on the agenda and that is number 12. we are on number 4. >> thank you. it is confusing. it said leave your voice prompt now. i will call back in. >> thank you very much. >> we will close public comment. is there a motion on the minutes? >> motion to approve. >> second. >> can you please call the roll. >> director borden. >> aye. >> brinkman. >> aye. >> eaken. >> aye. >> heminger. >> aye. >> hinze. >> aye. >> leigh. >> aye. >> yekutiel. >> aye. >> the minutes are approved. item 5 is communications. >> thank you. today we would like to adjourn in honor of director brinkman's father who passed away at home last week. condolences to the family and to drink tore brinkman especially. a huge passion for life that he passed to his children. he left his family when there were times when they were gathered at dinner table. we offer our deepest condolences in passing. i know how deeply painful. it is something and a void that can never be refilled. thank you for being here in this difficult time and thank you for your father for having such an amazing daughter. >> thank you very much. much appreciated. >> due to the covid-19 health emergency, this meeting is held virtually. all participants are via teleconference. in the notice and on the web page we ask the public to write the board or leave a voicemail. for comments received in advance before today we have received and appreciate those comments. we thank you for honoring our request. we will continue to urge the public to write the board or call us and leave a voicemail message. this allows us to hold the meetings via teleconference. it may not be seamless. we even lose the public comment line. we are doing our best to reconnect and never continue without the public being able to communicate with us. please know that. also, please do note if you are calling in about twin peak that is item 12 and cannot be discussed at 2:30 p.m. anything on the agenda is how we have to have the flow of the meeting. just to explain to people calling in. i want to thank the village to make these possible. in meeting is televised by sfgovtv. for those watching the live stream, please be aware there is a time lag between the meeting and what members of the meeting see on sfgovtv. if you are watching via sfgovtv and you wish to comment on an item, please call the phone line when that item is called. for members of the public wishing to make public comment on items on the agenda the phone number is (888)808-6929. access code is 996-1164. to address the board on an item dial 10 to be put in the queue. make sure in say quiet location you turnoff the tv or radio. if you are live streaming that you mute the sound. this will reduce any reverberation so we can hear you. we will repeat again as i am aware some members of the public may join later. item 6. introduction of new or unfinished business by board members. do you have any items? i see dr. lai. >> yes, thank you, chair. first of all, very, very grateful and appreciate the new clarification in our vaccination protocols that include our muni staff. what a relief they have been fighting and helping the city in the front lines this entire time. they are certainly essential to the city's operation. thank you to the mayor and director tumlin and everyone else who advocated for that. the new business i am hoping to incorporate under the director's report or update on the website our agency's percentage of vaccination. i don't know if that is possible. i think that would be helpful for the public to understand and for us to stay transparent. thank you. >> thank you. any other additional new or unfinished business? we can move to the next item. public comment in case anyone from the public has any comments. moderator, please check the line. this is on item 6, introduction of new or unfinished business by board members and more specifically director leigh lais comments. go ahead, speaker. >> first of all, i appreciate you taking public comment on this item. second, i support having as much data as possible online. i think making sure it is accurate. some of the numbers online are hard to believe such as that 10,000 masks are distributed to the public each week. i think more data is better. i think also now that staff at the agency are able to be vaccinated. people who may not work for the agency taxicab drivers or workers who are essential emergency service workers and eligible for the vaccine if the m.t.a. could let them know they are eligible. i hope they have been notified. if that hasn't been done that would be nice. thank you. >> thank you. any other additional caller on the line? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> we will move to the next item. item 7, director's report. >> director tumlin. >> i will start with some special recognition. as you saw from the news, the weekend before last there was a very large pre-quake house moved half a dozen blocks across san francisco. this required an enormous amount of cord mated work from many teams i would like to thank. there were over 50 people involved in this process. special call outs will include the extra legal truck permits from the streets division, engineering changes on the route including scott brody and chadwick lee. meter and sign shop had to remove and replace all of the parking meters and traffic signs on the entire route. five traffic lights were removed thanks to the signal shop staff. angela rae es, lenmar wong. allen, dennis and led by ben murphy and coordinated. no parking tow away signs. all overhead wires, power, lines were lowered aprestored by our lines team including doug, kevin, martin, tony, john, peter, lewis, george jones, salvadoran including the inspectors. 17 parking toll officers and three supervisors worked to make sure the streets and onlookers were safe. all of that was led by our senior parking control officer david lewis. we are proud of the coordination to make that move a successful spectacle and all of the time was paid for by the project. vision zero no fatalities or rapid response since the last board meeting. we are working closely with laura freed ma'am on ab43 to allow more flexibility for speed limits near vulnerable populations to expand the pilot efforts like we are doing in the tenderloin to nor neighborhoods. that is to be heard in late march or early april. a lot of action this year in the state legislature we will pay careful attention to and we urge you all to do so. we are making substantial progress omit gating the unintended impacts in the sunset. lower great highway speed humps began yesterday. that will take three or four weeks. you will see over the next few weeks 24 new speed cushions, one new speed table, 12 all way stops, you can see the spray paint on the pavement where that will occur. the cost is about $500,000. all of it is coming from proposition k funding allocationing by the san san francisco transportation authority. you have heard about the federal relief funding the second part of the previous bill as well as the new bill that was recently passed by the house and going through the senate right now. we are expecting quick action from the metropolitan transportation commission now that all of the general managers are in agreement about the distribution formula for the first set of money. we are hopeful the congress will act in a month within the second part. if that happens we will be able to not have any conversation about laying off worke forcer for the at least until 2023. it also will give us some opportunity to begin restoration. we are deeply grateful to speaker pelosi and leader schumer. stacy abrams in georgia who are responsible for shifting majority in the senate. we could not have done this without them. transportation recovery plan. >> will you turn your camera on, please. >> i can see you. >> so for the transportation recovery plan as directory lai laid out we are grateful to mayor breed to expand the definition of machining service workers to include front line staff. people showing up for work every day from the very beginning of the pandemic working to shuttle essential workers to work, nurses to the hospital and crews operating the vaccination sites. we are very grateful. we started getting the folks vaccinated as early as wednesday of last week. both the department of public health and department of emergency services and the department or the human resources department of the city are working very hard to make sure that our front line gets their vaccinations and gets them quickly and efficiently. we of course announced that muni and paratransit are free for people traveling to and from vaccination appointments and the trip card team gave a one-time extra allocation of funding for those who want to use taxis to get to their vaccination appointments. we received nothing but enthusiastic response from the public about this program. we are moving forward with our next round of permits and application for expansion of the scooter share program focusing on safety, equity and accountability. this will be occurring through the spring. applicants must also include adaptive scooters for those with disabilities. this includes 5% or more permitted fleet and able to reserve on demand. another project is the connect sf project. this is our long-range plan for the transit system and streets of san francisco needed to implement vision of the city that is growing diverse and equitable with transportation options accessible and affordable to everyone. later this month we will start community engagement looking at a variety of apapproachs for making the perhaps it is system serve the san francisco of today and tomorrow. understanding the changes in travel behavior and the changing needs of san francisco. the outreach tool will be posted at connect sf. org later this month in a story mat format to start gauging sense of interest priorities and thoughts from the public. finally, i am most excited to announce as the mayor announced earlier today we have a schedule for the return of -- >> you are freezing. >> we are almost to the end. i am very excited to announce that as the mayor revealed today we have a plan and schedule for resuming f1 service and cable car service. the f line will return in mid-may. it will operate from castro to fisherman's wharf seven days a week. we will figure out what eight hours works best for the merchants. we are just thrilled that it is finally going to get going again. i want to point out the better market street construction starting in the fall will disrupted tracks between fifth and eighth. in the fall the f line will only operate between ferry building and fisherman's wharf. cable service was shut down completely. it lowryquiry training -- will inquiry training by the public utilities to resta we will start it in the fall well in advance of th holiday shopping season. it will likely be just running for eight hours a day but seven days a week and start up the powell hyde line as we deal with the long-term recovery. that is my director's report. >> thank you very much. do you have any questions before i open to the public. please unmute the mine for public comment. >> director eaken, go ahead. >> thank you, chair borden. thanks for the update on ab43 and the legislature. i would ask if there are opportunities for this board to support staff efforts on the bill please engage us especially if remote testimony is possible. i would be happy to support in any way. thank you. >> director yekutiel. >> thank you, director tumlin. what a positive director's report, exciting. love the good news on the f train. i want to ask if it is possible to explore going into having the f train continue from fisherman's wharf to the financial district while market street is in renovation. that is important. i would hate for that baby part of the f train to be thrown out with the better market street bathwater. how about that? >> we will get back to you on that. >> when? >> at the next board meeting. we are exploring that question and hope to have an answer soon. >> thank you. much appreciated. >> is there any other financial questions or comments from board members before i open up to the public? seeing none. can you open the line for the public. this is only on the director's report item 7. these are items addressed by director tumlin. if you would lake too speak touch 1-0. are there any callers. >> you have two questions remaining. >> first speaker, please. >> i am richard ralph and i live in outer richmond calling about the great highway. you need to look at the big picture. supervisor chan is having a meeting at the transportation february 23rd meeting. the biggest employer in the richmond district is the va hospital. a lot of richmond district residents work down the peninsula. i don't know how tom requires that the 19th avenue and sunset boulevard can handle the traffic. nineteenth avenue is a mess. they are doing the construction. i tried driving that ones and it was backed up for at least three blocks. i don't know how they can handle sunset boulevard. you have to go the chain of lights. people are waiting 30 minutes on the train of lights adding more pollution in the park. you need to look at the big picture. why not experiment with one lane. it is four lanes. one for pedestrians and bicycles and one side for cars. you know, we are in this expanding stage, let's see how it works. you are making a mess for people getting to the va hospital and people who need to get to work down the peninsula. that is the trouble. you just look at things in a microscope instead of looking at the big picture and how it affects the whole neighborhood. thank you. >> next caller. >> thank you, chair borden and members. my pronouns she and her. i get the opportunity to render testimony on this report. i am encouraged about the process to permit scooters especially with the addition of adaptive scooters. i would like to see what those look like. i like to have options. i would very interested in using them. i think it is very important that we continue to work to have a long term sustainable electric shared scooter program in san francisco because in the times i have used it, it is very helpful to me especially a person with disabilities. i will reiterate comments about the f line. i think there needs to be away for the f line to run from fisherman's wharf to the ferry believe to continue as close to fifth street as possible. i use that section of the f line between fifth street and the ferry building often. i think we have to make an effort to see what we can do to turn that system on. i think it is reasonable to do so. we have to be able to handle the passenger volume in that market street corridor especially with the fact we don't have a subway. i think we need more options than less. i thank you. >> thank you. any additional callers on the line? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> we will close public comment and mavto the next item. >> 8. citizens advisory council report. we will move to the next item which is public comment. this is an opportunity for members of the public to address the board on matters within the board's jurisdiction not on today's calendar. just as a reminder for anyone who is on the line and calling, this is not for any items on the agenda. if you are calling about twin peaks that is item 12. we will not discuss before 2:30 p.m. right now for general items no the on the calendar for your thoughts, opinions or information we should know about. any callers on the line? >> you have two questions remaining. >> first speaker, please. >> hello, aired den miller. i want to talk about proof of payment right now. something i have noticed recently the people that have been out there but not in the way the bluing post that was written in the fall resists. since they returned in december about five times have been checked once of those five times because of the rest of the times they are standing around. they are actually riding the bus as opposed to getting on and getting off. that is not happening either. i don't understand what is happening with pop if they are checking fares or not checking fares. something needs to be figured out where they are doing more than standing around. if they are checking fares or not i don't care. i want to see them out on the buses helping with masks or stuff like that. the other thing to talk about is parking enforcement. you have a budget issue but ridiculous every weekend at the park there are parks on the no parking in the great lane, great highway cars are on the shoulder. these are key areas. it happens every week and nobody ever comes back to it. it is so much lost revenue. sidewalk parking. certain neighborhoods the entire block is filled. i don't know how people will walk to the bus stop or the park pop deployment needs looked at and change. during the workshop last month your own employees told you the current deployment is not working. it needs looked at and improved. >> thank you. next caller on the line please. >> you have three questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> i am richard roth man again. i was very disturbed by the controller's report. first, thelogical from yesterday about m.t.a. if it is going to survive. i am upset about the controller's report that came out about two weeks ago. it is about the construction. people need to be held accountable. maybe two people left. you should have a hearing. citizens of san francisco why should they give money to m.t.a. until they fix this problem? maybe the construction work needs to be transferred to public works. you know, so you could consenstraight on muni. the 5r where i live. when they did the work for the 5r to put the box in why didn't they do it at the same time during the safety improvements? now they have to spend time and money putting the safety improvements in when it all could be done at the same time. i know why. the former head of muni told the staff he can talk to the street division. >> 30 seconds. >> why don't they do something about it? this is terrible. you need to fix this problem. why should i give any money to muni? you waste it. you need a better plan. i want muni to succeed but i am not going to give money to muni unless you fix these problems. you need to have a hearing and people need to be called in and accountable for it. it is really no, you know, excuse. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you. briefly my comments about muni. it is important to get the subway open. i am a user of it. we have to plan our service to minimize transfers. when we don't be have the subway and we have disjointed routes such as the proposal with the f line we risk that passengers, especially passengers with disabilities may find themselves passed up or unable to take a seat because they are boring vehicles that already have people on board. it should not happen especially with mobility equipment users, wheelchair users, etc. we have to have accurate as passups in the system especially with the fact that we are not filling the vehicles with people. i think we have to have protocols because if everybody is wearing masks which they should be we need to look at how many can we fit in the vehicle because the masks are key to mitigating the transmission of the virus. we cannot let the guard down. we try to move to the end of this pandemic. moving on i have read reports about the possibility of open payments on muni. it is happening on the new york city subway. i am looking forward to seeing what that will look like in grand central terminal. we have a lot of work to do. do not hang on to the past and consider the improvements of the future. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> you have one question remaining. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, i am sam. owner of the services. [indiscernable] services for the parking garages sin 1997. since we are subject to the ordinance which requires 20 persons. [indiscernable] unfair business practices. at any time. [indiscernable] these actions are disgraceful. s.f.m.t.a. staff members and other agencies overseeing this matter have been frustrating to the enforcement action not taken. [indiscernable] the parking garages while $4 million to the contract. [indiscernable] >> 30 seconds. >> why is s.f.m.t.a. discriminating against minority owned businesses? i am speaking today and hope my contract will be restored. [indiscernable] that i can continue my 20 year relationship with m.t.a. thank you for your consideration of my concerns. >> thank you. any additional callers on the line? >> you have two questions remaining. >> next speaker, please. >> i am rachel abrams. 48 years old born and raised here in san francisco. i have lived all over san francisco. i moved to twin peaks. i have two young daughters. we moved. >> i hate to interrupt you if you are calling about item 12? >> i am calling about twin peaks to make comments. i don't have the agenda. >> unfortunately, the twin peaks is item 12. we are on. on nine. we cannot discuss that item before 2:30 p.m. >> i will wait until then. >> thank you. >> are there additional caller on the line? >> you have one question remaining. >> next speaker. >> i am the chapter president of the station. i know the supervisors would like to see the subway open without interruption. there would be an interruption. we had a bid that was forced upon the agents. all we are asking is for julie concern ball to come back to the table and stop the changes. we felt very violated. you know, if you supervisors can talk to her, telling her to come back to the table so we can, you know, get this stuff resolved and we appreciate it. we have been treated unfairly with a forced bid. thank you. >> thank you. any additional callers? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> we will close the general public comment and move to the next item. >> item 10. consent calendar. these items are routine by the board and are acted upon by a single vote. no separate discussions unless a member of the board or public requests. in which event the matter shall be removedded from the concept calendar and considered as a separate item. 10.1. requesting the controller to allot funds and to draw warrants against such funds available or will be available in payment of the following claims against the s.f.m.t.a. authorizing agreement 2021-01 with software and services for drive cams for an amount not to exceed $2,500,000. executing the first amendment to the transit shelter with cheer channel to reduce minimum guarantee payments as well as administrative marketing payments from may 1, 2020 through june 30, 2022 due to the impact the covid-19 pandemic. >> any items to sever before the package is opened to the public? let's open to public comment. if you would like to comment on consent calendar. all of the items under 10. 10.1, 2, 3, 4. any caller on the line? >> you have two questions remaining. >> first speaker, please. >> hello. aden miller. 10.4 with clear channel. id should not get a discount. the service they are provided in terms of shelter is terrible. the shelters all over the city, not one or two. this is every shelter in the city is dirty, glass is missing, maps missing, stickers are wrong if they are even there. 311 requests to request broken glass at shelters make it so the screens work. particularly one shelter at green park i submitted over 15, 311 requests over the past two years. they still have not been replaced and missing over two years. i.e. mailed the staff about this and filed too many requests, contacted the supervisors and nothing can be done. clear channel is not providing service that meets the standards set out in the contract. they should not get a discount when this is the service they are providing. it is atrocious. all you have to do is look at the transit platforms covered in filth. the railing for the boarding islands to maintain on market street half had cars crash into them and never replaced. all of the glass is broken. shelters are dirty. everything is damaged. why give these people a break-in terms of money when they are not providing what they have to provide under the contract? we should not approve this. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have four questions remaining. >> next speaker. items 10.1, 2, 3, 4. >> i am victor hill, operations manager. i would like to share with you throughout the last year we experienced. ccl was able to keep myself and the teamster employees working throughout the pandemic while many jobs shifted to at home. we demonstrate that our work with the s.f.m.t.a. was deemed as providing essential services. the company moved quickly to ensure we stayed in compliance with the safety protocols by wearing mask, social distancing, washing hands and santising equipment and tools after each year. it allowed me to be flexible with the schedule to provide care for children out of schools or daycares. it was also able to shift the installer crew of employees over to san francisco to help out with the shelter department when we were short staffed. we know the street behavior can be challenging. 2020 was unprecedented with increase in vandalism and homeless issues 70%. it takes a team of heroes to keep up with this demand. we have those heroes to manage it and keep things going. i acknowledg you to vote yes on this amendment. thank you. >> additional callers? >> you have three questions remaining. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. i am gonzalez, member of the teamsters union and i started clear cam on september 3, 2019. i love my job. also my fellow workers and the leadership. i want to say 2020 was tough year with covid-19. now before we come to work we have to take a survey to answer the questions of covid. if anything is off we are asked to stay home so we do not spread another spread it to others. we wear a mask all of the time in the facility and out in the field. when others work from home, covid-19 hit, we at clear channel maintained clean shelters. we are essential. we know our work for s.f.m.t.a. is very important to rebuild the trust of the public. clear channel has kept us working throughout this pandemic. work on the streets of san francisco can be tough. violence since october 19 with the homeless vandalism, broke condition glass, graffiti. every day we have to deal with these issues. i will say that clear channel has done right by employees during this pandemic. we have since the pandemic for the board to approve this amendment. thank you for your time. >> next speaker. >> public comment still occurring? >> this is four items right now. >> well, all i am going to say as far as slow streets goes, i am going to drive my car on slow streets regardless. it is less congested and better for me as a motorist. slow streets creates conditiongestion. slow streets means slow minds. thank you. >> i am lawrence, owner of the restaurant on the 21 line. when the pandemic hit we were devastated. we had a staff of 93, busy place. 15 years in existence down to seven. we started with robust to go program. we really had to boogie forward. we connected with the team and they gave us a beautiful permit on the bus line. i reached out to director tumlin to see what we could do to utilize this. what was in the way was a piece of furniture that he explained was not part of his gig but clear channel. i made my way to the regional president, robert or bob smith who came out to the site. we sat coup to work out an elegant solution. i have to say that everybody i worked with from the directors from shared spaces and definitely clear channel have been all helpful. they have offered a lifeline to keep people employed for up to 24 people. we aim to hit 50. our park lets are almost built and will be here for a while. >> 30 seconds remaining. >> i have to say that i support this clear channel amendment. i am be hyped them. i was pleasantly surprised they were human and i want to say thank you to everybody involved giving us a chance in this pandemic. thank you. >> thank you, mr. johnson. next speaker, please. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> with that we close public comment. the item is 10.1, 2, 3, 4. our first question is from director yekutiel. >> i am asking to sub things out with the voting. question with the clear channel contract. i see they are required too clean bus shelters twice a week. how much flex build do we have to get them. i know market street three times each week. some of these shelters get dirty. we have seen it. i am wondering if we have flexibility to ask clear channel to clean certain areas more than twice a week. that might assist with the street issues that we have plaguing the commercial corridors. i don't know who can answer this right now. it is on my mind. >> director gail stein from information technology i man aim the -- manage the shelter program. we cannot require clear channel to do more without amending the contract. anybody who calls 311 system would get immediate service at any location. what will happen is if places are a problem clear channel will spend more time to clean those areas. as far as flexibility within the contract, unless we change the contract, we cannot require more. >> do you think that is enough time to have in the contract device each week to clean the bus shelters? >> the contract is really a compromise. you have a lot of different work. they clean, help projects. we also get a tremendous amount of revenue. it is compromise between revenue and cleaning. if we want more cleaning, then we would have to give someplace else. >> in the contract aren't they asking less share and we are giving them that how things are gone. couldn't we potentially say giving them that ask for additional cleaning? >> we could. we would have to go back and not have it approved today. part of the reason why they are getting, they are requesting reductions because there is so much less revenue. they are still losing quite a bit of money since the pandemic. when we were thinking of the amounts where they stood today with the amount of cleans today. if we want more cleaning we could have a discussion about that. >> how many complaints do we get for bus shelters needing cleaning on a regular basis? >> we get about 10 to 12 each week throughout the city. >> that is it? >> that is it. there aren't that many. >> 311? >> 311, yes. as some of the callers pointed out from the union, it has been very difficult since the pandemic a lot more vandalism. people who are desperate do live in shelters, which is a very sad thing. it also is a challenge for cleaning. it has been very difficult over the past year. >> last question, and thank you for being so thorough. is gail all right? >> yes, perfect. >> my other question is i saw in the contact we have the ability to request clear channel to replace up to 1500 shelters but we haven't asked them to do that since the beginning of the agreement. can you tell us why? some of the shelters the glass is destroy, heavily graffiti, one might ask some should be up for replacement. why have we not asked for them to bereplaced? they are a large company, not mom and pop shop. >> they are a large company. >> it is not like the local ad company. it is clear channel. >> the contract allows us to have up to 1500 locations. it doesn't provide for switching out if there is damage. we have had shelters totaled by cars and reports of those being switched out. if there are some that are a problem we can request that. 1500 they are talking about additional locations. >> when a shelter becomes totaled, is clear channel responsible for replacing it? >> yes. >> what percentage of the bus shelters since the beginning have we requested for them to replace? not very many. >> how long is this georgia for? >> 15 year contract. there is a five year option to extend. 15 year term ends year from this december. >> this is the five year option? >> not quite. the five year option would start december 11, 2022. >> for the five year option? >> what we are voting on now is reduction in the minimum annual guarantee payment. we would come back to the board about the option. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. >> director heminger. >> thank you, madam chair. i am on the same item. let me make sure i understand the sequence of events. we have been forbearing some or all of these payments for the last several months, and the idea before us is instead of forbearing it to for give about $10 million over a couple year period, is that right? >> yes. >> look, i am fine with that as far as it goes. my question is after the pandemic. [please stand by] yeah, now i'l -- good afternoon, directors.'l acting c.f.o. with the agency. i will let dale take a large part of the questions because this is her contract, but we've been working through with the small business tenants who use the commercial spaces and garages. a lot of those mom-and-pop businesses we've been working to renegotiate their specific leases and forgive the rents and other costs. we've been working with them over several months to renegotiate their agreement and we're bringing the amendment forward to you today. we did -- director hemminger, we did consider the revenue impact and post the period of the pandemic which is mostly fiscal year 22. gail can add the background. clear channel unfortunately for them gave us the best deal. they have yet to make a profit on this contract. so part of the 1500 is adding new shelters in areas of the city where we didn't have power at the time. they will be adding new shelters. they've made no money on the contract. we will do well to return to what they were paying us prior to the pandemic. hopefully, when we get there in fiscal year '23. and this will be a point of negotiation for them, probably not on the upside, but in another direction. gail, if you'd like to add anything? >> i don't have that much to add other than, unfortunately, the revenue that they have not received through advertising last year and probably won't be receiving in the next -- until things really open up is gone. i mean, it isn't as though that revenue is going to return. yeah, we feel like compared to what a lot of transit agencies have gotten, we're still getting the minimum guarantee. an that is something that we can budget for and that helps with our budget. >> look, i do understand that revenue is gone which is why you're recommending we forgive it and not forebear it, i support that. my question focuses on the post pandemic period. if you believe some economists, we could be heading into a roaring economy especially if the government spends $2 trillion more on the economy. when did this contract get negotiated originally? >> 2007. >> well, that's a long time ago. so i'll leave it at this. my request would be when you come back to us on the question of extending the option, that you at least have done some due diligence on this question of can we do better? to the extent that -- i'll just say on principles -- to the extent that other clear channel clients are subsidizing our operation, i'm not against that. that's okay by me. so if you look into that one, so that we have a chance to say something about it when you come back. >> definitely. >> thank you. >> as we understand it, 2022 this contract is up again and we'll have a chance to renegotiate and we'll have a better sense of where things are. that's great. i will say that living on mission street with a bus shelter on my block and across the street, i have seen throughout covid there has been a struggle. i'm a frequent caller to 311 with maintaining the shelters. one across the street has people sleeping in it. and the ones across from the street, people seem to break the glass every couple of weeks for entertainment value it seems to be. one thing i wonder, if there isn't a different kind of stronger glass or material that could be used in the shelters that would, like, reduce the ability for people to shatter and break the glass the way they do. that's the common problem i see in the three shelters near my home. and have we ever explored some sort of like civic pride or advertising campaign asking people to respect their home, we all live here, play here, let's protect our city. something that reinforces the messaging. those are not necessarily the people breaking the shelters. i feel like it's broken by vandals for breaking for sport. if you're living in a shelter, it's more advantageous to have the glass intact. have we talked to clear channel to encourage better behavior in the shelters? the issue around glass, there are materials that are less breakable? >> so, i mean glass is a difficult issue. i think most jurisdictions have problems with glass. we do have a very -- much more expensive more shatterproof glass that clear channel uses on market street. more difficult to get to clean. so they had used some shatterproof glass on market street and third street. it's a lot more expensive. and it's not that it doesn't break, it just doesn't shatter. those were actually discussions we were having with clear channel before the pandemic. now with the financial issues, they've been a little more reluctant to invest in it. but as a discussion that we could continue and hopefully, when there is more revenue, that will be something that they'll consider. i mean, of course, because they have to pay for the glass, right? they're required to take care of it, so it's, you know, it cost them quite a bit of money. but that is something we are considering. as far as the public ad campaign, we haven't actually done that, but that is something we can do. in your amendment you see that you're actually going to get more guaranteed space, so that is one way we could use it. >> great. i highly recommend doing that and how we can get more shatterproof glass throughout the system. >> directors, any additional comments on the consent calendar? anyone willing to make a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> can you call the roll? >> chair borden: aye. >> director brinkman: aye. >> vice chair eaken: aye. >> director heminger: aye. >> director hinze: aye. >> commissioner yekutiel: aye. all right, consent calendar items passed. >> you didn't call me yet? >> dr. lai? i'm so sorry. i apologize. dr. lai? >> director lai: no worries. it's an aye. >> now the items all pass. item 11 is authorizing the director to execute contracts number sfmta 202107 with creative bus sales to secure 30 hybrid buses related tools, training, manuals and spare parts not to exceed $26 million and for a term not to exceed six years. >> chair borden: great. director kirchbaum? you're on mute. >> can you see me and hear me? >> yes. >> okay. excellent. and then for my final trick, let's see if i can share my screen. >> then we'll all go off camera. can you see the powerpoint? >> yes, we can. >> excellent. good afternoon. julie kirchbaum director of transit. i'd like to talk to you today about a small vehicle replacement for our 32-foot buses. this procurement would be part of a long and deliberate process to bring our fleet to a state of good repair. one of the programs i'm proudest of in my tenure at the agency is how we turned our fleet program around from being among the oldest and least reliable to being a program that really embraces preventative maintenance and a really high service quality. and how we got there was really looking at how we were buying buses. including making sure we did key things like always have a mid life rebuild of the most important components of the buses to try to space out the procurement so that not everything gets old at the same time. to really meet and, in many cases, exceed the manufacturer's standards. so much like in your car, it's recommended that you replace your oil every 3,000 miles. we have a very extensive program where we are replacing components on the buses. preventative maintenance is really based on data and science where we are trying to fix things before they break. so, the equivalent in a building would be if you know there is a good chance that a light is going to go out after 10,000 hours, you change it after 9,000 hours. and that's the approach we've been taking with our buses and it's really paying off. we went from a program where buses were breaking down every 2-3 weeks and it was at the forefront of most of the customers' minds, to buses that rarely break down over the course of the year and an area we almost never hear about from customers. the 30-foot buses -- and they're actually 32 feet -- so i apologize for the confusion. they're the littlest buses. they're really designed to be able to make the tight turns that we have in some of our hilltop neighborhoods. but they're a flexible fleet because they can be used on lower volume 40-foot routes. and they allow us to make really critical connections into big transit hubs like glen park bart station for example. our current buses are almost 14 years old. so they're well past what the federal transit station would consider their useful life. they have over 400,000 miles. so they've been used heavily and used with love. they are the first generation hybrid bus. so we were really proud to introduce them into our system, but they have not been without challenges because they are a first-generation technology and they are not as reliable as our current new flyer fleet. they also did not have a mid life overhaul. we did replace some of the most out of date components and we were planning on doing additional component replacement to try to stretch these vehicles, but as i point out later in the presentation, we believe they're most cost effective to replace. whenever you're buying a small number of buses, there is a risk you're going to have to pay a high price because you're not a big enough purchase for some of the bus manufacturers. and to try to get around that, we took, i think, a creative approach and are attaching ourselves to a much larger competitively bid contract. so the georgia department of administrative services bid for hundreds of buses. and they're allowing us to use that competitively bid process. i also want to point out that we don't -- if the buses were built in georgia, this actually wouldn't be a good option for us because the city and county of san francisco does not do business with georgia despite their recent exciting support of the u.s. senate. these buses are built in southern california by a company called creative bus sales. and they do meet all of our city and county requirements. including that they're a verified 12b vendor. the 30-foot buses, i believe, are needed now. these buses have been fluctuating pretty significantly in reliability because we're having challenges with parts. the orion bus company does not exist any longer, so getting their support on a first-generation hybrid is really not feasible. we are gearing up to restart our hilltop services as we see an easing of the covid restrictions. and we will need to use these older buses for a little longer, but having buses that will arrive in the next year to year and a half will really ensure reliability to our customers who use these routes. we also believe it's very cost effective to make the purchase at this time. we believe we're saving $7 million by using the competitively bid cost from the georgia consortium. we also save money through escalation savings as well as by redirecting what would have been capital money to keep the old buses going that could be redirected to new services. the overall procurement cost is about $36 million. the bulk of that comes from prop k as well as bridge tolls. the other reason that i think this is an urgent procurement is that current tried and true hybrid propulsion system is going to be discontinued after 2021 and so, if we don't make this purchase now, we will have to wait several years before there is a viable alternative. and the key response there is that we don't have the facility infrastructure in place to be able to support 30 small buses. the ebus pilot is going strong and i'm really excited to show photos of the buses being born. these are the byd buses shown in the photo. we should have the first buses here in the spring. and we will have nine buses by the end of the year. we'll also be bringing you an item in april to actually expand that pilot program to an additional three buses for nova bus company, which is a company that did not have an electric bus available when we initiated our pilot, but now has a very promising vehicle that we'd like to include in the pilot. one of the things that the pilot has shown us is that the facility upgrades, in particular, the pg&e coordination are very complicated and do take a very long time. there is a number of challenges associated with that, that we'll be bringing as part of our california resources board, electric bus rollout item that i'll be bringing to the board at the march 16th meeting. but it will go through all of the success we've had around the area of electrification as well as some of the challenges. the potrero yard is currently on track to be our first facility to support ebus expansion. the other reason we didn't include electric is that at the time we were preparing all of our procurement materials, there was not a 30-foot bus that met our design criteria. they couldn't go up steep hills. recently within the last week or so, there was one bus announced as an electric bus, but because that wasn't an option 2-3 years ago when we needed to start planning for the electrical upgrades, it's not a viable option today. our schedule, again because we're going through the georgia consortium, is relatively quick. we're looking for your approval of this contract today. if we receive that approval, we would go to the board of supervisors in the march-april time frame and then begin some focused outreach on things like seating and operator comfort this summer. the first prototype would be here in the fall with the bulk of the vehicles coming in the next 15 months or so. so, thank you for your time and i'm happy to answer any questions you have on this bus purchase. >> chair borden: thank you. and thank you for giving that update on the ebus project. because i was going to ask you about that. that helps provide context needed. board members, any questions for director kirchbaum? >> director hinze: i just have one quick question. you answered most of them in your presentation actually. but i did notice that this contract says not to exceed a term of six years. and i was just curious why? >> it's because the buses come with a warranty and, so, the term of the contract matches the term of warranty. >> director hinze: okay. after the warranty, we're -- contract with them or what? >> correct. >> director hinze: okay. >> chair borden: thank you. any other questions from directors before i open it up to -- looks like somebody else popped in. director heminger? >> director heminger: thank you. the first question may to be our attorney. it's on the question of doing business with the state of georgia. and i understand that we're actually buying the buses from an outfit in southern california, but are we entering into some kind of contract with georgia to take advantage of their procurement? and is that consistent with city law? >> yes, thank you, director heminger, deputy city attorney. as director kirchbaum mentioned, the contract is actually being undertaken with a company that is based in california, so our office has reviewed this for compliance with 12x and agrees it is compliant. >> director heminger: thank you. and, julie, this one to you. i'm trying to remember the math in terms of emission reduction, but to purchase a hybrid electric gets you a certain amount of emission reduction over diesel, but not as much as fully electric, correct? >> that is correct. our entire bus system right now is fossil fuel-free. we use either electric power from hetch hetchy or our hybrid diesel buses use renewable diesel. the overall footprint of the muni fleet, i can't speak to these 30 vehicles specifically, but the -- in the transport sector, we currently carry 25 to 30% of the trips on muni. and we make up less than 1% of the emissions. >> director heminger: what i'm getting at is if, let's say, an electric bus is a 10. what is a hybrid electric? is it a 9 or a 3? you know what i mean? we're getting a lot of emission reduction through the hybrid technology. it's not as good as pure electric. but personally, i don't think what you're presenting to us is some kind of technology that we ought to avoid. i think it's an excellent transition technology to where we want to go. >> thank you for that comment. i would be out of my depth to put it on a ranking, but i think your comment stands, which is there are some strong environmental benefits to this type of technology. >> director heminger: thank you, madame chair. >> chair borden: thank you. director yekutiel? >> commissioner yekutiel: thank you, chair. because this is likely a rare moment of purchase that i'm sure you've been working very, very hard for a long time, the whole department has. i want to ask director kirchbaum, what is the one thing you're most excited about with this new fleet of buses? >> i am excited that this represents the culmination of a decade of investment in our fleet. so, we -- and directors borden and brinkman will remember this, we came to the board with a really hard problem with no easy fixes. and through your support and through the amazing, like, leadership and dedication of our fleet engineering and our maintenance teams, we have taken a program that never had a state of good repair plan, and created a program that, if we continue with the current care and feeding, will be a stable and successful delivery program. >> commissioner yekutiel: amazing. at risk of embarrassing myself a little too much. i wanted to throw a wacky idea out there if the chair allows. what do you think about -- and whether these buses have the functionality -- you don't have to answer this right now. but i'm going to plant the seed. what do you think about our san francisco buses being able to play background music? where we specifically highlight san francisco music artists, emerging artists in the bay? make the busy ride a standout and unique. i'm wondering if san francisco could be a city that has a little bit of our own music as part of the transportation system. i know it's not something you could answer, but i wanted to bring it up, if you're ordering new buses, does it have that functionality, if at some point we did want to have our own soundtrack. >> thank you. >> chair borden: director eaken? >> vice chair eaken: thank you so much. and, julie, i think you anticipated properly the question about why aren't we just going full electric, so i hear you clearly to say that our facilities are not at the point where we can support that right now. and we have a pilot going. at what point in the future do you imagine our facilities will be upgraded to support a fully electric fleet? >> i think that's one of the things that we need to talk about over the next 6-9 months. and that is how i'm going to preface the conversation on the 16th. it's impossible to separate the program which is focused on earthquake safety with the ebus rollout program. so, we need to really be looking at -- in order to answer that question -- how quickly can we fund and deliver on a facility state of good repair investment? the potrero facility is kind of the most ready option and then all of the facilities that are being planned are being planned to accommodate electric buses and to try to keep pace with our replacement cycle for vehicles. we are having some challenges with figuring out how to address the 112 buses we're supposed to be buying for 2025. [please stand by] [please stand by] >> i wanted to ask a bit about thestructure of the contract . first of all i appreciate that we, staff has worked in a $400 a day delay fee which is great. i'm wondering about the two percent retention that i think i saw. is that prettytypical for this type of product delivery ? >> i'd like to defer that question to jj who is our lead engineer, could you answer that question ? >> this is gary chang with the delivery group, typically for a vehicle contract there's a retain included in the contract. basically it's to hold the vehicle, in case the vehicle does have some defect and we have dollars to basically establishthat and make the contract to do repair work . >> thank you gary and the two percent is standard practice in the industry, do you feel like that is a sufficient match? >>gary chang: typically, other agencies we have are even lower retaining dollars and compared to the contractor we're talking to wehave good terms in the contract . >> thank you, that is important because we have i think collective memory of other vehicle purchases where perhaps things didn't go so well after we rolled them out so it's important that that's being conservative on this front and as a related question around testing, could julia or gary tackle a little bit about strategies staff has put in place in testing the vehicles and ensuring that they are operational and functioning well within the world before we rolled out. >> we had a couple different ways. we are beginning a pilot vehicle and that pilot vehicle through a batteryof tests . covering all theroutes , being evaluated byour quality assurance team . and going through kind of our test program if you will. that will then be turned into a checklist that every new bus needs to go through before it goes into service. every bus also will be driven thousand miles before it goes into service. again, to make sure it doesn't have any new bus glitches. some of that mileage gets put on, they typically drive the buses from the bus manufacturer to san francisco and then our operators will drive the buses around not in revenue service to make sure they're not seeing any issues. >> iq. >> any other additional questions, icy hands still raised but i'm not sure ifthat is from earlier, deputy, do you have a question ? >> i'll stop doing that. >> with that we will open it up to public comment. this is an opportunity for members to comment on our item number11 or authorizing this hybrid bus contract . moderator, or theircolors on the line ? please press one, zero if you are in the queue and would like to speak. >>caller: hayden miller again and just on this item i'll say it again here, i do question the timing of this.if the new hybrid system is coming out in a few years and we can make our current access present it would be better to have the new system because the issue that we're having with our current sweet is that we can't find the parts for we go with the system that's about to be obsolete in a few years are going to have more issues finding parts. i don't think that's the best idea. the other thing is i looked up these buses online. they're not the prettiest buses and they're also different from the new flyer buses that we already have so i don't know how many different manufacturers makes it more complicated for maintenance to happen on these buses if it's a completely new bus set mechanics have to learn. i'm not a mechanic obviously so i don't know how that works. the other thing is i saw that we are getting sliding doors as an option. i know there's one currently in service that has sliding doors and i've written it and it seems like those doors or lower than the current doors that we have. it opens wider so maybe it speeds up when it's busy but on the community routes i don't see any sliding doors. they generally don't have a lot ofpeople getting on and off and i question the need for that . andyeah, i just question the timing of this . i think with new technology in electric buses andhybrid buses coming soon , now is not the right time. >>sharon lai: thank you, next speakerplease . next speaker? >>caller: thank you chair and the board. i'm concerned about this contract and i see some discrepancies. i have a picture of a b why d7 transit bus and it has three doors, it has two wheelchair cushions and i also would like to bring up the transportation operating meeting on 22 subways and i saw the board pass a resolution to purchase 6k7 electric buses through the state of georgia. so the fact is as far as i can tell there is a shovel ready 30 foot electric bus to be deployed and i am skeptical about it taking a long time to build electrical infrastructure because really, this is the small project . i've seen las vegas casinos go up in under three years and were talking about 10 to 30 megawatts of electricity . i've seen some of these new tesla superchargers going and there's one, two and three megawatts of electrical capacity. i would think we can work with the san francisco pdc which is our electricity provider to be able to install this equipment and there are electriciansand cruise pending ready and willing to do this work . i don't know why it would take this long. we should not be hanging onto old technology because when you buy a toilet will go obsolete faster. i personally would not support this item if i was charged with voting for it and i think we have to vote our energy behind the shovel ready system here and what a pta is already doing. thank you. >>sharon lai: thank you mister dupree,next speaker please . next speaker. >>caller: good afternoon directors, this is harder with san francisco transit riders and i want to express support for this bus procurement. we don't want to be service compromised by out of date repairs. this component is essential to serve our writers and to support the resiliency of the fleet and it looks to save the union money which we obviously know we all need right now. regarding chronicles we know we service 2000 daily rides and contributed less than one percent ofgreenhouse gases . the city is well ahead of other agencies in meeting its funding goals and the best way to make progress is to get more people on union which means improving and increasing service.with aging facilities some of the other problems of deferred maintenance would be responsible to try a launch and have infrastructure ready to support it. i want to request fromwriters to return to having rear windows on buses . 14 r is about to overtake the 14 year plan, thank you very much. >>sharon lai: next speaker please. next speaker. >>caller: this is edward mason, at the december 2, 2020 f cta citizen advisory committee meeting , the presentation for the funding was long on generalities but short on specifics.there was no sketch of the exterior of the vehicle or the layout or arrangements . there is a lack of specificity as towhere the buses and the doors were located . epa has short buses with only one door.the georgia award was done in 2018. and when you look back up in theirregistry , under the 138 series of contracts they had ... if this was competitively bid i tried looking upthe rfp who was competing . couldn't find it and i'm just wondering if this was an advertised award and only one bid was received for it. what prompted my curiosity was the fact that that georgia listing has been or as contracts with alliance bus group, created bus sales, transportation equipment and sales, three horse car usa, pretoriaincorporated an alliance bus . i'm unable to locate where this whole thing is and why. [inaudible] i guess our department of services doesn't do that . so i am really concerned about whether this was really competitively quoted because when you look up under created bus sales everything seems to be buses that are the type of bus that would use for a hotel shuttle bus. i have no idea what this bus looks like let alone what the interior is. we talk about la, sonoma county, santa monica andchicago pace . and we don't have any reference so the whole program, i just wonder if it was competitively priced. you have a manufacturer ... >>sharon lai: your time is limited, thank you . next speakerplease . next speaker. next speaker. speaker, are you on the line? moderator, maybeyou can switch us to another line and come back to this one . next speaker. >>caller: my name is stacy and i want to echo what hayden said in terms of can we make it work until electric is available. i totally appreciate hanging on to another did that's already been done and not having to go through the procedure but i'm really frustrated. sfmta may be doing their part in terms of renewables and lowering our carbon footprints but this entire city, we can't say no to cars. we can't hold the things that actually make a difference and i think that going fully electric is something that we need to start doing. when will it be a good time? when we will we be able to support this action mark i rather put them, can we hold on and make the old buses work and at the same time be fast tracking so that we can start saying nomore , fuel buses unless it's fully electric . it just makes sense in this day and age and i'd encourage you to start drawing the line and saying no more. thank you. >>sharon lai: moderator, are there additional calls on the line? with that we will close public comment. i don't know if staff had anything based on some of the questions that members of the public raised. all right, do we have any additionalquestions or comments or a motion on this item ? >>: one item and a motion to approve my comment is i want to thank steph for all the work that's gone into this and holding true to the original discussions we've had towards moving to an all electric fleet i remember those discussions in 2018 and one of our big concerns was if we brought on buses that weren't ready for our operating environment we would end up driving customers away and that's why i really want to support this. we need to get busesin the work for the operating environment . if we put out faulty service or bad service with buses that are ready for just going to end up losing writers. we're going to la riders and they will turn to other means and i agree we need to start pushing more for zero emission vehicles beyond our own environment as one of the commenters mentioned what i'm looking forward to these buses and i think this is going to be a good addition until we get completely 100 percent all electric so motion to approve, thankyou chair >>gweneth borden: perfect, secretary if you could call the role . >>sharon lai: [roll call vote] the item passes and moving on to the special order item12 . approving the proposed chapter modification associated with the twin peaks for all project that follows, established road closure for bicycles between christmas tree point road and burnet avenue. >>gweneth borden: i thought i'd go through a few here because they have to get on a meeting, i know supervisor melgar staff person is online and i wanted to convey the supervisors, megan? >> hello transit agency board of directors. thank you for giving me some time to you regarding the proposal before you today . twin peaks for all and i'm speaking to you all today on behalf of supervisor melgar. we've received concerned comments around this proposal and supervisor melgar is supportive of this proposal as it is a citywide effort to make twin peaks more accessible and allow people withall types of mobility to use this public space .there are still some potential tangible solutions that are office will research and work towards to address some of the concerns that have been raised area in our office would like to propose closer regulation of the hours of access and assessing access and/or impact fees.those fees applied to traffic counting measures and we will work with other departments and are state elected officials to operationalize this. we have also for the deployment of mta and industry ambassador programs to the twin peaks to ensure public safety concerns are being addressed and in collaboration and in coordination with sf pd to maximize the hours on the street. our office is also working closely with supervisor hannemann's office and we will convene meetings with all local departments such as sf pd and the part to address the issues of public safety that our constituents have raised . implementation of a residential parking zone on closed streets or alternativelyparking meters is also another option . lastly we have heard concerns raised in relation to vision zero rest with this proposal. our office has been with mta to address these issues and to closely monitor twin peaks for any viking collision. supervisor know that our goal is to stick state for the record that we are committed to calling bigger underlying issues and we look forward to getting to work on resolving those issues. thank you.>> thank you for being here and thank you to the supervisor. with that asks for everybody who's the 82 supervisor madeleine to go ahead and comment at this time. i see erin is on our call. >> can you hear me?wonderful. i do so much directors for curing this item today. and as megan mentioned it they are in their own board meeting so i'm here on behalf of supervisor handelman . i do think many members of the public who been here over the past many months to share their feedback not only with their office but with mta. and you know, for many months for a lot of folks to increase open-space of twin peaks has been one of the few actions in a year-long pandemic and we can certainly understand and support the goal of increasing access to open space for residents and visitors but it is the undeniable restrictions of the vehicle access to twin peaks has unintended negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. over the last few years will working closely with public works, park station and members to address the sharp rise in late-night gatherings to perhaps make the residential streets surrounding twin peaks and i want to thank the mta captain for working with our office on a number of measures including installing new park smart science as well as increased patrols from park stations and also thank public works convening in the area . in januarythe mta was evaluating community feedback in response to the survey . supervisor handelman that a letter which hopefully all the members of the have received and in that letter he earned the mta to incorporate key principles which he believes are essential to mitigating some of these impacts . and then achieving balance they have requested the mta consider ensuring access to the top twin peaks for those who are mobility impaired and also keep the christmas tree parking lot open to direct nighttime visitors to the top of twin peaks, then where they held the gathering late into the night area and three, further existing restrictions on passenger vehicleswith more than nine passengers which currently prohibits buses from accessing . so supervisor would like to open up and take the mta for revisiting this initial closer decision and to the board for hearing from the community today and ultimately our office asks that as the mta move forward the board make their decision today that the mta closely monitor the changes that are approved by the board and continue to partner with our office and community and neighbors to reevaluate and make sure that it's working for everybody. we recognize that it's not an easy choice trying to balance competing needs and interests and ultimately there really needs to be justification and medication with the neighborhood and we want to appreciate mta for partnering with the last year to do that. >> thank you so much. with that we will move to mister lasky together presentation, we have someone from rex and far and it would be helpful to have them come to explain their portion of the project. >> mister lasky. >> thank you directors, can you see me okay and mark i'll put my presentation here. that's visible, i hope. >> thank you. >> good afternoon directors. thank you for having me and listening and thankyou to the supervisors offices for those comments . i appreciate that . i'm matt lasky, i'm program manager within livable streets and the streets division here at sfmta and project manager for the twin peaks project.i have about 10 lives here that i'll go through and then will go from there. this project came to be after the recreation of the parks department and police department example the internet and through the lens of the park in march2020. to allow for people to physically distance . while recreating. the gates made for an amazing recreation of fancier in the center of san francisco. and in the fall 2020 it was realized that closing the gates on both the northand south limited access for peoplewith disabilities .for those that can't walk or bike up to the peak . in october 2020 wreck and park started opening theportcullis between 6 pm and midnight . both rack and park to operate and maintain open space and the sfmta has jurisdiction over twin peaks boulevard this was not enough so the two agencies worked together to kick off the twin peaks project area and understanding for the project was resolution would need to happen quickly to make sure that access could be granted to all. during the presentation i will be sharing more about the project including the goals, options that were considered as well as the recommendation before you. the twin peaks for all project study area covers twin peaks boulevard between the yellow gates on both sides of the par . the burnet gate is on the north and portola gate is on the south, christmas tree point road is the peak where vehicles parked in the drive-through. and the green section on your map is what was permanently closed on the. the eastern side of the figure 8 that was closed in 2019 for the sole use of people walking, biking and rolling.twin peaks is the jurisdiction of excuse me, twin peaks boulevard is the jurisdiction of the sfmta and for any permanent closures requires your action on the board. in actual land around the roadways owned by a variety of cityagencies , reckoned park, fire department as wellas the department of real estate . so a quick snapshot of existing conditions. the gates were openedas you mentioned , sorry, the gates were closed in march and then reopened from six to midnight in october. that was daily. that is daily. however with the gates closed they're not accessible to all people. the peak is accessible to all people. high volumes of walkers and bikers andhikers are accessing twin peaks now . average more than1000 people are using the facility . there are a number of concerns from neighbors about vandalism, noiseand parking issues . it's worth noting the police department has made significant efforts to try and curtail these bad behaviors. tour buses are currently not accessing the peak . it is closed and there aren't many tourists in san francisco right now but when they do return to the city we want to make sure that thetourism industry does have that access. and currently , there is no formal pedestrian route from that side of twin peaks. without going in the roadway. on the south end aswell as the east , you can walk up to the peak of twin peaks without walking in the roadway. we have 4 project goals. restoring access to the viewpoint especially for people with disabilities, providing estatefor people to walk and roll that allows for the physical and social distancing . using negative impactslike park users to the area neighbors and neighborhoods .and lastly retaining that extraordinary increase in park use. many more people, there's many more people using the twin peaks now and there's a lot of demand so we want to make sure that the proposal allows people to keep on using this rate area and facility. staff has outlined four options for the proposal, for options plus the three covid condition and the first option is opening up the barnett gate vehicles and then closing the portola gate and allowing walking and biking fully from the portola gate site. second option, you. the first option is yes, opening the burnet avenue gate to allow for vehicle access and then closing the portola side, that was the production closing the portola site is for people who walk on bike which i did say the first time. the second option is closing the burnet side gate. so people can walk and bike on that side opening the portola side of the vehicle traffic. then options three and four are one way, depending on the direction which would allow vehicles to take up one side of the roadway and then in one lane and the other side of the roadway would be dedicated so people walking and biking and fifth, is a three covid option which allows for two-way vehicle traffic from both gates. i should say that if gates are open, allowing vehicle traffic, it also people walking and biking can also access the that way but in many cases there sharing the roadway with vehicles. staff develop five criteria to review, fixed criteria to review these options area the first is nonmotorized transportation safety. this is defined as how each alternative decreases the safety of people walking, biking and rolling >> we did a test. this picture is from a test with a tour bus. they navigated through the neighborhood for this specific test to access the site where there's a bus restriction actually. fourth was non-motorized access. this is defined is whether walking and biking is improved or worsened. not necessarily safety since that's covered in the first one but more access. five, was the survey scores. we conducted a survey in october and we sent the survey to approximately 5000 people. last criteria is cost. cost estimate is an important measure to evaluate the options especially given the financial status of our agency. it's important. to summarize in this slide, there are alternatives to take into multiple factors of the project goals that i shared previously. when we consider all the factors, option two was the option that came closest to meeting all the project goals. there's no perfect solution to this complicated problem, the options that best met the project goals was increasing biking and pedestrian access, maintaining access for people with disabilities and tour buses and addressing the neighborhood impacts. this graph shows what the proposed recommendation is. this is option two. on the left you see the gate on the left on the south end. the gate is open. allowing vehicle access as well as bike and pedestrian access to the shoulders or through the path from the south end. with two-way vehicle, vehicle traffic at the christmas tree point road to be one way and then that's one way and vehicles will travel back down to the gateside. on east side it's half figure eight, which was closed the traffic back in 2019. that would remain. some highlights for the recommendation, this option, there will be north side pedestrian access which doesn't exist currently. it exist currently but with this option, there will be no potential for vehicle conflicts from the north side. it increases the overall space. it continues, tour bus and vehicle connections from the south as was the case for the tour buses prior to the pandemic. in addition, we're working with our partners at rec and park to modify -- assuming the proposal is recommended, modifying the gates so the yellow gates blocking twin peeks boulevard, they currently don't have a path of travel without going up and over the curb. with a permanent gate closure, we're going to continue to work with them and public works on making those gates easier to get to for people walking and biking. adding way finding sign on the burnett side. you'll see a sign saying you can't drive up this way. please use the portola drive entrance. we can provide them information that ewhen people want to visit twin peaks they'll be directed to the portola side as opposed to the burnett side. we have some signal modifications and design at portola and twin peaks boulevard which will include improved crosswalks, pedestrian countdown signals as well as signal heads. making it easier for vehicles to see the signals. i will speak to our valuation. this is something we're evaluating our projects regularly, especially within the division. if this proposal is approved by the board, we plan full valuation on the conditions and you can propose changes in the future to reflect these valuation results. if the project is approved we'll collect the same data in may if the travel data stabilizes. into the future hopefully as tour buses come back online, we will monitor their use and compare those accounts within our valuation. we'll continue to communicate with our partners at rec and park and the police department better understand and continue understanding additional crime impacts. based on all this evaluation information, staff will come back to the board with a summary of results and any additional improvements or modifications that we recommend. thank you for listening to the presentation and proposal for twin peaks. you can see the e-mail address here for the project. just proposed recommendation was announced, we received over 450 e-mails about the project. people have a lot of opinions i'm sure we'll hear about that from some commenters here. additionally, we have a project website that include information on our survey, tour buses evaluation as well as more information on the project recommendation. lastly, i like to thank the team including folks at rec and park as well as -- we've been tight nit group and working on this project for the last five months. i wouldn't be here without their support. thank you. >> chair borden: we have lamont bishop from rec and park. please give your presentation. >> good afternoon, i'm lamont bishop, i'm manager of policy government affairs with the san francisco rec and park department. this option closes the northern burnett avenue gate to create dedicated space for people, rolling, biking all the way to christmas tree point road. since the outset of the pandemic, people look to our parks for well-being during this challenging time. twin peaks boulevard was closed by restricting trach -- traffic and allowing for more social distancing. with this closure, we saw an increase in park users who were walking, hiking, biking along this road during the weekday and the weekend. while many enjoy this access, there were some issues that arose which impacted the community. we have gates, sfmta, the police department and d.p.w. to address these concern. our park rangers and san francisco police department work to help mitigate other nuance issues as well. rec and park will be working in coordination with sfmta to install road barriers at twin peaks. to restore access especially for people with disabilities, provide a space for people walking and rolling that allows for physical distancing, reduce negative impacts by park users and to retain the extraordinary increase in new park users by maintaining space. the proposal before you helps to achieve these goals. we thank you for your time and urge your support for this proposal. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. i see some directors have some questions that they like to have before we go to public comment. i will start with director hinze then director eaken and then director lai. >> director hinze: i wasn't expected to be called. thank you for your presentation and all your work. i know it's been an interesting period here for you. i have several questions. you addressed some of these questions with me privately, you talked about -- can you explain so the public knows just a little more about how you came to each of those scores. not necessarily into them but quickly explain more deeply some of the scores and how you arrived at them? >> sure. i can provide some more information. are there any specific criteria that you like me to speak to? >> director hinze: you can start and be quick. >> for non-motorized transportation safety options one and two, it's hard to -- options one and two were the burnett and portola options. options one and two, there's the full two lanes of roadway. neighborhood impacts is a bit tricky. we heard all the parking of and the noise and impacts of traffic on the south. pre-covid option as well as one-way option scored the best. there will be traffic flow and less impacts from people parking in parked vehicles. tour buses -- as i mentioned -- >> director hinze: [indiscernibl e] >> motorized access. option two provides the best access to the top for the closed roadway. i mentioned this during my presentation that there's no current way to walk up there from the north side without going in the roadway. with option two, that scores the highest, it allows the roadway to be closed. then the survey, we said it was winner take all survey. it's just another criteria with the evaluation we're share ing. -- sharing now and way to understand. the burnett and the portola options were the best there. one other thing is that, 41% of the people that responded to the survey were from the two zip codes that neighbors at twin peaks. just kind of a side note there. cost, it had the least impact in overall scoring. pre-covid option scored the best because it wouldn't require any changes to paint or concrete barrier. >> director hinze: one of my concerns about this was emergency response. can you tell the public what that is under this plan? >> let me say that projects that come to the board, by this point they've been reviewed by fire through our task process. with that being said, the emergency access would be allowed through the burnett gate and they will be able to pass through at the peak near christmas tree point road. they would have access through the gate as they do now in the event of an emergency. that would continue. >> director hinze: we've heard concerns from the supervisor's offices about wanting to continue to engage with sfmta. can you elaborate and speak to your plans for that? >> sure. historically twin peaks-crime and vandalism, unfortunately. it's something they've been dealing with for a long time. something that i was impressed with in the last half of last year, july to december, there were 3000 calls up burnett on the north side that p.d. made. i know they are regularly doing those rounds. they are continuing to do those rounds. we'll continue to work with them and communicate with them to see what changes come about with this proposal. additionally, i say that they -- in talking to them about this proposal, they did like the aspect there will be one way in and one way out of twin peaks, people driving. >> director hinze: my last question, we've gotten some e-mails from residents that they believe that the burnett option -- [indiscernible]. can you confirm you believe the portola option because it provides no vehicle conflict pedestrian access on all four sides? >> yes, from the south -- to get up from portola, you can take a pathway to the peak. from the north, there are unofficial trails that are not recommended from our friends at rec and park who operate ma land on the north side from burnett. >> director hinze: okay, thank you. those are all the questions. >> chair borden: director eaken? >> vice chair eaken: thank you. thanks for the presentation. i'm really glad that one of the four project goals was to retain the extraordinary increase in use of a park. that seems like a really great goal. it seems like -- what i read of the staff report, this experiment has shown there's a healthy demand for safe space for walking and biking from the burnett gate and portola gate. that's what i interpreted what you put before us. i want to ask two questions now. one is, given that sort of high demand that the demand not just coming from the burnett side and it's coming from both sides. how we're proposing to improve the bike access from the portola side? is there any improvements proposed to accommodate what might feel like a safer and more pleasant experience for people given that cars would be newly able to use that space? second question is, i didn't see it as listed one of your options, did you consider any creative time management of the space to sort of respond to the demand from those and those that we've heard from and we've received lots of public comment by e-mail, who use the portola side to be able to have car free space at least some time of the week. most of the time cars are allowed but sometimes people get access to car free space. thank you. >> in response to the first question about redoing the access from the portola side. we don't have anything -- other than the pet improvements at the intersection portola and twin peaks, it's something we can continue to review and look at. i would say that twin peaks boulevard, it was repaved i wouldn't say couple of years ago and in that process, we viewed how far, how big we can maked shoulders for bike travel and we extended them -- we extended the width as far as possible. there are issues with spaces. we couldn't widen the shoulders as wide we wanted. there are those shoulders that are available that are not marked as bike lanes. we can continue to look at the access to the portola gate as well as the burnett gate as we -- if we move on in this proposal. in terms of looking at time, potentially portola, one of the goals is the accessibility and making sure people of all skills and abilities in terms of even walking or rowing can get up to the peak. that accessibility requirement is really important. if we put a limit -- if we put a time where people can drive, that would mean we're closing it off to people that can't walk or bike. that is not -- that's why we didn't consider it. >> supervisor mull gar's office approached us interested in funding a study to look at the overall recreational and other needs of the greater twin peaks park area. it includes the public utilities commission, land extending as far north. all which are contiguous. we were surprised during covid to discover that there's an enormous park in the center of san francisco with a trail system that wants further development and refinement. we'll be eager to play our role in supportive recreational and parks department if that study comes to fruition. >> director lai: thank you. i will try to be brief here. mr. laskey, i want to read the validation analysis that staff had done, the rubric. i think it's quite self-explanatory, i wanted to have you just to state again on the logic behind the weighted score categories. obviously, we're saying that's a score for non-motorized transportation is the highest priority. can you describe staff logic and how you provided the category. >> sure. it's fairly simple. vision zero is number one goal at the agency. safety was weighted the highest. that touches on our strategic plan and goal. that kind of was the most important. i say cost was the least important. we didn't want to be the ultimate driver for what we wanted to recommend. that had the lowest weight. everything else is in the middle, really. >> director lai: thank you. no contest on that front. i wanted to make sure that you got that on the record. could you also talk more about the possible -- i guess i'm referring to the potential intersection, redesign at portola and twin peaks. you had mentioned that there's current design efforts going on i believe that staff had planned for construction in 2022 for improvements there. can you talk about the possibility integrating our ongoing evaluation for this portola entrance change and how that may or may not give an opportunity to fold in our findings to that redesign? >> that's a good comment. we can definitely look at that. we have time, i think. if there is a need to adjust that intersection, i think that's something we can look at. in our evaluation, in our counts later, we can look at that intersection in may and then see how that intersection is operating and potentially apply some changes in the future with that design. i need to talk to my signal colleague before totally committing to that. i think it's a possibility and a very good point. >> director lai: , i want to make sure we're not -- we're timing strategically around that intersection with our evaluation in case there are things that we need to improve on. it's certainly a potential opportunity for us to address unintended issues that may come up aggregating with other vehicles on the portola side. i think in your follow-up slide where you shown to do ongoing monitoring. lot of that was related to counting number of vehicles or pedestrians or cyclists. what is staff's plan on monitoring the speed of vehicles that are traveling? i think some of the concerned comments we received is perhaps concern around speed of vehicles coming back down from the top and if you can talk a little bit about that also if there's any kind of tools or strategies that staff thinking about in terms of slowing down vehicles coming back down? >> that's something we will look at in the evaluation once we have vehicles coming down. we can do a speed analysis and look at that. the curbs do offer some traffic. we can include it in our evaluation and come up with some recommendations in the future if that is an issue. >> director lai: thank you, chair. >> chair borden: thanks. director yekutiel. >> director yekutiel: this is more of a comment than a question. obviously this board has received hundreds and hundreds of e-mails. i imagine we're going to be hearing from members of the public. on top of that, i want to acknowledge both secretary -- for those watching that don't know, all of the e-mails that you send are compiled into individual e-mails literally copied and pasted. i can't imagine how that is done so us board directors can read them all. that is tireless work to ensure we are hearing your comments. this seems to be where one of the situations where no one is ecstatic. there are lot of people who are quite unhappy but what the agency trying to do here from hearing matt's presentation, is to try to find a solution that does the most for the most given all of the very complex parts of it. i want to commend the agency for being so diligent and trying to really find a solution here given all of the vested interest in this. i want to thank all the folks who feel little bit -- who feel their dreams has not been realized, that things are not exactly as they like but are willing to work with us to try to see how this works. keep in mind that, this is all pretty new. there's a lot of of stuff we'll be talking about in coming months about what changes from covid we keep and don't keep. it's more of a comment to say this agency has tried to do something very big with this. i want to commend them for it and commend all the folks who have been working to get us to this point today. thanks. >> chair borden: thank you. are there any additional directors that have comments before we move into public comment? this is the time for anyone who has been calling in for item number 12, twin peaks for all presentation that was set for a time certain not to start for 2:30 p.m. if this is your first time calling in, you will press 1, 0 to put in the speaker's queue. how many callers are on the line? >> if i can just remind members of the public the number to call is (888)808-6929 the access code code9961160code9961160 >> chair borden: each speaker will have a warning when they have 30 seconds left. everyone by law can only have the same amount of time speak and given number of speakers. this will ensure every person has a chance to say their peace. with that, we'll go ahead and open up the line and start with the first speaker. >> hi, live on burnett avenue. i have in front of me data proud by the san francisco police department showing car break-ins on burnett for the last five years. this data shows 2020 had 15 times the average number of break-ins versus prior years. imagine the crime in your own neighborhood on your way to work or in the city as a whole being multiplied by 15 times. that is what we are dealing with up here. i come home to see a grown man literally lying in the street crying and he had his luggage and laptop stolen. i used to leave my bike, my luggage and daughter school bag in the car. now i won't park on the south side of the street. only way to prevent these thefts is by reopening the burnett gate so one is attempted to leave their car and walk up to christmas tree point. signage that portola is open won't do it. they still lined up on burnett every single night, clear night to see the view. signage is useless. i'm a runner and in my years of live, i never went there to run. there was no safe place to do so. now with a one mile loop of green space, it's my preferred running spot. it makes it unsafe to travel along twin peaks boulevard. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> [indiscernible] >> hi. recreation walks has become extremely popular with the residents with an increase in local pedestrians on the road. additional traffic routed from the closed burnett gate will increase the risk of injuries for pedestrians walking along the road. the current recommendation has no provision. there's no vision zero or remediation policy. the sfmta staff recognized it's a violation. the staff should really address this and the board should address this by not accepting this recommendation or making arrangements for remediation as soon as possible. >> my name is chris. i'm a district 9 resident. i want to thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment. i do ask that you reject this alternative and begin studying how to reopen to the pre-pandemic condition as soon as possible. you mentioned that there's been a lot of responses to this and clearly it's been in the news i would note that 450 e-mails is only six 100th percent of the population of san francisco. you haven't heard from many people especially considering selection bias. it's decreasing and not increasing access to twin peaks. if we do need to make other pedestrian and cyclist improvements, let's talk about how we do that. let's talk about how we build and other routes up. let's not destroy one of the iconic experiences of our city to do it. thank you very much. >> hi, can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> my name is scott. i'm a san francisco resident. before the pandemic, i didn't really go up to twin peaks very much because it felt unsafe to bike there. since the access has been made safer for bikes have been enjoying it a lot. it's been a bright spot. i'm really glad that the board is considering making permanent access in some form. i think this could have been a little bit better. i think it's really unfortunate that this survey that was given to the public did not include an entirely car free option. i know that the rationale for that is disability access but there could have been option to allow paratransit vehicles and cars with disabled -- i don't think that should have been ruled out. it's also unfortunate that the evaluation of alternatives did not consider having cars drive around at the top diminishes the enjoyment of the space. you know the stillness and the quiet you feel is the appeal. you kind of lose that. i hope that you'll direct staff to keep these things in mind with future projects. present a car free option and consider the experience. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> hi. [indiscernible] >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> hi. i think people will be correctly outraged if we as physicians proceeded with treatment without adequate assessment of the data. in the study about the twin peaks, road closures we've been presented with the numbers of people who have used the access road since they've been closed. we have not been presented with data in terms of what the numbers were prior to the closure. other than historic data from 2015 and 2017. we don't have a good comparison. the repercussions with the closure when it initially happened, quickly realized there was significant increase in crime, the police were forced to react and didn't have time to prepare for it. new scars were blazed across the spokes surrounding twin peaks to protect the habitat. additional repercussion was that the mayor's office had to intervene to allow people with disabilities and limitations to open the road. please don't give us something where we have this great opportunity. only to find that there were repercussions that were significantly negative. take the time to study the roads. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> hello. my name is brock i'm from the mission. i appreciate the details presentation and sfmta move the quickly on this one. i believe the burnett option -- this is a situation where balance is the wrong decision. we should be prioritizing allowing as much space as possible to be fully open to pollution and traffic free recreation. we shouldn't be privileging the local neighbors over thousands of residents across the city looking for place to recreate. i take previous commenters point and i would suggest that we ban car parking in the places with too many break-ins. i yield my time. >> chair borden: thank you so much. next speaker please. >> thank you, i live in portola hill. i want to thank m.t.a. and rec park staff for their hard work on this. i think their proposed solution is inadequate. i was just at the summit twin peaks over an hour ago. it's hard to understate how much better it is as an experience when there's no cars that threaten your physical safety, that produce emissions, that produce noise. the proposed solution just -- there's no way it can possibly maintain the goal of maintaining the high levels of access we've seen there. i think in particular, taking away the large amount of car free space on the portion of twin peaks boulevard from portola drive will be a tragedy. staff needs to explore the possibility similar what we have now. it will not achieve our goal of vision zero and did not conform to san francisco transit first policies. i note that it doesn't make it possible for someone without a private vehicle to access the summit if they're not able to walk or bike there. there's still accessibility issues even under this proposed solution. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> hello, thank you sfmta staff for this. this proposal, i was not excited about it. i was really rooting for option one. i was disappointed that sfmta conducted a survey and selected the complete opposition what the survey found what people wanted, which was burnett. i hope city leaders can continue dedicate the safety around the city without a car. if twin peaks boulevard open to cars again, i hope the board considers how to how to paint bike lanes because cyclist in the city sharing the roads. it's not enjoyable and it's not safe. it discourages for people who feel less comfortable from biking. i hope that's considered if you approve this motion. thank you. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> hi. i'm calling to urge the board to reject the staff proposal and go with option one. i'm disappointed the results survey has not been used in the recommendation. number one is the safest and preserves the best space. in contrast, the staff recommendations for an option that wasn't on the survey -- it includes the dangerous mixing between cars and pedestrians. as somebody who us portola entrance, this recommendation wasn't pre-pandemic. what is the point of community engagement if you will ignore it? recommended option is deeply flawed compared to other viable options, which is option one. thank you. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> good afternoon directors. my name is kristen lucky. i'm a consider community organizer at the san francisco bicycle coalition. on behalf of our 10,000 members i'm calling to support the twin peaks project. this is a premier park in the city. in the past year we've seen how amazing this space is for all who enjoy it especially the 360-degree view of the city without the fear of mingling with car traffic. however, in the m.t.a. survey, the preferred option for the space was to keep the portola drive gate closed given the access to the christmas tree parking lot via burnett avenue. the proposal moving forward is less than half the space. while we're supportive of the expansion of car free space, we're extremely disappointed to see the favored proposal not moving it forward. this project isn't perfect. we already have heard from folks who are going to call in today to show their disappointment that we're going further with the project. we have to prioritize car free space. this is a first step. i urge you to seriously consider how to expand car-free space at twin peaks in the near future. >> chair borden: next speaker please. >> my name is charlie. i'm a resident of district 8. the accident of this pandemic has created something new. it has become a new treasure for san francisco like never before. it's now urban and wild. it's bringing together san franciscans, it's bringing together this incredible diverse group of walkers and bikers and skateboarders. lots of different people coming together. the experience is totally new experience. a stunning experience. compromise, we keep hearing the word compromise. the plan in front of you is a compromise. but this compromise misses the opportunity before you. the opportunity for visionary change. the challenge for you commissioners is to make this moment and this opportunity and to keep all of twin peaks entirely car-free, to create a new jewel of san francisco. think about that. think about what you can do. think about what you can give us as the san francisco that is coming out of the pandemic. think about what you can give us. think about what you can give future generations. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> my name is brad tardy. we live on burnett avenue five houses from twin peaks boulevard. we were the first family to move in our house in 1988. for 32 years my neighborhood was the best place to live. we had no car break-ins, no trash, no defecation and no your nation. -- urination. we had no traffic congestion, police activity or need for continued police presence. we did have parking spaces in front of and across the street from our house. we rode our bikes and walked up to the top of twin peaks without any accidents for years. however, last march, m.t.a. took that away. your closure of twin peaks it learn it into a nightmare place to live. we live in daily fear of our safety. regarding staff recommendation to keep burnett gate closed, this solution does nothing to reduce the negative impacts on our upper twin peaks neighborhood. this proposed solution actually encourages park users to keep burnett avenue a parking lot. this action continues to encourage car break-ins, partying and defecation and congestion. please do not approve this option. open both gates or come up with a solution that doesn't destroy my neighborhood. thank you for listening. >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon commissioners. this is matthew blaine. we've been involved with it twin peaks many years now. given the constraints, it's access types and the portola option is a compromise. >> i'm sarah, i live in the mission district. i urge the board to approve this project, prioritize coffee space. i go to twin peaks a lot and it always seem to be well used by different type of people and ages getting out to exercise and enjoy views and the space without any car traffic. i think it will be a huge change to lose that and the benefit it brings to so many people. it sounds really difficult. i hope another solution could be found rather than that being the reason to prevent access to all of twin peaks. when i visit twin peaks, i would get there without a car. i know many others who do the same. we aren't causing parking problems. i urge the board to approve this project and also to continue to look for more opportunities to add more open space in the future. >> thank you, so much. >> hi. i'm a san francisco resident who do not have a car. i'm in strong support of option one. [indiscernible] i don't understand how an option can have the highest safety core. i urge you to approve option one instead of option two. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> my name is patrick. i'm a daily user of the park. i urge the board to vote for option one. closing the burnett gate doesn't seem like it will prevent the problems for residents near that gate. conversely extending the hours of the portola is open to cars, while in the night time hours will significantly increase risk to skateboarders and cyclers. vehicle speed is much higher up and down the hill and roadways is much smaller. the portola and burnett sides are not interchangeable from user perspective. i personally can access the burnett side without a long detour through city streets. staff evaluation contains lot of subjective comments and individual categories. how does that differ from a five? the staff recommended option doesn't seem to meet the same objectives. s in non-motorized user safety. i rather the board to pick an option where burnett residents don't have to worry about break-ins or cyclist can use portola. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> hello. this is stacy. i'm just in shock at the tunnel vision here. i feel like i'm being punked on a regular basis. sfmta needs money. san francisco is supposed toreach vision zero in less than three years. we are a transit first city. shouldn't the decision by this body reflect that? can we stop and imagine that accessibility is possible without personal cars. why not make this destination exclusive to transit? kind of like that old visa commercial. have you been to the getty museum, there aren't many cars up there. why couldn't we do the same thing by having a shuttle traverse the top or better yet, create a 33 special which runs over twin peaks. reject tour bus access. collaborate with them to utilize their parking lot as a depot until the twin peaks gas station closes. it's operating on city land. charge regular muni fare for locals but cable car rates for those not utilizing the clipper car. the body counts oour streets continue to grow. >> thank you so much. next speaker please. >> hi, i'm a district 7 resident. i work, play, ride a bike, drive a car and walk in san francisco. today i'm asking the m.t.a. directors to approve this project twin peaks for all and expand the opening space in the park. i really, really want option one. i've been enjoying the portola approach heavily since the pandemic. as somebody who's mobility is impaired, i found this increase safety measures on the portola side being open to pedestrians and bikes much more accommodates. i realized that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good here and approving option two is an example of how the directors can dedicate people first space. we need to see this more. i strongly urge m.t.a. board of directors to approve this project and not stop making twin peaks car-free and safe as possible for all users. >> hello. i'm on the j right now. sorry if it's loud. i wanted to express my opposition for this project because it's not what anybody wants. it's like better market street. it's going to be worse for the residents. it's going to be worse for people walking and biking. muni needs the revenue. we need to have a shuttle go up to the top. it will allows tours to access it and opening up portola as a last resort but definitely not doing that as a way that's going to address residents or people on foot or vision zero or our climate goals. it's a bad option. it should be a shuttle bus and keep it fully closed or open up the burnett gate but not portola. those are my comments. >> good afternoon. my name is chris. i live below twin peaks. i appreciate the board is considering twin peaks for all project. someone what about unemployed and living in san francisco for the last year and having access to this area cycling and walking has been critical for my physical and emotional health. i've been hiking and biking in that area, i notice there seems to be less impact on the nature and wildlife in that area. it is a critical habitat for the mission blue butterfly. which is an endangered species. option number one was my preference. we still need a solution for the constituents. i strongly urge the board to approve this project. lastly, i want to thank you all for your patience and time in considering so many public comments on this project. thank you so much. >> next speaker please. >> hi. my name is craig. i lived here for over 25 years. i love biking up to twin peaks. i did it before the pandemic. i've been doing it biweekly. it is amazing. it's so great. i really appreciate how some of the callers characterized it. it's like a different experience. it's quiet and you can stand on the road and watch the birds. i would love for it continue being close to cars. maybe having an occasional bus access up there if needed. but having reduction of noise and increased safety has been great. at the same time, i bike in the castro and going up the burnett road works for me. i do like the top being closed. last thing i wanted to add, the gate -- two things. the gate i would like it to be pedestrian and bike friendly. i had the same issue at golden gate park. those roads were just for bikes and pedestrians should be easily accessible. >> i urge the directors to reject this proposal and to seriously reconsider option one, the burnett avenue being open. i want to add some new points. the burnett avenue tour bus test performed by sfmta interestingly used 45-foot long tour bus. sfmta only uses 32-foot long buses. how can we take this test seriously when you're not having tour bus operators at your own standards? steeper roads are better suited to motor vehicles. while in favor of reopening christmas tree road -- it takes the bike route off the peak and mixes the buses into two lane road. if vision zero seriously being taken seriously in twin peaks? is that somehow out of scope? i urge the directors to reject option two and instead reconsider option one. thank you. >> hi, my name is george. president of the midtown terrace homeowners association. we're against the sfmta maintaining -- we want a pre-covid state. the following reasons -- we would like a pilot program developed and consider the cost. it considers access, how many before, how many in the future, what is there now, safety. we don't know how safe it's going to be. the congestion has been not considered especially on the panorama side. crime has been terrible on both the burnett and panorama side. we also would like hard look at permanent buses that only take eight people. that would make things much safer. i don't know why that would make things so difficult and it could get rid of the 40-foot long buses that go up and down. i think that will be a big part of the solution. please protect the neighborhood. >> next speaker please. >> hi, i'm matthew. i live on burnett avenue close to burnett -- thank you for this project. i really appreciate being able to bike up there. i think either option one through four. they are all pretty good. better than what was before. i would like to ask you if it was possible to -- if you had option two, put some trash cans there. there are lot of people parking here on burnett avenue. i would appreciate if the city could take care of that. second point, when biking it's difficult. you have to do left turn on four-lane street. that's very dangerous. >> next speaker please. >> hello, my name is denise. i urge the board to return twin peaks boulevard to the pre-covid configuration. i lived on twin peaks boulevard since 1987. there hasn't been discussion of the corridor for local residents. i'm delighted so many people discovered it. i'm curious about the pre-covid numbers. tour buses have been prohibited for decades as the road is narrow and steep. thank you for recognizing that in your current recognition. please continue to work with other agencies to address the unforeseen serious issues caused by this closure. i urge ongoing monitoring of reopening the portola gate. >> next speaker please. >> hi, i'm an sf resident and has an apartment building on top of twin peaks. i've enjoy the open access to the top of twin peaks and have happily walked out to the road. it's not worth the amazing increase in crime it caused. everyday i watched tourist walk far up to the top, far away from their cars to take in the beautiful views of the city. everyday in-person and there are security cameras, i see multiple car break-ins. throughout the day and the evening. the thieves are taking full advantage of this ideal situation. it's terrible to watch and watch people return to their cars in tears. even worse to see the same thieves day after day. the police are powerless to deal with the situation. the frequency of the visits shows no improvement. knowing the closure will go on, we ask for signs to be put up. what we got, we got six months later where signs that say park smart. that doesn't say high theft areas. the victims i have spoken to, they didn't understand the sign. i enjoyed biking and hiking, i don't need the roads to be closed off for my enjoyment at the rate expense of others. please think about the people you are hurting and weigh safety and security over enjoyment. open the portola gate immediately. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm a third generation san franciscan who grew up using muni and public transport. i walk everywhere. i do love twin peaks. my husband and i have lived in twin peaks for 25 years and always felt completely safe. until temporary closure vehicular access to twin peaks. our whole community on the north and south side of twin peaks have been roughly up ended as the previous speaker alluded to. it has become obvious to us and our neighbors that because we are homeowners, our community is deemed elite and therefore deserving no further consideration. we have been stuck cleaning up the unintended consequences of crime, mountains of trash, trespassing, bad behavior, urinating and defecating on our property. even with my windows closed, i have to get up at midnight or later to call the police to sweep away the loud drunken partiers. for over quarter of a century, i felt safe taking an evening stroll. i urge the rejection of the staff proposal and to consider that we need compromises and honest trials. if they do proceed to approve this recommendation i request that the board reevaluate it. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> hi. my name is sophia i'm resident of the inner richmond district. i lived here for ten years. i like to point your attention to 2016 study -- i can speak for many san franciscans the space has been a god send for us and it's been a pleasure not have to compete with traffic and look over my shoulder. i feel it's important to choose a solution that keeps homeowners in mind, keeps traffic separate and allows people with disabilities to access the peak by a car so it's a win-win for everybody. i strongly ask you to continue twin peaks for all option followed by option two. so we can continue our proud legacy as the first u.s. city with a park within half mile of every home. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello, everyone. i'm dave alexander. districts 1 resident with two young children. do i support this plan. i have a question for m.t.a. staff. i wondered if you explored trans similar to the alcatraz to meet the needs of the members. i don't believe it should be a 24-7 automotive free for all. i understand the conumb drum, cm with the neighbors. rec and park m.t.a., you should do a mobility study to crunch real numbers and look at this as being a beautiful park in front of our city. >> next speaker please. i want to note to people, there's no such thing as yielding your time. we can hear you. >> i wanted to comment on matt laskey's reply to amanda regarding partial closure twin peaks. partial closure does not allow accessibility. currently, twin peaks boulevard is on partial closure. when it's closed, nobody can get up there. when it's open, anyone who's able or disabled is able to reach the top of twin peaks. partial closure as the m.t.a. originally put in their own study for option number two, new is a feasible option. also the m.t.a. has no mitigation for safety issues for speed bumps or for listening to the neighbors on either side of twin peaks who have come together, united against this proposal who wish burnett to be reopened to automobiles. thank you for your time. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> hi, i grew up and went to twin peaks schools in the early '70s. i witness the results of twin peaks boulevard personally. during the pandemic, hundreds of non-san francisco residents visit the twin peaks. we have had two to three car break-ins a day for the past nine months. if these visitors have been allowed to drive on christmas tree point, most of this would not have happened. i do not agree with the need to change the configuration of twin peaks boulevard. prior to the pandemic, the vast majority of daily visitors from twin peaks were tourists. once the pandemic is over and we're all back to work, i expect this will be true again in car-free area being created is not an excuse. today, i'm asking you to approve the staff recommendation and open the portola gate immediately and direct staff to continue working with the neighborhood to solve the remaining problems created i by the closure. opening the portola gate will calm some of the chaos. it's your responsibility to fix this problem. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon, my name is kenneth russell. i like to voice my support for option one. this choice is a clear winner. i find it objectionable that we're prioritizing tour bus needs than non-motorized transportation safety. why tour buses more important than people? staff said vision zero is number one goal. i want to bring your attention to the detail of the analysis scoring in the staff presentation where both option one and two were given score of nine for safety. option one would completely partition vehicular and non-vehicular traffic. the staff recommendation requires pedestrians and bicyclist to go by christmas tree point? what way is forcing pedestrians and cyclist to cross traffic the same as completely separating them. we made great progress during the pandemic, making spaces for people rather than cars. please don't give back majority of the space to vehicles while simultaneously making it less safe. i urge you to support option one to open burnett rather than option two. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> hi. my name is gary russ. by keeping twin peaks boulevard closed, m.t.a. created an environment welcoming unprecedented crime and late night partying across the upper twin peaks neighborhood. especially along burnett 300 blocks above my h.o.a. despite the portola gate being open for months, our block remains ground zero for much of the crime and parties caused by the closure. parties scare our kids and throw bottles on our cars, poop and pee on our property. four parties just last week we had here. i had to take pills at times just to sleep through the night. vast majority of upper twin peaks residents to be impacted by your plan were never surveyed by laskey. its data and the plan before you are skewed against our neighborhood. this is what our neighborhood wants. please reopen twin peaks pre-covid configuration or approve the southbound option while banning tour buses there. finally, we would ask sfmta to dissuade partiers by landscaping that area which attracts so many partiers here. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi. i live in telegraph hill. i love twin peaks. i bike up there all the time. it's super nice and peaceful without cars like other people said. i have some concerns about the process that has led to this hearing and this decision before the board today. first among them is why are -- what is it? and sfmta charter that make tour buses. tour bus access to park something that sfmta thinks is important. i think we were talking about having a muni bus up to twin peaks, we'll having a different discussion. i don't see the public interest in having tour buses go up there. the whole criminals are going to do crime. therefore, we have to have cars on twin peaks. earlier, i think that all of these options are kind of bad option one is the least bad. if you're going to pick one of the options, go with that one. >> next speaker please. >> hello. i live in midtown. i'm concerned that your study didn't really look at the safety as far as traffic in the neighborhood and the immediate neighborhood. we are going to close burnett. everybody is going to be -- [indiscernible] i'm afraid lot of traffic will increase along panorama drive. this is a neighborhood where children are playing in the street. that is my concern. neighborhood safety will be compromised due to increase in traffic. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> thanks, my name is cory silver. i've been hosting it tourists to the city for 40 years. i'm aware most tourists have spent most of their time in the enorthern half it city. both transit vehicles that help people with disabilities can easily access the burnett side. i'm aware that limiting access for large tourist buses is something done other parts of the city. for example if we allow pedestrians only, that will be a way to share the ride. share the space and that will be willing to adjust myself to that. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> hi. good afternoon. this is barry toronto. when people say you care about the tour buses or the cars. there are people in these vehicles. there are people that bring money to the city. there are people that brag about san francisco after seeing the views. i think that there has to be more exploration of what we can do to accommodate everybody. as a taxi driver, i bring people who are disabled, who are elderly, who are visiting for the first time who are asked to say, take us on a tour. we're only -- we're here for convention. i have the afternoon free. why can't this be included as part of it? what you doing is, i don't hear anybody caring about the fact that we need to show people this beautiful city. also, what about seniors and disabled? i don't hear many people on the call who are over 75 or 80 years old saying that they love the ability to bike up this hill. this is quite a climb, not just on bike but foot. the thing is, i don't hear anybody saying that i get to bring my aunt, uncle, grandparents to visit the site. i think that the burnett entrance might be the better route because of the fact that it's easier to go by car that way. >> next speaker please. >> hi. i'm calling to support the twin peaks for all project. open space at twin peaks has been special to me and i like to see more people expand throughout the city. even though i would have like to see permanent car-free space at twin peaks, this option is an significant increase in open space. i strongly urge the sfmta to continue to look for opportunities to add additional permanent open spaces. thank you. >> hi. my name is charles chu. unlike some of the people commenting today, i live almost a mile from the most affected neighborhood. i have less direct personal stake. i to like hiking in the park. the current proposal will be a taking on behalf of a small group of people like me at the expense of almost everyone else. i'm willing to sacrifice the benefit that i got. some here have suggested a car-free solution. they're not addressing access to the elderly and disabled. we're not going to wish those away. i love the idea of a car-free space. this plan almost manages to get everything wrong, environmental, safety and equity. some of the key decision makers presented here have a conflict of interest. many of us in this surrounding neighborhood have never even seen the survey that mr. laskey cites. the pandemic will be here for a while. i support using the time to figure it out properly. meanwhile, we should return to the pre-covid arrangement until we have a smarter solution. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> i'm a resident of twin peaks. [indiscernible] these issues did not exist previously. the best option is to open both gates full time. there are very few ways up here. some ideas consider risks in consultation, outreach made to the survey, shrubbery on burnett, police presence on the peaks, direct traffic to portola gate, use technology to help the police, smart parking signs. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> hello, i'm in support of option two that has been presented. i really enjoy being able to walk and hike and run up there. i do really empathetic to the neighbors and many of their concerns. my wish is that we could have a more solution that really takes into consideration what they're going through. if we open the gate at burnett, we're pushing the problem back up where we know that many crime happen. i think people really do enjoy being able to walk, bike and roll. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon directors of the board. i opposed to the opening of the portola gate to vehicular traffic for reasons that i detailed in an e-mail i sent via the project's website. please, do not approve the project proposed. thank you for your time. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> my name is chris. i ask sfmta to consider other opportunities for permanent open spaces. although the portola options provides greater access, this option is by no means ideal. i would much rather see m.t.a. make car-free space. this proposal provide an example how city leaders can dedicate a people-first space for iconic landmark as twin peaks. i lived in the city for 15 years, one thing i noticed is that the concern for public safety around twin peaks has been historically mute. that is until covid happened. i hear the frustrations of neighbors. prior to the pandemic, many of the issues that you're mentioning, break-ins, vandalism, larceny, these were all things happening regularly at the top of twin peaks often at the hands of tourists and non-local residents. i know this for a fact. i can't help to think that reason decline around twin peaks is because it's been redirected to local homeowners. i think the city needs to focus on public safety. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> hi, i'm calling from the san francisco travel association. san francisco travel is an organization that markets san francisco to attract leisure travelers, business travelers and conventions. prior to the pandemic, visitors spend over $10 billion during their stay. many visitors have twin peaks on their list of must see places in our city. as we begin to reopen the city, i want to express our support for the proposal put forth by the sfmta. we were able to reach out to number of operators with different size vehicles to get their feedback on what would work for their vehicles. we support this compromise and encourage the m.t.a. board to approve the proposal in front of you today for future use of twin peaks. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon. my name is charles whitfield. i'm a twin peaks neighbor and visitor. i'm asking that you reject the staff recommendation or option two and support option one. i usually have like a 90 seconds to prepare for public comment. the staff recommendation is so flawed i barely know what to say. non-motorized transportation, it's laughable to score the burnett and portola option equally unsafe. second, neighborhood impacts, as a neighbor, the neighborhood impact i'm focused on is the impact of a car against my body in the neighborhood as i try to enjoy twin peaks. i like to avoid that impact. i think the better complaints listed in the report, people parking at the closed burnett gate are better addressed by option one which opens the burnett gate. let's remember that both options offer car visitors the same access to christmas tree point. why did option two score higher? tour bus, why was this a separate category? the cost of accommodating tour buses could have been rolled in the cost criteria. survey results, option one was the 1er here. san franciscans want to maximize car-free space. please support option one or totally car-free option. >> next speaker please. >> hi. i'm a d1 resident. i'm calling in to support option one for twin peaks. i think it's high time for us to reprioritize our streets and look towards safer options for pedestrians and cyclists. right now we have 90% devoted to vehicles. [indiscernible] >> next speaker please. >> hi. thank you for making this meeting public. my name is jorge. i'm a resident and homeowner adjacent to twin peaks boulevard. [indiscernible] [too much echo] the staff argued that if consulted with the community, that's completely false. as the other colleagues have mentioned. when the neighbor engage in conversation with the staff, input was missed. the neighborhood have been expressing opposition. we strongly believe that -- [indiscernible] the community should be engaged again. this is not yes or no. >> thank you so much. next speaker. hello? >> hi. my name is aaron. until the pandemic, i never considered walking at the twin peaks. now i take my dog up there three to four times a week. it's a fantastic new open space. i strongly support staff's proposal. i know it's imperfect compromise. i hope more biking and pedestrian are installed on the portola side as part of the plan. as for tourist, pre-pandemic, i would encounter tourist trying to walk up to the twin peaks. when they ask for direction, i would send them up to the portola gate. they didn't quite understand that you can go up to the burnett gate. i think this is going to be a huge asset. not just for me and residents but also for visitors. sidewalks going up there is horrible. it's very difficult to cross. another option might be the castro station up to the top. you can think about that. i really support staff's recommendation and thank you for letting me make my comment. >> thank you mr. starr. next speaker please. >> my name is edward. i live in the mission and for 35 years since i moved to san francisco, twin peaks has been my favorite recreational bike ride whether that's at dawn or dusk or middle of the day. the staff recommendation is a mess. i want to point out a particular problem with it. i would support option one, clearly that's preferrable. i would modify it. i would open up or allow vehicle parking at christmas tree point. i don't think it's realistic to say people will turn around at the top of burnett and not have access to christmas tree point as a turn around and parking area. that separates the traffic. over the years, i don't think there was any traffic measurement but 90% the bicycle traffic comes up from portola and always has even when there were motor vehicles on both side. that's the less steep route and the approaches to bicycles to the portola side are much better. even if you put in option two because it's so much better bicycling route, you still will get 90% of the bicyclist coming up from portola. they will be mixing with the buses. it makes no sense disregards the reality of what actually is a good bike route and what isn't. it's just asking for trouble. option one, please. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> my name is denise la point. i urge the board to return twin peaks boulevard to pre-covid configuration. i lived on twin peaks boulevard for 30 years. along with my neighbors, we work hard to promote, maintain and protect our property and beautify and improve our formally peaceful neighborhood. the east side of the mountain has been closed to vehicle traffic. it's car-free. recent improvements to off road trails for hikers and bikers. i don't think there's been any discussion of the reliance of the road for local residents. tour buses has been prohibited for decades on twin peaks boulevard burnett. thank you for recognizing that fact in your current recommendation. thank you for working with wayfinding app. twin peaks is not a new treasure. it's a historic one. i'm delighted so many people have discovered it as spectacular. i'm curious that the pre-covid numbers versus numbers now from my advantage point and my window, there's an uptick, but it's desirable. it's a national and international destination. please continue to work with other agencies to address the serious issues caused by the closure. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> in short, i urge the board not to move forward with the current proposal at this time. i'm a resident of the eastern side of twin peaks, which is my favorite park in the city. i didn't even visit the summit as much in the past as i do now. it's so much better without vehicles. it's a safer more enjoyable experience for biking, walking, running, skating, various other forms of recreation. i really like and support the idea of restricting traffic entirely. i found it compelling the suggestion only allowing paratransit vehicles on the road to the top. if traffic is going to be allowed at all, i think option one is the clear option. i was concerned north side neighbors will be bothered by that proposal. we heard that allowing traffic through that side would alleviate their concerns about crime and safety. it could create a shorter route that pedestrians and bikers have to share with drivers. in my own experience, vehicles even driver on that slide. someone wrote in an additional suggestion that proposes to designate streets near twin peaks as quiet streets that are closed to through-traffic that can alleviate some of the break-ins and gatherings in the area. overall, i agree with the caller who said we have an opportunity to transform the kind of space that twin peaks is. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hi. i'm a resident of d1. our son goes to school at clarendon near twin peaks. i'm calling to express my support for option one. i think it will be better for bike riders who want to go up from portola. i think cars will be able to access the turnaround there, coming up from that. if cars and buses do have to come up to twin peaks, they should go up through the northeast side and not the southwest side. i'm going to close -- [indiscernible] what destroys a poetry of a city, automobiles destroy it and they destroy more than poetry. all over america and europe and city and towns are under assault by the automobile are being destroyed by car culture. the city is learning they don't have to let it happen to them. it disappoints me that some of my neighbors think that cars like water have to go everywhere and have access to everything in submit for life to be normal. that's not normal, it's abnormal. i support option one. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> any name is michael. i'm a resident of district 5. i lived in the city for about ten years and pre-pandemic, it never occurred to me that i can go to the top of twin peaks because i didn't have a car. i love the set up that we had for so many months, complete closure to cars and i recognize the need for compromise that allows access to all including those who can't get to the top of the hill on their own mobility. i think that the staff proposal is insufficient as others have said. the waiting makes no since to give an option that crosses pedestrian and motor vehicles, the higher safety score. i would urge the board to reconsider option one, which allows access for all people. we should be prioritizing people and residents over tour buses which seems to be the only thing that the staff report cares about. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon board members and speakers. my name is rachael. thank you everyone today. i'm in support of going back to the pre-covid configuration as it worked. i'm 47 years old and i was born and raised in san francisco. i'm a lifelong hiker and dog walker particularly in twin peaks. although i had never lived in this area. i just recently moved to burnett within the last six months. with my two young daughters, 9and 12 years old to get away from the crime we were seeing at sanchez and market. the very day we moved in, we've been smash and grab. since then we've seen more everyday. i had to call the police three times. i just called the police last week. i used to love coming to twin peaks to bike and walk and now my daughters are too frightened to go out. they are actually in therapy for anxiety and up at night because they can hear people in the streets partying. they regret moving here. i would like to see that change. i grew up here. i would like this twin peaks to be open up to cars from the burnett access. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon everybody. i live on mountain spring. i have been very frustrated with the way our neighbors have been treated for the last year. i understand closure of twin peaks boulevard due to the pandemic, i don't agree with the justification of a permanent closure. prior to the closure, very few people are on the west and south side to hike up twin peaks. they are prohibited to drive up. you stop the cars from going up. then you do a survey of all the people walking up. it's a pretty skewed survey when you take the increase in the number of people walking to the top to justify them from driving up because they got out of their car to walk up. we're in the middle of a pandemic. we're all trying to do our best to make sure that the city is a place for everybody. you claim want to reduce negative impact on neighbors. we need to be clear, the break-ins, late night party, neighborhood crime, it's a direct impact of what you done. [please stand by] -- traffic safety or access issues. closing one or both gates has huge negative implications and we have heard about those today without alignment or the city budget to resolve properly. or -- >> 30 seconds. >> caller: let's not be selfish and please reject this proposal and reopen both gates until better solutions are proposed. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have four questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: hello, my name is robin and i live in district 8. i'm in opposition the sfmta's recommendation of option two and in support of option one. and i'm confused not being listened to. option two is bad for a few reasons which i will list. option two creates a huge vehicle-pedestrian conflict where twin peaks meets christmas tree point. and number two, option two devotes 70% of the twin peaks to vehicles rather than to humans which is counter to the policy. and option one would devote 70% of the twin peaks roadway to humans. number three, option two retains the steepest slope up to twin peaks on the burnett side as park space. this is less useful as spark space for the same reason that steeps street makes for poorer slow streets. and accessible one has the best slope for park space and, therefore, to fulfill the goal of retaining the increase and the park use -- >> 30 seconds. >> caller: number four, option two puts drivers on the southern segment of twin peak boulevard which is flatter and less curve option one, forces the drivers to slow down due to tight curves. director, i implore you to reject the recommendation that does not prioritize vision zero staff's recommendation is only better for tour buses as staff members said. and choose option one. >> time. >> chair borden: next speaker, please. >> you have three questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: hello, i'm jeremy. i live in -- a resident and a frequent user of twin peaks through multiple modes of transportation. i'm calling in today to please to ask you to reject the staff preferred option two in favor of option one with the burnett gate open and for the toll gate closed. i think that this is important because option one retains most of the twin peakings road space for humans, while option two would result in less space available for people and in particular the closure of the park. and the opening of the twin -- the west side of the figure 8 for cars, which makes it inhospitable for people to use. and most importantly, option one features no interactions between the vehicles and people. and option two would require a lot of conflict at the intersections along with the figure 8. and i think that the most important issue is that the roadway on the southside is a gentler grade -- >> 30 seconds. >> caller: more attractive for recreation and park space of people of all ages and abilities, and the north side is quite a bit steeper and harder to access so there's less accessible for people. i want to reiterate that i'm strongly encouraging you to reject option two in favor of option one as a better long-term future for twin peaks. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have three questions remaining. >> caller: hi, my name is martin and i'm a user of the car free spaces that we've been blessed with here in the city since the tragedy of covid-19 last year. i wanted to call in, you know, to ask the board to consider the option that was voted on by the most respondents in the twin peak survey verse isthis rushed proposal that really has the tourism industry versus, you know, the lives of cyclists and pedestrians on twin peaks. you know, i want to remind the board that we're in the middle of a climate crisis. when covid is over, we're liable to see armageddon when tons and tons of vehicle traffic starts flooding into the city. and that, you know, equals increased greenhouse gas emissions and that includes more pedestrian and cyclist deaths. these are lives that we won't get back. and getting space, especially beautiful spaces like twin peaks back to human beings and cyclists is the least we can do as a city. so i implore us, you know, and they are calling in to be care behalf you wish for. the carmagedom is coming after people come back to the city and come back to work. >> 30 seconds. >> caller: i think that option one will preserve, you know, the piece that residents want while creating a safety space for human beings. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have two questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: yes, hello, my name is ken higgins and i'm a resident of the castro neighborhood. and i do want to voice my support for the proposal as placed today. i like many speakers before me have said that i really enjoyed twin peaks like i have never enjoyed it before. i have lived here for 20 years and i have used it by car and used it by bike. and now i'm walking and go up there two or three times a week it is great to not have any cars to deal with at all. and to have the burnett gate closed, it feels safer for me to walk up there. it was mentioned before that there's no sidewalks up there and as a driver i always felt that it was dangerous when there were pedestrians on the road whenever i drove my car up there. so i do accept the proposal for how it is placed today. >> chair borden: 30 seconds. >> caller: thank you so much. i appreciate all of the work that you've done and thanks for allowing me to comment. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have one question remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: hi. can you hear me? >> chair borden: yes. >> caller: oh, hi. i live on burnett up in twin peaks, so i do support the closure of burnett avenue and like the gentleman before me said, that i have definitely enjoyed taking advantage of the park now. it's safer. there are no sidewalks, so it's definitely been more as a resident of burnett to be able to access it, and so i do support the continuation for pedestrians and cyclists alike to use this. and so i do support the closure of this gate. and i've been here for 10 years and it's definitely increased my usage of twin peaks. and it's just really nice to not have to worry about cars going back and forth. and so thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker -- any additional speakers? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> chair borden: so with that we will close public comment. and i see that director heminger is the first one to sign up for speaking. >> director heminger: thank you, madam chair. i'm going to ask for help from or director of transportation. you know, we just heard quite a bit of testimony in support of option one. and you're recommending option two. and so i wanted to sort of walk through a head-to-head comparison. on its face, opening this gate or that gate, it's hard to see or to draw a big distinction. when i look at the scoring in your evaluation matrix, the scoring between the two is pretty close. and the big difference is the coring on this is an odd thing to put in an evaluation matrix. i don't think this wouldn't be the first neighborhood in san francisco to have a conflict between the residents and the tour buses. so i'm wondering how you break the tie between one gate versus another? >> so, sure, as you can see from the evaluation matrix there's a couple of key distinction points between options one and two. in option one we'd either have to forbid all tour bus and large vehicle access to the top of twin peaks. or we'd have to redesignate burnett avenue as a tour bus route. something that the residents would obviously oppose. and there's a second consideration which is the path network on twin peaks itself. there are parallel paths from each neighborhood approaching the top of twin peaks except from the north side. so a key advantage of keeping the burnett gate close side that it actually allows pedestrian access from the north slope of twin peaks all the way up to the top. the other advantage with the burnett side is that there's a very gnarly gap from pretello street where there's no bike lane at the intersection that approaches twin peaks boulevard it's a sort of thing that very confident cyclists can manage. but people who are less confident cyclists, our experience is that they are much more comfortable approaching twin peaks via 17th street or other lower volume streets from the northside. but, of course, cyclists are approaching from all directions so those were two of the key distinction points. and, matt, i don't know if you wanted to add anything else in our evaluation? >> no, i think that it covers it. i think that -- i mean, it covers the fact that we'd have to rescind it up to the burnett side. just said that, so, yeah. nothing really to add. >> director heminger: quite a bit of the testimony from residents is about public safety and concerns related to that. how much interaction have you had with sfpd and, if, in fact, we move forward with option two, does that problem -- how do we make that problem go away? >> yeah, let me take that and turn it over to matt for detail so as matt described at the beginning of his presentation, there's been a long history of boisterous activity at the top of twin peaks, at what we call the christmas tree point parking lot. when the police department closed twin peaks boulevard back in march at the beginning of the pandemic, some of that activity that had been occurring at the top of twin peaks moved down to the burnett side. so -- >> can you hold on for just one second. you said the police department shut down twin peaks, not us? >> that's correct. we did not shut down twin peaks boulevard, though once it was shut down we noticed that there was a very significant increase in people visiting the park and discovering it for the first time. and it -- at least at the beginning of the pandemic, it addressed the police department's concerns which was about crowding in the parking lot at the top of twin peaks boulevard. which was something that we wanted to avoid, obviously, during a pandemic. so when we restore access to the parking lot, the parking lot that actually does have the spectacular view, we would expect that the people who are currently enjoying themselves in the evening on the burnett side will move to the top. and we will be supporting that through, obviously, changes in signage, changes in g.p.s. routing, and also using our staff to say, hey, hi, did you know that you can now drive all the way to the top where the view is a lot better and where you'll not be bothering the nice people who are living across the street. and then, matt, did you want to describe -- we have, obviously, we have worked extensively with our park and control officers and the police department as well as department of public works, in order to try to mitigate some of the problems that we have observed. i have been up there -- i have been up along burnett and up that side numerous times myself i have spoken to the people who like to hang out there in the evenings. matt, what else did i miss? >> i'd say that the -- if this proposal goes forward, we have talked to our p.c.o. group, enforcement group, and at least that at the outset they would help to kind of direct folks to parking or driving up there, to direct folks to the pertello side at least initially. i did hear the comment about garbage cans. there are some garbage cans and maybe there's a need for more. i know that's not the actual, you know, crime, but it seems like an issue. or it is an issue. and then, i mean, when i've been up there last couple times that i have been there, p.d. has been there and i see them circulating. i know they have a presence there. i mean, it's a city-wide issue that the crime that was reported by some of the commenters, that kind of break into the car and move on to the next car -- there's actually like -- my understanding and i'm not with the police department, but the way that it was explained to me is that there's a network that they hit throughout the city. and, you know, they're working on that. and they're trying to put a stop to it. so, yeah. >> director heminger: i know that it's going on at great highway too. they have a new business model, unfortunately. >> exactly. >> director heminger: that we're going to need that partnership with the p.d. for. thank you both, madam chair. >> chair borden: okay. thank you. director hinze. >> director hinze: thank you for responding to that. a couple things, as most people who are trying to get to twin peaks, i support some access for cars. for those with disabilities and also tourists who are in cars. and whether tour buses or not. can you tell us a little bit more about the tour bus test and why -- why the tour buses got such a lower score for the burnett gate as opposed to the other gate comparatively? >> yes. let me pull up a map. so we had a representative from private tour company drive down and do a tour test -- doing a driving test on the burnett side of twin peaks. and his immediate reaction -- i mean, first let me say that the actual travel up twin peaks and down twin peaks boulevard from the gates, both from the turn standpoint, i guess from a turn standpoint and, like, a line of sight standpoint, it's pretty similar in terms of maneuvering those large vehicles. the issue for the tour bus was actually accessing the gate itself. so currently there's clairdon, laguna honda and pretolla they take to access twin peaks and those are large corridors that they can maneuver through. but the issue is for tour buses that go through -- basically co-valley and through to get to the burnett option, those roads are a lot tighter. and they have a lot more, you know, neighborhood -- more neighborhood streets. and a lot more potential conflicts. and, you know, issues from driveways and parallel parked cars and things of that nature. so that was -- that was an issue that we heard, the primary issues that we have heard. >> director hinze: and then pre-covid can you tell us on average how many tour buses there were? >> yes, so pre-covid there was approximately 10 tour buses an hour during daylight hours. that went up to the peak. i mean, there's evidence of that, depending on the day and the holiday and whatever. but, yeah. and it's definitely a destination for the visitors of san francisco. >> director hinze: and then the last question -- a lot of the -- and you sort of addressed this with me before we went into public comment, but i was curious if you'd like to responr testimony seemed to state that people thought that burnett would be a more safer pedestrian pathway there. so would you like the opportunity to respond to that? >> that it would be a safer pedestrian -- so i heard that people thought that, like, in the scoring that they weren't equal, i guess, in the safety measure. and i'm not really understanding that, because depending on -- and option one versus option two, and, like, one junket of the roadway would be closed to vehicles in both of those. so there is that, you know, that lack of conflict. so, yeah. i hope that is clear coming from me. >> director hinze: all right, sounds good. almost, madam chair, i'm done for now. >> chair borden: thank you. director eaken. >> vice-chair eaken: i want to pick up what we have heard through the public comment today. the concerns around the car break-ins, the vandalism, littering, all of the concerns that we have heard from the residents. you had mentioned the signage and going to have different routes and have ambassadors. i wonder if there's any other design considerations to mitigate some of those concerns or is this a way of handling parking spaces in a different way. have we done all that we can to address those legitimate concerns that we have heard from neighbors? >> the first thing that we want to test is if opening up the parking lot simply moves the problem from a residential neighborhood to the top of the hill. so the issue is that when the parking lot closed the activity occurring at the top of the hill moved into the neighborhood. so our suspicion is that simply opening up the top of the hill should solve most of the problem. and if that distribute, there's a kind of, you know, a ratcheted level of additional interventions that we can do later as part of our intervention. so, obviously, something that is in control of the parking management on streets surrounding the gate, we have tools like residential parking permit districts, parking meters, parking restrictions. and we have engaged with the local residents about those different tools and there is disagreement among the residents about which ones, you know, are the right ones. and so our recommendation is that we take a wait-and-see approach. if the problem is resolved by opening up the petrollo gate, we're done. if there's new problems that arise or current problems that remain, we have tools to address those problems. >> vice-chair eaken: it makes a lot of sense, thank you for that. and the second question on the theme of we doing everything that we can, we have heard a lot of public commenters say they prefer option one. so they prefer to keep the gate closed and to have it comes from that area. so i just wonder -- i would like to ask the staff as part of this, if we do go ahead and open up the gate that you could look at any design mittgations and install any design mitigations to make that -- especially the bicycle access coming up as comfortable as possible. and we did not hear about anything that would make that more similar to the experiences that they have been enjoying. but anything that you could do -- and we heard comments about cars moving quickly and could be slowed down. so anything that you could do, a lot without specific authorization on that. so i would just really appreciate and i think that a lot of people would design considerations as you're going through the implementation. and then just two more quick questions. on the option two, do we have a breakdown of how many people have been accessing this space with the toll gate and the burnett gate -- walking and biking, rolling. >> so we currently count the middle of february on friday and a saturday, and they're just about even. the amount -- and that's walking and biking. i don't -- i don't have off-hand the difference between the walkers and the bikers. but if you lump them together, the number of people accessing and exiting from burnett is relative -- just about equal -- to the people coming and going from pertolla. which i was surprised. you would think that there would be some difference one way or the other. but, yeah. >> vice-chair eaken: great. and another is a comment that we have heard from the public -- did you consider other options to keep this space, the park accessible with the idea of a shuttle bus or any other ways to provide the accessibility for all without opening to all cars? >> so we could consider transit service expansion up to the top of twin peaks and that would come at the expense of restoring other, you know, previously existing lines. as you know, we're struggling with 30% loss of service. and so, you know, we would want direction from you to not serve other neighborhoods in the city in order to restore -- or in order to provide simple transit service to the top of twin peaks. and it does leave the question, you know, the issue of tour bus access to the top of twin peaks wasn't a key driver of our decision. but it was a factor. tourism is the largest industry in san francisco and as matt said, that the twin peaks viewpoint is one of the most important destinations for those tour buses and it is a place for visitors to get oriented to san francisco and to make choices where they'll go next. we don't take that lightly. the role of tourism and driving san francisco's economy, but we also know what makes san francisco special and attractive to tourists is exactly the same kind of joy that we residents experience and love every day. that we'll continue to emphasize the joyfulness of san francisco as a key component of the city's economic development strategy. and supporting its tourism base >> chair borden: great. director yekutiel >> director yekutiel: , a quick follow-up on the question about shuttles. other than having to -- i just want to play it out, other than having to make essential cuts to where we restore service to other places, director tumlin, are there other logistical challenges with having folks park in a lot somewhere else and to take a shuttle up to the top of twin peaks if they want to visit it as a tourist? >> we would have to secure a lot. (please stand by) >> we are collaborating with our role in dealing with conventionality types of crime as well as helping us out on vision zero and traffic safety. >> this is obviously not the time and place to discuss that but i am interested to see what the results of those conversations are. my last question, i read the resolution and the legal document that we're voting on. it doesn't say this is a solution or proposal that has a particular end date or required review date. i mean, what is the process here? this proposal gets approved or isn't approved and it's the kind of thing where we wait and see in review and as needed come back to the board to make adjustments as desired or does it have a sunset date or what is the plan? >> so, yeah, this is a permanent change that you are all voting on and then with the evaluation and basically evaluating how things are going, we're able to come back to the board and we can provide that information to you how it's going. if necessary, or needed, we can also bring back legislation to help improve the project. >> actually, before we go on, i just want to clarify, so permanent change? the permanent change that we mean we don't have to revisit it. we're not required to revisit it. we can revisit it at at any time. it doesn't mean three months from now, we can decide something else. it's that we're not required to. >> right. and as we all know, there's no such thing as permanent. we are a going to go. my last comment, i'm hardened that supervisor melgar is interested in muscling, getting some really new look at the top of twin peaks and how we might be able to capitalize, using that term literally, on this major asset of our city and our tourism industry, which is so important, maybe thinking about conceptions of there of small business owners, creating, utilizing this and taking advantage of it so i hope our agency can be a part of our process. it sounds like we will and this could be great and i hope it's the beginning the story of a renewal of twin speaks to help recover from this crisis. thank you. >> i think before public comment i made my questions quite clear that i hope we would leave ourselves open to design adaptation that we will need as we go through a validation and i expect that staff is going to continue to do that. i'm appreciative of the cross collaboration with both supervisor districts and just curious if staff could speak a little bit to the embassador program that was mentioned under supervisor melgar's office and what staff anticipates in terms of resources we can contribute to that. they're also mentioned convening meetings, staff talked a little bit about what that collaborative process would be like after the vote? >> chair borden: matt, do you want to take that? >> sure, so, my understanding is that supervisor melgar was interested in ambassadors, i mean, my understanding is through our own agency, we can commit to some p.c.o.s initially directing traffic to the other side of portola but if more am bass doors are needed for a safety standpoint and some traffic standpoint, we're committed to working with the police department. i think that really falls in their work. so we're definitely committed to working with them. you are muted. >> thank you. and so, in your presentation, you had mentioned doing an evaluation a month after the reopening happens and is there like concrete stuff as to what the feedback loops would be with the community as well as with the supervisor or are you mostly relying on passively collecting data? >> now, we'll collect -- so, right now we're looking at may depending on when everything goes in and assessing how traffic is going and it seems like it has settled down and collect data after implementation we'll share that back with the supervisor's office and we can share that back with you all at the board as well as through our e-mail communications that we have through out the project and through the e-mail list. the public can be made aware of that and if they want to hear more we're happy to talk to them in response. >> i think my final comment, because i didn't actually see or hear anyone state this which is, you know, i have two young kids and i also live in d8 and we have been taking advantage of twin peaks pre and post pandemic and a 4-year-old cannot make it up that hill on his bike. i just want to add that yes, i feel is like opening twin speaks to some vehicular access is serving more of our community and there are challenges and conflict points and concerns which is why staff attention is so important. so, thank you for all that and chair, if you are ready, i'm willing to make a motion. >> great. is there a second? >> second. >> great. >> chair borden: i'm thankful for all the work the staff has done. it's critical that we have to remember the tourism industry is our number one industry and we're funded and it's what they contribute to and twin peaks is a destination for people all over the world. i as a walker has only walked up burnette and not think of walking up for tole a in the neighborhood coming up that way and the other way and i look forward to the staff continuing to work with the rec and park and sfpd to work on some of these challenges and i did have one more question about the ambassador idea and wonders if we've deployed p.c.o.s and when we put signs up for no parking, can we deploy p.c.o.s like we do with new projects where people are being told they can't park here they're getting ticketed and moving away because between the g.p.s. and also ticketing people, for parking and make sure sure they know they can't park there, hopefully that will cut down on people's parking at the bottom of the hill there. call roll, please. >> clerk: this is ton the motion to approve item 12. [roll call vote] >> clerk: the item does pass. moving on to your agenda we're calling items 13 and 14 together, is that correct, chair. >> chair borden: yes, we are. item 13, approving contract modification number to contract number 1300 third street light rail program phase 2 and sub station surface track and systems with basic contracts amount tie 93,000,600 not to exceed 1,000,000,090,000,298, 587.32 to expend the substantial completion date to march 31st, 2021 and making environmental review findings items 14, approving contract modifications number 138 to contract number 1300 third street light rail practice phase 2 central subway stations surface track and systems tutor perini to increase the contract amount 53 million for an amount not to exceed 1,143,298,587.32 with no change to the term of the contract and making environmental review findings. >> i wanted to note the presentation on this item is the same for both 13 and 14 so this is one joint item. >> thank you. mr. mcgwire, over to you. >> tom mcgwire, streets division director here to talk about the next step in our journey towards opening the central subway for our riders and customers here in san francisco. i'm going to share my screen to bring up that presentation that chair borden just mentioned. let me just find that here. carolyn, can you put the slide show up. i'm having trouble with my screen all of a sudden. >> we can see your calender. i don't know if you want us to see your calender. it is up on the screen right now. >> if i can't do this in a moment, caroline, may i ask you -- i'm unable to share my screen. i'm sorry. i will start talking because there's a lot to say about this item. as i said, we're here to talk about the staff thinks it's necessary to get us to the date of march 31st, with the central subway heavy construction will be substantially complete. and that date is so important because it keeps us on track and over the course of the last two years now, staff has been working closely with the city attorney's office and with outside consultant andrew lopez from the andrew lopez and associates as well as our contractor and mta staff to determine a number of things. number one, what are the barriers to moving this project, which has gone through so many delays that are frustrated so many of us over the last half decade and what are they going to take to get this project to the finish line and secondly, what do the cost overruns look like? what are the obligations with the mta accumulates over the years as we deal with this heavy construction, very, very charging part of san francisco. so, if we can go on to the second slide called overview. i'll be joined throughout this presentation by the central subway program manager and ed lopez will talk in much more detail about how we arrived at some of the figures that we brought before you before approval today. and we have the city attorney who has been supporting us throughout this process and helping us to an allies our legal litigation risks. we'll start with an overview of what is proposed today. there's two items. they are called contract modifications, which we have a project and contract modifications 137 and contract modifications 138. and we'll talk about two different kinds of cost overruns and risks that we're mitigating by requesting your approval for these considered modification. contract modification 137 secures a release from tutor perini from claims that happens when they do work that either cost the contract tore a cue costs that we haven't compensated them for or they schedule schedule delays further contract we are required to compensate them for and claims can be a used risk to agencies like hours and this project given it's size, the cost between $1 billion and $2 billion. the down side risk of being exposed to hundreds of millions of dollars of claims at a time when we've been on this journey together talking about the operating budget suggests it's really important for us to manage and pay what we owe and to try to negotiate with tutor a deal so we're not exposed to claims at the end of the projects. we'll talk about change orders. this has a large number of change orders. close to a thousand change orders have been issued since heavy construction began in the early part of the last decade and some of those have been resolved. you may recall this board did approve a change over we called omnibus number 1 that cleaned up or paid for a large number of change orders that accumulated in the first few years of the project. it settles for $50 million. the liability that we accused by adding scope to the project and the contractor does work in different ways and directing the contractor to use different means of materials and subcontractors. the end result of this action is that we're going to update the contract. if the action is approved today, we'll update the contract with a new dollar value and a new completion date. while we've been talking about the subway being completed on march 31st, that is not what the contract has. it still has a much older completion date. that's the liability through the negotiation and we desure a release through claims and a promise from tutor perini legal complete the construction march 31st, 2021 and the final completion so the construction necessary to get done so that we can get access and test trains and it's exciting we're a month away from that date. we will talk about the technical side of that. tutor will remain on site for six months cleaning up what is called a construction punch list. those are all the items that that we find and little things that are not on the construction path that need to get done before we can during that period that before we can truly release tutor from their obligation to be here. i'm going to talk about first the claims agreement. and how they were negotiated. the first thing thing we're doing here is, acknowledging the fact that during the negotiations that took place over the last six months, tutor presented to us over $170 million of what we call certified claims. those are claims that they've sworn under penalty of perjury that the mta owes them for their accounting and they project system and we can negotiate toes. we've been advised there's a significant lie ability here for the mta that we would be wise to retire now and not let it through the project and it does suggest that depending on how you look at it. it suggests that tutor has been floating money to keep the contract going. we settled those 176 and a half million dollars of claims or $93.6 million. tutor has agreed to a release of a wide range of claims, which you can see listed there in that second bullet point. we'll explain what those mean in more detail in a moment but we settled those for 52 cents on the dor ar. and there's mutual interest and tutor wants to get paid and move on and the mta is eager to finish the project and get this welcome to customers. my colleague nadeem, anything you want to say about the definition of substantial completion and what it means? >> thank you. good afternoon chair borden and board members, my name is nadeem and i'm the program director and it's taken a while for us to get to this point but at the end of this month, what is going to happen is the contractor is going to finish all the work that is necessary for us to start the next major portion of our work effort and that is to start running trains in the tunnel and start doing our systems testing, our operational testing, and also the operator training. now the key significance of that is we need 12 months minimum to do all of this testing so by starting next month, it will give us the 12 months we need and at the end of this exercise, we are going to be ready to open up the system for revenue service which we have committed to doing in the spring of next year. and so the activities that are going to be required are things like we're going to test our train operations control system, we're going to be testing our fire alarm system, our radio community system and testing all of our signals and operating systems to make sure that everything is ok when we start operations next year. while this is going on, the contractor is still having six months to finish the remaining portion of the work and it's the punch list work which is the small things that have not been mixed and some have to be fixed and this thing and that thing and those elements, plus he has to complete all of the drawings and he has to give those to us and he has to give us all the maintenance manuals and any spare parts he has to provide us so he has six months to wrap-up everything and that is what is called final acceptance where we say ok, you are done, go home. so this is what is going on. i think we are at a very important stage of the project and i think we're finally at the point where we can see we're almost there to finish the job and start operations. so thank you. that's all the details that i have unless you have questions. >> thank you, the last point is important as well. there are many reasons for delay and many reasons why the mta bears liability for delays that tutor perini and the mta experienced. we negotiated the liability release in 137 to treat claims related to covid delays in a special way. so, this is been a very tricky issue that as plagued major construction projects in all industries, not just transportation. the city's policy, which are pure agency and public works and the airport ask the public utilities commission is holding that the city is trying to not pay contractors in efficiencies due to covid and i want to specify what that means. ensee efficiency due to covid is what happens when let's say you've got 20 people that need to work on a site and they wrack in close quarters but because of social distancing the health department, we can only have five or six people in there. that cause inefficiency. what we have been paying is the additional direct cost our contractors have been bearing. and handwashing stations, personal protective equipment, signage and health inspections needed to enforce the health orders so we all have an interest in making sure our construction sites aren't super and we have done a good job there after a little out break that took place last summer, however, this says the only way in which those covid impacts would be paid would be if we received dollar for dollar from the outside course for instance, the federal government funding specifically for that purpose and that doesn't mean supporting our operations or to support a stimulus package, it means funding for covid impacts due to that inefficiency. so i'd like to ask edgar lopez, our lead negotiating consultant to come up and tell us about the process he went through to negotiate contract modification 138. this is the contract modification that addresses all the change orders that our team has issued over the years. >> good afternoon, directors, edgar lopez. as tom mentioned, we have reached an agreement on 138 to resolve 409 changes that include 399 changes orders and eight certified claims and totaling $53 million. the mta and tutor agreed the collection of 490 change orders and claims comprised all the of the claims for additional work and existing as of february 15th, 2021 and that tutor and their such will be compensated for these claims. to a rough to the resolution of this claims and in change orders we took a same approach that we did with omnibus 1 where which took time to evaluate the documentation provided by tutor and their subcontract oars and compare against our cost estimate and we took special attention to make sure there were not duplicative expenses by the subjects or tutor that were resolved through other claims through omnibus 1. wore con if dent the price for the claims and change over is fair and resolves a backlog of change offers. it will allow staff to move forward for payment for work that is completed or yet to be completed. we'll move onto the next slide, please. with respect to 137, this is an important contract modification that allows us to resolve over 100 claims and 150 notices of potential claims. this closes the doron all potential claims that a subcontractor or tutor was thinking about filing, could have filed, or wanted to file for all these categories of incident als, inefficiency, escalation or interest. we are closing the door for everything under the sun that could have been claimed prior to january 2021. the comprehensive settlement that puts away a lot of the risk that the agency would be forced to face if we didn't negotiate this. we spend over four months working very closely with the city attorney office, industry experts and schedulers and forensic accountants and we audit tutor expenses to make sure we were paying a fair price and we feel that we reached a settlement that tutor had to make significant compromises in order for us to bring the cause down from $176.5 million to $93.6 million. if you have specific questions i'm available but i will now pass it on to tom who will speak to the next slide. >> can we go back one slide to number 5, please? edgar, there are two terms on here that are not always familiar to people who don't deal with the minutia of construction contracts. can you explain what incident als and inefficiencies mean? >> i would be happy to, incidentals is support cost to the contractor incur and providing support to the dozens of subcontractors such as traffic control, providing temporary access to the stations, this is work that is not attributable to specific scope of work but it's rather broad for getting the work done and it was above and beyond what they include in their bid. primarily, because the work took two years longer to complete. with respect to inefficiencies, this is a big part of the claim from the subcontractors and what they were claiming is that because there were so many change orders in different site conditions it tock them much longer to complete the work that they had bid on. when the contract urs put together a master schedule they have a sequence of operations and all of the subs are effected and they have to mobilize and remobilize back to the site. they have to do the workout of sequence and often times working alongside with subs and that's increased costs for the subcontractors and the general contractors as well. >> thank you. and again, the key takeaway is we're paying $93 million for these risks and through our consultation with the city attorney we do believe the agency would be exposed to that 176 and more down the road if we do settle this soon. it's a proactive approach but it has liability for 52 cents on the dollar. so now we have the financial piece of this. so we've talked about the dollars and the legal issues from within the project and again, our assessment has always been throughout this process that mta does bear a lot of responsibility here and we would be wise to find a way to settle that responsibility. it will have an impact on the project budget. we have a summary of the project cost is changing overtime. as of january 1 this year, we had the original project budget which was $1.58 billion plus some change orders and things that added there and i rolled that up into a single dollar figure that just says, it cause a baseline we're working from today so let's talk about all the other ways in which the project is likely to spend money between now and the final completion, the revenue service date in the spring of 2022. the first two lines labeled numbers two and three are money we are asking you to approve today and this is money that would go directly to tutor perini to settle our liability and accelerate the construction through to ensure we have a binding promise from tutor to complete their heavy construction on march 31st. we have used the term omnibus 1 and omnibus 2. we know as tutor works from the date the parties agreed to this agreements in line two and three to the end of september, there's additional changes and we budgeted $13 million to corva additional changes to that final completion date and we want this to be an all-in estimate and to not have to come back and tell you this number we can tell you about back in march many of this is meant to be a estimate. there are other costs that are not our general contractor and we have a project management team that led by steering firms aecom and ewp and they are working to administer the project and we have a 22 million-dollar value for their work through the revenue service date. we have other contractors who do specialize work. we have a joint venture called csdg led by wsw formerly parsons and they designed the subway and they continue to work alongside the team to provide design and through solutions ex in other ren views, two system integrators whose work will do the system integration to get the trains up and running and we have a small contingency and reserve to get to a final estimate of completion of $1.89 billion to get this subway open and ready for the public in the spring of 2022. of course that begs to question how much money do we have and we don't have $1.89 billion we have 1 point $6 billion and that leads to a shortfall of $184 million and that's where i'll ask our acting c.f.o. about where that money will come from. >> i just want to be clear to the board one way or the other, the mta would be responsible for paying these costs. we need to put together a reasonable funding plan in order to make these payments hopefully quickly and get them off the table and then essentially start from a clean slate going forward with regard to both our operating and our capital costs. so, the first thing thing we did go through a process of revenue bond refinancing and the proposal would be to use those dollars to cover these costs and they're immediately available. we were very successful as we reported to the board about two weeks ago in completing that process. we did shift $30 million in proposition b to the operating budget as part of an ongoing plan to shift capital resources to operating. we have the ability to flex that back in the currents fiscal year so again using one-time capital funds for a one-time need. the next is to use our operating budget, our regular operating budget and our regular enterer prize revenues. this is an estimate that we do believe that the federal relief associated with covering our operating costs that that should result in no impacts to any of our proposed services to date so we've accounted for that and we have a claims reserve specifically for situations like this and we would recommend using a component of that and leaving enough available to the agency of other reservice to materialize and the current fiscal year and in the current bill coming out of the house of representatives, there is a proposal to cover he projects that would have been impacted through local governments unable to meet their local contribution so this is essentially a com component for local government revenue losses and we still will wait to see what happens in congress but the current proposal would be that $23 billion would be available veilal.we did have capital fundd to ship to the operating budget and it's unlike we'll need that so that $25 million could go towards this project and lastly, we would have to save more in the current fiscal year and we did project that we will save about $118 million in operating budget this year and it is possible that we could exceed that amount of savings and that amount would go to this project. i will say that these numbers, the revenue sources will fluctuate and we will use them in a certain order to pay the change orders and the situations change in washington or allocations from mtc or our own operating revenues, we will make adjustments. we do have a funding plan that works and allows us to, as tom said, immediately pay for these. >> the last slide, please. that brings us to our staff recommendation. we're here to request your approval for 138 and 137 to pay this money now so we don't pay a lot more down the road and litigation and to get this liability off of our books so we can move forward with with the fiscal year '22 with a cleaner slate. is so we can get the contractor to to finish the heavy construction and allow our team to get into the subway to do the train testing that will be necessary to actually open this subway to the spring in 2022. that concludes our presentation and we look forward to answering your questions. >> chair borden: we'll start off with director. >> thank you, i have some questions and also a few comments. tom, i think the first couple of questions fall under the category of, just how global is this global settlement? so, the omnibus series of change orders, we approved omnibus 1 several months ago, right? >> yes. >> and this action today is approving omnibus 2? >> correct. >> and it references an omnibus 3 and a 13 half million dollar number. that is not a cap though, right? it's an estimate? >> that's an estimate. so it's neither a cap nor a floor. >> what's your herself of confidence thaw won't exceed the estimate? >> very high. this is a conservative estimate. >> so the question, is there an omnibus 4? >> our intention for there not to be a omnibus 4. i heard loud and clear it's important for us to set as much as we can now which is omnibus 2 is in front of you. i think the right way for us to do omnibus 3 was to bring it to you after either substantial or final completion when we have confidence that we have the full field of change orders. they'll be change orders not claims at that point. >> final completion is later in the year, right? >> it's september 27th. >> we should expect omnibus 3 around then? >> that's the way for us to cleanly bring that to you one more time. >> ok. i think the next question is really for johnathan. it's about the funding chart. and it included the 23 million in the current covid relief bill in the senate now. what is your plan b in that money doesn't show up? >> there are two options. one, we would have to save additional money in the operating budget or pending the allocation of federal relief from m.t.c., we might continue to back fill on the operating side and shift more of our enterprise revenues over to the projects. >> ok. i think that concludes my questions. i just wanted to make a couple of comments, colleagues, you know, one of them is that we're here today to clean up a mess and look, messes are always harder to clean up than they are to make in the first place. i believe wore obligated to make right on the cost that we've incurred and get this project to its next phase, which is going to be a difficult phase itself testing the system that we've built. i think we also need to learn our lessons. on this project, on the eureka curve, on van ness, i mean, each has its own story, each has different reasons why it encountered trouble but i think they clearly point out a weakness in our project delivery process. it's my firm opinion that we need to fix that process before we take on another one. i know, jeff, you've talked about that a bit. we've got some new context as well with the report from the controllers' office and you know, today the hour is late but i hope not too long from now, we can get a plan from you about how to restore confidence in our capital program. >> we're eager to do just that and talk about the projects that we have started in the last year or two. which are on time and on budget and already delivering success. so we're trying to take both our own internal audits as well as the audits we received from muni working groups and the controller office and implement all of those recommendations because for the most part, they're all right and it is work that we need to do in order to build trust with the voters and we're depending upon for getting of revenue we need in order to deliver service and projects. >> thank you, jeff. thank you, madam chair. >> chair borden: thank you so much. next we have director lai. >> thank you, chair. he asked a lot of questions that i wanted to ask and said a lot of things i wanted to say. maybe just to add to that, i do expect that we should at a future point, do a project close out assessment like a look back at what we should have been done differently and what we should have done better. there's already been on going evaluation by staff to salvage this process but i think that a post projectory view is important in this case. port case. johnathan, on the first line item, revenue bond refinancing dollar amount, is that money that we had previous earmarked for operations? other than the bopped measure? . >> yes, so part of our deficit reduction plan, we anticipated using that to close our fiscal year '21 deficit and carry it into fiscal year '22. the reason we recommend using it now ask because that is cash that we held for our revenue bond reserve so it's literal cash we can make to use the payments so if wore sitting on cash available we should release it now to get this liability off of our books. >> if we shift that to this purpose, are we at all risking staffing security or service like not returning to 100% service to the timeline that we were anticipating. >> what is likely to happen and we'll discuss this more on marcl release that hopefully, the final programming of those dollars from the metropolitan transportation commission and hopefully what we'll see come out of washington d.c. in the next two weeks, we'll end up having more one-time money than we need for the coming up next year and likely it will be enough to close awful fiscal year '22. so, we will have a discussion -- wore going to have a lot of one-time money so it's good that we get one-time liabilities like the central subway, off of our books. that will leave a delta and we will discuss what the board, how many of on going expenditures you want to consider including service increases in fiscal year '22 and then what would be possible to sustain into fiscal year 23 so this action today will have no impact on our ability to deliver the service we're delivering now or the baseline 70% service that we budgeted through fiscal year '22. there should be sufficient one-time dollars to increase that service, however, our ability to sustain that in the long-term is what the board needs to consider for the future. >> thank you for confirming that on the service side but just to confirm this will not impact our staffing levels? >> it will not impact our staffing levels. >> thank you, chair. >> chair borden: sorry. >> thank you chair borden. throw questions. simple, medium, most complicated. simple question is for johnathan, the claims reserve fund, how much money is in that fund and what percentage are we taking out for this? >> there's $29 million in the fund currently so when looking at it we want to leave about $10 million just in case other claims come up for the remainder of the fiscal year. we usually add a little bit more every year so it builds up overtime but it was specifically designed to deal with claims and so, we will use the comb phone ant of it to cover the costs. >> you are comfortable with the amount we're taking out? >> yes. the city attorney briefs us on kind of our potential liabilities over a period of time and i'm comfortable that from now until the end of fiscal year we should be ok. >> and have we asked with the city is willing to use some of the unexpected budget surplus, the $120 million of the recent budget to help with some of the covering of this cost? >> well, just as a reminder to the board, because we do get a specific set aside of the general fund in the charter, the mta may not ask for an appropriation. >> got it. that is simple if you believe it. what is happening with, maybe the wrong time but what is all the staff and the operations, kind of the internal staffing and or structure around the central subway? what is the timeline for that and how is it -- how might it affect our budget over the medium term. >> i can take that one. so we did, in the fiscal year '21 and '22 budget the board did adopt the final one in june of last year. we did add the staffing necessary for the opening of the central subway based on the schedule that tom laid out so whether it was going to be fiscal year '21 or '22, the f.t.e. and classifications and positions were in there. in fact, we are moving at warp speed right now at a higher 10 custodians we'll need for the stations and the stationary engineers, which are key to manage the underground station and keep them clean, station agents and staff related to the maintenance and overhead line oh workers are in the budget. we have to wait for civil service lists or custodians where they come once a year and we fill the position, we're working on that right now. >> and most complex. what would this board need to do if anything, to try to amend our process for selecting contractors to work on our construction projects so that we have freedom to chose the venders that we believe will perform at optimum level, not those who bid at the lowest amount? >> i can start with that because i'm actually doing that on the building progress programs. it's a good example of some lessons learned for us to use alternate delivery methods for major projects. as an example. the pro trer owe modernization projects is our next big projects that we're moving forward. that's a good five to eight hundred million dollar projects when you include the private development and we're using a public-private partnership. we do a request for qualifications to make sure people are most qualified based on the technical needs of the agency and the policy purpose and we do an rfp which is request for proposals so again that's based on specific discipline and criteria so it is the best value model meaning like for the work and what we expect contractor specifically responded and opportunities based on price. it's a different method we can use and we're using for lessons learned for van ness where we did the cmgc process and general contractor process so we are going to troy this for the first time, hopefully we'll have special legislation through board of supervisors in the next two weeks but that is a give way we're not not using the lowest responsible bidder for our project of this type and size. >> it looks like you have something to say. >> first of all, i absolutely agree with what john said. he want to continue to look for opportunities where we don't just -- the first step is to go beyond simple low bid and look at total quality of the offer by the contractor. we can lock at pro corment options that shift the risk off the city onto the contractor. the structure in this contract wove been talking about, change orders and different site conditions, every time something is not the way we describe it exactly in the existing conditions reports where the drawings that we had a design consultant prepare, when it's different in the field what tutor expects to find, we pay for it. there are ways to structure contracts where that risk is shared a little bit more between contractor and client. >> my question is do you need this board to propose legislation for you to have the freedom to go in those directions? >> i would like to come back with a more thorough answer ton that but we're coming back with robust lessons about project delivery and there's legislative pieces to it and johnathan is already moving one of those pieces through the board of thrf legislate to bees,. >> for those watching, can someone explain this process in very brief way so people understand how we are required to do business when it comes to these projects. >> well, the city attorney can help us a little bit more. there are two sections of the administrative code chapter 6 and chapter 12 that layout how we are to procure either professional services or a construction contract and only certain department can do that, the puc and public works and mta, airport, as an example. for a construction project, thee standard process is the lowest responsible bidder. we developed drawings and it's developed and we put the project out to bid and we are supposed to select the administrative code the lowest responsible bidder and there are reforms in these areas that are the methods i talked about so design bid is a different method and construction management, general contractors, cmgc and this is where you bring in your contractor a little bit earlier to fully assist you with the dough sign, so they're responsible for the cost of that design rather than the city doing it. so these are methods. we do have to get special legislation through the board of supervisors to do that. there are elements of the code that do allow for design build which are in the add straight administrativecode. we are generally required by the administrative code to run projects in this way. >> i'll let the rest of the members ask questions but i'm not speaking on behalf of anyone else but myself. would it be advantageous for us to express a desire for said changes to give us more flexibility and other board members agreed with that, i want to let you know that i think it's -- i would like every tool to chose the best contractors to do the work that we need to do to restore faith in the eye of the public. and so, i'm signaling openly that i am willing to help push for that if it's something that the other board members and you all would like to have happen. thank you. >> chair borden: something, thank you something we've talked about changing the lowest bidder issue so this is not a new topic so there's that consensus so thank you for joining the club. i will be very quick calling. >> i want to say it lies with the director who want to look back at this project and what is learned and a postmortem. we need sort of a comprehensive look at how we deliver our capital projects. i think a lot, you know, a lot we can improve upon a lot. we have some director mcgwire said concrete lessons learned. my question and i only have one for this item, it's probably for mr. lopez. this is for the public edification on modification 137. you mentioned you had quite the settlement and we settled for $93 million so what is the mta getting for that settlement? we're still paying $93 million. what are we getting out of it? >> go ahead. i'm sorry if i cut you off. >> no, no. go. >> so, the settlement allows us to put away 100 certified claims and 154 notice of potential claim. these are liabilities that the action has from subcontractors in the contractor where we owe money because the additional cost of the bid. it's a way of saying this is our exposure or things that when wrong on the project changes that we've created, different site conditions any time you are doing underground work you are going to find lots of risk and some of the risk is not known at the time that the designers put together their documents and any cost change orders some of them are very expensive and some are complex claims and we've done four to six months and evaluating that exposure and trying to put it all to rest making sure that this liability goes away. >> are we also getting the commitment of march 31st and the completion? >> yeah, i can take that question. until this settlement, the marcs not been written in the contract. by reaching this agreement, both parties grow that is is the date and if this specific scope of substantial de-- and it's not true unless we pass this. >> we believe every tutor stays, there's risk for change orders and therefore an increase in the next omnibus package, is that correct? >> that's correct, yes. >> thank you, madam chair. >> chair borden: thank you. director eakin. >> thank you so much. i'll be very brief. i want to outline myself with the colleagues it's lessons learned and just nuance on how there's not just reflecting on sort of the challenging experiences we've had but reflecting on what is going well and why those are moving on time and on budget and we can learn from all of that and come forward with some clear recommendations. it just seems like we have a real opportunity herer and is acknowledging the really challenging situation. and there's an opening right now to really query down on this and make the decisions so i want to make sure we take that opportunity. >> thank you. >> chair borden: great. any additional comments from directors? is there a motion? i mean, we'll have to do two motions, right. so we'll do motion on item 13 and a separate motion on item 14. >> we need public comment. >> yes, sorry. sorry. i'm so sorry. i totally spaced out. can you open the mic to public comments. >> sorry. >> you have two questions remaining. >> first speaker, please. >> caller: hi, directors. i'm calling, i live on fourth street in front of the subway and one of the concerns that i have about this settlement is the matter of it doesn't seem to cover the numerous issues of tutor not following city code when they were working. as someone who literally lives between brandon and bryant, multiple times tutor did not have the correct safety people, the closure and there are a lot of points where they skipped necessary legal required costs in order to increase their profits. i know this is something that was reported to the predecessor board multiple times who at the time they shrugged it off but it seems without -- this hasn't been addressed in the past and it won't get addressed after will claims settlement. it's a shame because it seems like we are literally allowing a contractor to take advantage and profit of of this city both by shortchanging on their responsibilities and by asking for extra compensations for both change orders and potentially some delays that were their fault. additionally, separate low from that but also related to the project, is a concern the intersection of fourth and free lawn has never been addressed by the contractors or the sfmta with a 300 unit building there there's not muff room for a fire truck to make the turn. so that is something that should problem be addressed as well before the project is closed off. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> you have one question remaining. >> caller: hi, good evening. this is barrie toronto. i thought the presentations by tom mcgwire and the others were very well done. the only thing s. i don't believe the deadline is going to be met. if you drive around, now that some people are spending less time on social media, you can spend some time exploring the route that the subway will take and you will know, i'm just being tongue and cheek. i'm saying that if you look at the washington and stockton subway stations, it doesn't even look like it's even 1/4 complete so i don't believe that it's going to be done by march 31st. i hope you have fines in there because you will be collecting a lot of fines because it doesn't look like any work has been done in the last six months. very little work is done. i could be wrong but i'm just saying that i don't see anyone spending time to try to complete this project on time and under deadline. how much of these change orders were of the putting in quotes the fault or the responsibility of the city, the agency specifically and the contractor. i want to say that directors have very good -- >> 30 seconds. >> i hope that you will actually even find some better answers answersthan they got and i'm sag this because i'm observant driving around and specifically it's confusing along fourth street. go we make a right or left and can you make a right turn there or a left turn there. the signage is poor and being able to drop people off in front of the buildings along fourth street, the section south of bryant is very confuse being. so, i'm hoping you can get this taken care of and provide. >> time. >> thank you mr. toronto. >> chair borden: i appreciate that. any additional further commenters? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> chair borden: with that we'll close public comment. director mcgwire, i don't know if you wanted to respond to either of the things that were mentioned. i know a lot of work is done and i would say that it's been a while and i toured the tunnel and there's a lot more work visible to the eye. i remember when i walked through the fourth street station it looked like it was almost done and that was like over a year ago. so, sometimes the work is not visible from the street level. the great work that's been done below the ground. we can't hear you, director mcgwire. >> thank you. to focus on making sure they're reed for testing in a month's time. the work includes lots of things like finishing, putting cladding on escalators and replace being glass panels and railings and things like that so there are things that will take place after march 31st but none of them are critical construction and none of critical to getting the trains tested but we'll certainly be celebrating each milestone as each phase of construction is done over the next couple of months and sharing photos with the public. we really would love to take you all on a virtual tour inside of just this unbelievably impressive and massive almost done construction site. >> chair borden: director lai. >> thank you, chair, so i think none of us are all that excited to have to continue to pay out more for this project but it is imperative that we finish it. the work has been conducted. i mean, staff has religiously vetted all of these claims. this really is about risk minimizization for us on the legal side at this point so although i'm not excited to do it, i am ready to make a motion to approve. >> chair borden: great. >> i'll second. >> all right. let's go ahead and that's on item 13? aren't we taking it both? 13 and 14? >> we have to do separate motions on each item. so, this is for item 13. can you call the roll, please. >> clerk: yes, dr. borden. >> aye. >> director eakin. >> aye. >> director hemmingger. >> aye. >> dr. lai. >> aye. [roll call vote] k. >> clerk: item 13 passes. >> i'll move 14th. >> second. >> chair borden: please call the roll. [roll call vote] >> the item 14 also passes. and that completes the business before you today, chair. >> chair borden: we're going to adjourn our meeting in memory of dr. brinkman and our next meeting is march 16th. >> take care, everyone. . >> the hon. london breed: good morning. i'm san francisco mayor london breed, and i'm really excited to be here at pier 39 today. i'm excited to be here today because we have some good news. i know i gave it away last week when i said that the state was going to finally allow us to get into the red tier. we were keeping our fingers crossed, hoping we would get here, and guess what? we're here.