tv Transportation Authority Full Board SFGTV October 27, 2020 10:00am-2:01pm PDT
the meeting as a participant. please allow for audio visual delays and 30 second live time during the course of the meeting. >> thank you. i will move to the chair's report. mostly good and happy news this month. we are pleased to celebrate two milestones for our transportation authority. one for the agency itself and one for a special staff member who has been here from almost the beginning. this year marks the 30th anniversary of the half cent sales tax program as one of the early self-help counties in the state of california. i want to thank the san
francisco voters for twice approving the sales tax for transportation three decades ago in the form of prop b, which was then after its expiration revoted as prop k which is the program we administrator and remains a vital source of investment to help us reach our safety and climate and equity goals. over that 30 years, the ta directed more than 1.3 billion in half cent sales tax funding city-wide not only for every neighborhood but well paying transportation and industry jobs. in these uncertain times we have been very fortunate to have the half cent sales tax to support essential travel, reshape and repurpose streets and boost the
city's recovery. i will let kelly and staff present more on what we have delivered in a moment. i wanted to highlight the biggest investment the tom mulcaitheembarcaderoroadway and. as we all know underway is essential subway, cal tran electrification, improvements and largest replacement of the muni light rail vehicle and rubber tire fleets. congratulations to this board, to predecessor staff and to the voters. happy note i would like to recognize the sister work anniversary of -- silver work anniversary of maria lombardo.
she showed ta as planner in mid-1990s still in high school and worked on many studies including the early market street planning efforts and rose to management positions including leading the program division and becoming chief deputy. she brings expertise and strategic eye when it comes to funding and planning and policy. we are fortunate to have you. happy 25th anniversary. i would like to note that vice-chairman delman and i gave maria and her family a gift certificate to a fantastic restaurant in north beach on the occasion of that 25 years of service. finally, on a less happy note, i just want to acknowledge last
year they approved 7 point cost cutting plan we read about in the newspaper to closes a $33 million deficit in the fourth quarter budget. like every other public transit system in the bay area and around urban america face major financial shortfalls. we continue to join them and our representative house speaker nancy pelosi in calling congress and the senate and ad ministration to approval additional covid relief funds to support transit services. i conclude my remarks. thank you. any members of the public who would like to make public comment on the chair's report?
>> no public comment. >> public comment is closed. please read the next item. >> 3. executive director's report. this is is an information item. >> good morning. thank you for those opening remarks. we are very proud and excited to celebrate this 30th year. turning to the seconded topic regarding the situation for transit operators, in particular. i want to report discussions occurring at the metropolitan transportation commission which commissioner ronen says the representatives for san francisco are the two directors. they have been discussing can return to transit plan and funding for operations and ways to reimagine transit post-pandemic. they just met this past week to discuss these three topics. there is not, you know, the
results to share but they are deliberating on what the priorities should be and there is agreement that providing for the needs of the central workers low-income people of color should be a long term transit priority. we will need, barring more covid relief funds from the federal government, we need to figure this out locally and regionally and perhaps with the state. mct staff provided options to consider. none of them is easy. they all need to be on the table as we try to support all of our transit systems. muni and caltrain and other systems are facing dire conditions. there is no federal relief. next i will note as well at the regional level. disappointing news. the bridge toll appeal will be heard by the state supreme court. the howard driver's taxpayers
challenged this measure approved by voters back in 2018. it was $3 over several years to raise $4.5 billion for improved bus, ferry and other services and regional projects. the supreme court will hear this case. challenging whether the 50% threshold was sufficient and their position is it should be two-thirds of the dedicated source of revenue for transportation. we may not know the results for 18 months. the funds are held in escrow by m.t.c. turning to one of the signature projects in the program the downtown rail extension. i presented together with the interim executive director to the state legislature a group of bay area and statewide leaders on the project.
there was high interest. we had the senator hill, a former chair of the jtca at briefing. there are 20 offices including the san francisco staff from senator weiner and senator chu to hear about the six party collaboration following the peer review and m.o.u. we are implementing as we speak. we have been holding monthly meeting we invite the public on the third friday of each month at the transbay joint powers authority board. you can find the agendas. local level. tomorrow we are hopeful at the commission that they will approve a lifeline transportation program cycle 6 for m.t.a. to enhance the central trip card. $1.1 million. if approved would allow muni to
expand this important project as you can recall our board in july allocated over $10 million to the program that helps older adults and people with disabilities to pay for central taxi trips during this covid pandemic. they found input from the community it appears we could boost enrollment of latin x community folks and other ways to expand the program through the paratransit program. we are grateful to the m.t.c. abhope they will approve the item tomorrow. district 4 mobility study has been doing outreach on existing conditions. we are turning to the solution stage of the project. this is to find ways to improve walking, cycling and transit in the district. we identified there were quite a few high auto share travel markets with in the district and
nearby neighborhoods. the sustainable concept in this round together with commissioner mar's office at his request include looking at ways to assess designs for the great highway, as you know it is closed to cars at the moment and as assessing the feasibility of options there and system of transit and traffic calming improvements throughout the district. stay tuned for town halls and sign up on our website. also we will be hearing an item in november at commissioner yee's request on driver less testing in san francisco. the news crews did receive the permit from the department of motor vehicles. we will provide an update in
november, but this is a permit to allow testing of vehicles without a safety driver. this would be on specified streets within san francisco and only streets with speeds under 30 miles per hour. they have authority to issue with no specific role provided to local jurisdictions. crews have been reaching out to city ourselves and i believe to your offices. we will provide a more thorough briefing in november. also, exciting piece of news on the 19th avenue combined city project on the west side. construction will begin next month on the mega project. combination of three efforts. first, public works. nineteenth avenue between holloway and lincoln avenue. this will include water main and sewer replacement, water service
upgrades, water system upgrades. curb ramps and buildouts for transit and pedestrian as well as traffic signal work. it will be followed by a series of m.t.a. muni changes and stop changes to begin soon to make more efficient the 28 service and cal tran's repaving on 19th avenue. again, it will be done in stages. folks can find out more at sf public works at 19th avenue. commissioners are reaching out through newsletter and appreciate the information to travelers and residents. this is a multi-year project done in stages. it will boost safety and transit performance and traffic circulation on the west side. almost to the end here. on the management side we are
tracking sales tax. we have mixed news. in fiscal 20 at the end of the year in may and june we saw revenues higher than expected. we have collected $99 million through fiscal 2020 which was 14% lower than in fiscal 2019 which exceeded the budget amendment of $86 million. sales tax revenues july were $6.3 million. for august 7.3. they came in a bit lower, and we are tracking the mixed nature of the revenue streams. we continue to monitor them, coordinating with the city controller's office, economist has been in the news to try to analyze what to make of these impacts. we see the purchasing going down, we see rents coming down, it is a mixed sort of picture as
yet on the office. we certainly know there is work from home. the hope is those companies will return. office represents we suspect will adjust as well. finally, that brings me to the 30th anniversary presentation. i will just mention again that we are so pleased to present be this micro site today. we are announcing it on our web website. eric young will provide overview of sales tax stories, website that features the stories of real life in san francisco from those benefiting in the projects through the years, large and small, every neighborhood and every mode. the $1.3 billion figure chair peskin mentioned should be kept in mind the through the efforts of the policy and programming
division attracting 47 times that number in other funds. thank you to voters for helping us to leve leverage the funds fe city. i will turn it over to eric young, communications director to share our website with you. >> good morning. are you able to hear me? >> yes. >> great. i am going to attempt to share my screen now. if someone could please tell me if you can see my screen. >> yes, we can. >> fantastic. julie, thank you for the introduction. i just wanted to tell everybody briefly that a year ago the ta started the sales tax stories project. the goal was to hear how people across san francisco benefit
from the half cent sales tax for transportation. you can see the results at stories. you will see a broad range of people. folks who take transit, walk and bike, commuters who drive, accident owners, paratransit users and muni conductors. users can click on any face to see more about someone's connection to a project. how it has improved their community and more information about the project itself. as you go through this website, you will see that all of the stories are unique, but a common theme that emerges is how the half cent sales tax benefits the citien economy and environment and live ability.
i want to thank all of the people who shared stories with us, i want be to thank the policy and programming staff who have administered the sales tax program and supported the project and project sponsors through the year. i want to thank you page miller, kim and brittany of the communications staff. thank you to cuttants peter and justin who made the photos and the website. that coul couldthat concludes m. i will take questions if there are any. >> any questions from members? seeing none, is there any public comment on the extensive chair's report? >> yes, there is public comment. >> first speaker, please.
>> thank you for your comments. >> any additional speakers? >> there are no additional callers. >> okay. public comment is closed. please read the consent agenda. 4 through 8. five through 8 were approved at the october 24 meeting and are now before the board for time approval. we are available for questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment on item 4, approval of the october 20 minutes? >> there is no public comment. >> seeing none. public comment is closed. motion to move the consent agenda made by commissioner yee. is there a second for that? >> second by commissioner
mandelman. on that motion a roll call, please. >> commissioner fewer. >> aye. >> commissioner haney. >> aye. >> commissioner mandelman. >> aye. >> commissioner mar. >> aye. >> commissioner peskin. >> aye. >> commissioner preston. >> aye. >> commissioner ro ronen. >> aye. >> commissioner safai. >> aye. >> commissioner stefani. >> aye. >> commissioner walton. >> aye. >> commissioner yee. >> 11 ayes. the consent agenda has final approval. >> item 9 is an item oppose the plan bay area 2050 final blueprinttelli commute mandate strategy. this is an action item.
>> at our last meeting on october 20, our colleague and m.t.c. commission representative commissioner ronen asked we schedule this. thithere was widespread reports. do you have any opening remarks before i hand it over to our staff to present? >> i will see the presentation first and then make comments if that is okay. >> with that, ms. bolu. >> thank you. i am the policy and programming division to present the item to oppose the planned bay area 2050 final blue present tele commute mandate strategy. for the last two years the association of area governments
have been undergoing a long-term planning process studying transportation as well as land use and economic and environmental strategies designed to meet an ambitious greenhouse gas reduction target as part of the development of planned area or pba2050. for this plan, the california air resources board establishes the greenhouse gas reduction target at 19% per capita by 2035. this must be met through local and regional transportation emission reductions. this is a difficult target to meet. all of the transit investments the region has planned for the next 15 years only achieve 2 to 3% reduction in admissions according to the modeling. run oone of the strategies is institute tele commuting
mandates for major office space employers. mandate large employers over 25 or more employees, would mandate they have at least 60% of employees tele commute on any given day, limited to large office spaced employers who work force can work remotely. not including folks who cannot work from home or from a distant location. telli commuting has been included in previous strategies in the 2050 process. the 60% mandate was in the last month. we understand this may seem like a good idea and we have seen reductions in emissions in the current work from home orders, a lot of negative impacts the broad strategy could have on transportation. equity, land use and economy. if 60% were required to work
from home. the walkable, bikable transit rich communities like san francisco would see not only reduction in auto but walk, bike and transit trips which don't meet the intended goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. it could lead to more people moving away and into auto reliant areas where they may have to make more nonwork trips by automobile which would result in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions. that shift away from transit would cause the fare revenues to drop forcing further cuts to public transit which is harm to the low-wage workers and people of color in san francisco and across the region who rely on public transit. as a result the employers would be likely to downsize office space to impact commercial real estate market in downtown san francisco where businesses are
reconsidering the commitments to maintaining presence in transit rich centers which are typically also higher priced. in san francisco only 30% of employees drive to their place of work right now. downtown in the business district urbanization tmasf has worked with employers to implement robust flexible transportation management strategies. in that area they see with their employers less than 10% of their employees are driving to those offices. clearly there are other ways to achieve a significant mode shift away to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without broad mandate. for these and other reasons there has been an outpouring of opposition from the business community, regional transit operators, mayor breed and mayor of san francisco as well as from
the bay area state delegation. at the request of commissioner ronen who serves on m.t.c., the resolution would take an opposed position as written. it would not achieve the goals for affordable connected diverse healthy and vibrant region and would have significant negative impacts on san francisco as transit bus city and on low-wage workers and people of color throughout the region. we encourage them to meet that target and to support the plan's principles. which could refocus to tdm to reduce driving commute trips, they could recognize that the varied workplace circumstances across the region mandate flexibility in the tdm policies
for efficiency and equity and effectiveness. finally, we ask they consider other strategies, how they might be amended or new strategies could be added to meet this reduction, greenhouse gas reductions target. they plan to take action on all 35 strategies in 2050 after the december meeting. that is why we seek approval to strengthen add co-cassie. thank -- thank you to the commissioners for leadership on this topic. we have been working with s.f.m.t.a. and planning and have staff from our agency available to answer questions if you have any. with that i will take any questions. >> thank you. commissioner ronen. >> thank you. that was a fabulous and very
concise explanation of the situation. i really appreciate you and my office for working so hard on this. we have a chance here of the m.t.a. to add our grace to mayor breed's and the mayor of san jose, to the business and racial and equity justice community who are all aligned on this strategy that it doesn't make sense for all of the reasons that you expressed. i hope that we can unanimously approve this and start working on alternative strategies that will be much more effective in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions without the impact, negative impacts potentially to greenhouse gas emissions but also to the economy and equity that this poorly conceived strategy brings us. i hope we can support this. i am happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, commissioner. seeing no other members of the m.t.a. any members of the public to comment on item 9? >> yes, there are three quallers. >> first speaker, please. >> two minutes begins now. >> hello, caller. we will move to the next caller.
>> good morning. i am chris peterson in district 7. i enthusiastically support this resolution. it is excellent on how the bay area should address the climate and affordable housing crisis. this resolution. the reason it was proposed tele commute policy will be difficult to make the necessary reduction in traffic and transportation and infrastructure measures. because of the intense opposition from local government to allowing enough policies to go. san francisco has a mixed record. it is permitted large amount of housing in neighborhoods. much of the city could be
confused with bad actors in resistance to multifamily housing. i urge the board to back up this resolution through energetic action to allow multifamily housing in all neighborhoods served by public transit, especially those that have not contributed their fair share. >> thank you. next caller. >> thank you. what i want to bring to your attention is these go far beyond san francisco and san jose. these impacts go to the entire states. earlier on you mentioned the
collapse of the rental market. this is a direct result. i know personally a long time san francisco is now in a farm in illinois. [ inaudible ] the collapse of the rental market. no idea where the renters are moving to. two examples. in my own state san jose, one of them was a room rental. when the rental left there was a one week out of state. next door to me and this is something to pay attention to in san francisco. it was a rental. no longer a rental. it has been sold as a single family home. no longer on market.
thank you. >> thank you, caller. >> one more caller. >> coalition for san francisco neighborhoods speaking on my own behalf. i am urging the board to table this item or continue it. as stated on page 12 of the packet for this item,telli work jobs known as 7 was not part of the original 2050 draft blueprint. it was based on public input. however, 70 to 80% of the respondents supported telework. that being said, there seems to be a disconnect between the
public response and the response from the state. the mayors and state legislators. it is also disconnect between the staff, m.t.a. and planning department. publiin page it states people change behaviors. whereas clause number 11 proposed resolution the impact of the significant percent share is understood. however, there seems to be. [ inaudible ] quote as written will not accomplish these goals.
these goals -- [ inaudible ] the executive board put the draft reprint which includes 7. thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public on this item? >> no more callers. >> no more callers, public comment is closed. commissioner ronen would you like to make a motion. before you do so, commissioner yee. >> thank you, chair peskin. i want to thank commissioner ronen for bringing this to our attention in terms of what issues were presented today. a lot of times when we go to the meetings some of the items we don't catch these issues.
this wases an important one for commissioner ronen to bring to our attention. i will support her in opposing this plan. thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioner yee. commissioner ronen. would you like to make a motion? >> yes, sir. thank you, chair peskin for your support. thank you so much. >> i was going to add that given the gravity of this rather unusual situation this is going to only require one reading. this will be the first and final appearance on our agenda. >> thank you. with that i may being a motion to approve this item. >> second to the motion? >> second by vice-chairman delman.
>> on that motion a roll call, please. >> item 9. commissioner fewer. >> aye. >> commissioner haney. >> aye. >> commissioner mandelman. >> aye. >> commissioner mar. >> aye. >> commissioner peskin. >> aye. >> commissioner preston. >> aye. >> commissioner ronen. >> aye. >> commissioner safai. >> aye. >> commissioner stefani. >> aye. >> commissioner walton. >> aye. >> commissioner yee. >> aye. >> there are 11 ayes. item nine has final approval. >> please read the next item. >> i would like to remind about public comment. >> public comment number is 415-655-0001. when prompted enter access code
(146)532-2733. pound and pound again. when the item is called dial star 3 to be added to the ky to speak. you will hear the message and you will be allowed two minutes to speak. item 10. major capital project update. better market street. information item. >> thank you. as we have in the past we will hear but i want to note the director of transportation tumlin has joined as well as the head of public works. they are on that call. i will turn it over to ms. ola with the latest and greatest slide deck. please proceed. >> thank you, chair peskin. good morning, commissioner. i am christina with the san francisco public works.
better market street project manager. as chair peskin said i am joined this morning by the acting director of the san francisco public works and the director of ththe municipal transportation agency. also the senior engineer with the s.f.m.t.a. we are here this morning to give you a presentation, quarterly update on the project as well as to present some difficult design changes that we have had to implement to assess the current situation in the city. these are for the next phase of the project. i will bring up my powerpoint presentation.
in the last quarterly report in july we have had milestones. september we received clearance from california tran. >> i apologize but director tumlin is having trouble accessing as a presenter. mr. tumlin if you can hear this and should he call so he can appear as a presenter? >> we will take care of it on the back end. thank you. >> sorry about that. >> no problem. >> we have had project mile steins. in september we received clearance from the state. we himself obligated $18.4 million in public funding. coming up we have a virtual open
house next monday, november 2,tor two weeks. information all of our boards and presentation materials will be available on our website. we will have two online live meetings on november 4 at noon and on november 9 at 4:30 p.m. the links will be on the website and i will have a link to the website at the end of the presentation. moving to the design changes, i am sure you all remember in january market street went car-free. as part of the quick build implementation. we immediately saw reduction of muni travel time 12% and 25% increase in people bicycling on the corridor until shelter-in-place was ordered. this significant increase in people bicycling on the corridor
helped us realize the 8-foot wide sidewalk level bikeway would be too narrow from day one of implementation. in addition, covid-19 has had significant impacts to our city. we have had to make difficult changes to match the available funding of the project, and to minimize construction to our local businesses. in order to do this we are proposing keeping the existing curb line as much as possible. we will be replacing all of the ramps. we will have replacement and traction power since they have useful life remaining. moving to the roadway design.
this is an image or rendering of the project at um plaza. we will be moving all transit vehicles, f line and rubber tires and buses into the center lane. this means that the curb lane will be for people bicycling, taxis, paratransit and commercial vehicles. no more transit in the curb lane, it means no more curb side bus stops. all of the stops will be at center boarding islands which will be wider and longer to improve accessibility for everyone. the crossing to the boarding islands will be made at signal crossing. at the plaza there is the crosswalk at 1155 market with a traffic signal.
passengers getting on or offline newould cross to the boarding islands and buses. the boarding islands will be accessible, they will also have the platform for people on wheelchairs for the f line. they are wider, which means it provides enough space for shelters which we don't have today and provides space for wheelchairs to turn around. this stop is at um plaza or civic center station. we have new boarding islands at sixth street. most of the stops will be at muni stations such as the plaza and sixth street. looking at the perspective from someone in the center of the street, you can see the bikeway or shared curb lane that people
biking, taxis, commercial vehicles and paratransit. one of the changes in january. taxis are no longer allowed to use the red lanes on market street. they are allowed to use market street and are considered part of the transit system, not allowed in the red lane. they have to use the curb lane. that lane is shared with commercial vehicles and paratransit. to highlight that market street is for people bicycling and especially the curb lane, we have the double shares in the curb lane. we made additional changes after talking to key stakeholders, including the bicycle coalition and walk san francisco. the bike coalition was concerned with separation between vehicle lanes and walk san francisco was concerned with pedestrian safety
in general throughout the corridor. some of the things we will be doing. we estimate 75% fewer vehicles in the curb lane now that market street is car free and transit vehicles are in the center lane. we are also adding a curb within the two foot painted buffers. that was the first thing we added to the design was a two foot painted buffer between the vehicle lanes. within that buffer will be a mountable curb similar to this picture from portland, oregon. there are exactpels in santa cruz and in the curb lane will be adding speed tables to calm traffic throughout the segment. on the bottom half of the side you can see an example of where
the curb lane sort of veers around the speckcled area here and continues. the children in the design means that bicycles have an 11-foot lane and then 2-foot painted buffer with a mountable curb compared to the 8-foot sidewalk level bikeway that narrowed quite a bit. i will show that in a minute. this is a comparison of the 2019 design to the 2020 design. for the segment between 6 to eighth street. in 2019 we were widening the sidewalk, moving the existing curb line by two feet, but re-purposing the first 12 feet, for foot buffer and 8-foot
sidewalk lever bikeway. that was a typical condition. the 2020 design proposes bicycles remaining in the curb lane and they get 11 feet compared to 8 feet. the two feet buffer between the curb lane and muni only lane at the center. curb lane in the same spot and the 35-foot sidewalk remains for people walking only. this illustration helps describe or helps to show all of the locations where the sidewalk level bikeway narrowed. you can see the areas in blue, five or six feet because of the bart muni entrance. where we have the yellow highlights are loading zones. in this area the bike lane narrows to six feet to go around
the loading zone. then where we had curb side transit stops the bike lane narrowed to five feet. on the example between 7 and 8 in front of un plaza we have a few short segments where the bikeway was 8 feet. on north side there are two areas and on the south side just one. we will move to the funding plan as well. anything that is shaded in gray has already been expended. we used local funding for planning, including conceptual design and environmental review and 90% review. we mitwe hit that in march. in april we paused to re-evaluate the sidewalk level
bikeway design. our estimate is the new shared curb lane will require quite a bit every design. we are still doing a lot of underground you timty replace -- utility placement as well as the muni traction power. we are upgrading all traffic signals between fifth and eighth street. we are skipping a short segment between mcallister and brennan which is part of phase two construction. we do need $7 million to redesign the portion between fifth and eighth street. that cost will more than be covered by our savings in construction. our newsty mat for -- estimate is $121 million for fifth to
eighth street. that includes the soft costs, escalation, construction management for improvements between fifth and eighth street. the largest funding source is the prop a general obligation bond. we have $18.4 million in federal funding, $3.4 million, $15.4 million from build and we have $12 million from prop k. most recently we received $2.7 million from affordable housen and sustainable communities grant. here is a comparison with cost savings from the 2019 to 2020 design. estimate for all costs from the sidewalk level bikeway was approximately $190 million. the 2020 design brings us down
to 111. plus $17 million that will be part of the construction contract. when you throw in redesign that takes us to approximately $128 million. it is a total savings of 63 million between 5 th to eighth street. when you project along the full corridor we estimate the cost savings four to five times that. with that i am happy to take questions. our communications lead, and our project manager and website is better market street sf.org. >> i just really want to appreciate the fact that this project that i had grave reservations about in its earlier incarnations that i
expressed repeatedly is now, i think, and i hate to use the term right sizing itself. i really appreciate that. not only on the cost side but relative to achieving, i really think all of our objectives in a way that is less disruptive and less costly. i know that commissioner haney is very involved in this and has some concerns that he wants to express. i want to acknowledge that director of transportation tumlin has joined the meeting and is available as well. commissioner haney. >> thank you, chair peskin and thank you for that presentation and director tumlin for being here. i have a number of questions. i hope that my colleagues will indulge me there. are a couple other people who
want to speak. i may ask now and may return to them. i think it is important to remembering that this project had as its central goal to optimize sustainability mobility modes, transit, walking, rolling and cycling. to be pleasant and safe for all users. when this project was approved initially, it was met with widespread celebration and joy by people who rely on those modes of transportation. unfortunately, they are meeting this current plan with quite the opposite of that. what i have heard from them and i share some of these concerns is that this design is now insufficient, that it is concerning, and that in some areas may actually have negative impact on those modes of travel.
i have a few questions about the specific changes and then i do want to make sure that i drill down a little bit around what the next steps are and maybe i'll save those concluding questions and points for after my colleagues speak. so we are going from what was going to be a dedicated sidewalk level bike lane that would be between 5 and 8 feet, really clearly clear safety benefits
for biking by having this separated bike lane to now no dedicated bike lane at all. the bikes would share a travel lane with allowable vehicles. the actual design itself, i heard from folks who bike regularly and advocate for bike safety, they do not have a lot of faith in terms of the safety benefits for bikes. can you speak to this change and what actually safety benefits it provides for people who are riding their bikes and whether there are other options that were considered even someone put up the idea of a two-way bike track. it seems that this is a pretty dramatic change to go from a sidewalk-level bike lane to no dedicated bike lane at all. >> sure, thank you for that
question. i think one of the biggest changes in the new design, people bicycling will have a lot more space and room. 11 feet for cycling and a two-foot buffer between vehicle lanes. it still provides comfortable space for people to ride three or four people across. we did consider different designs, but went with this shared curb lane in order to keep the project moving forward. it was very important to us to not lose momentum. as you said, there was a lot of
happiness and a lot of joy last year when the project was approved and we want to keep that momentum to move the project forward. it provides a lot of space for people bicycling and preserves the sidewalk for people walking. and we will still realize a lot of the benefits to transit. we're providing the larger, more accessible center boarding islands. they'll be spaced more in line with a rapid stop spacing, so we'll see even greater reduction in travel time. with that, i'll hand it over to my colleagues at m.t.a. to see if director tumlin or brett would like to add anything. >> j. tumlin: hello, can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> j. tumlin: so as brit already
said, a big part of our goal here was accommodating the phenomenal success that we had with the quick-build project of car-free market street back in january. the previous design had a 5-8 foot bikewayment a 5-foot bikeway accommodates bikes single file. eight feet accommodates side by side. the bike riding we saw back in january, before fell street, before the market improvements, that level of bike ridership we had back in january, less than half of that could be accommodated on the planned bike way from the previous project. we had a success problem. that the previous design could not accommodate. so one of the things we've
learned in the last nine months, one is that when we build facilities that welcome all types of people on mobility devices, whether it's bikes, scooters, wheelchairs, skate boards, if we build facility that people feel safe, san franciscans use them in droves. particularly as we connect up the slow street network. the other thing we found is that when we design streets for slow travel by motor vehicles, like our streets like lake, page or sanchez, that motor vehicles respect that and we can have streets that accommodate a low-volume of, for example, the occasional delivery truck or taxi cab, without making people on bike or on foot or in
wheelchairs, without making them feel unsafe. we believe we can get a win-win solution. a facility that accommodates a substantial volume of people. and a project that not only saves money, but allows us to extend the benefits of the money that we do have now across additional blocks. we know that many people are enamored of the previous project designs. those only include a small number of people on bikes. far fewer than the number we're getting back in january, let alone what we would expect once we're able to create a real city-wide safe network of facilities. >> thank you for that. you know, i do think this is an area where there feeds to be more conversation with people
who ride bikes and hopefully some deeper understanding of your thinking there. you know, i, you know, from what i've heard, yes, it gives more space, you know, for people on bikes, but it also gives more space for them to be potentially hit by cars. they're sharing with people who are driving in that space and there is obviously some inherent dangers involved with that. i do think we need to keep up the momentum, but i want to make sure we keep up the momentum toward what should and must be a transformative project for our city. i want to ask about the pedestrian improvements because there are also concerns there. i know that in the prior design there were bulbouts planned especially at 5th and market. and it's my understanding there
are no longer curb changes that are being made except where boarding islands will be installed. and then in addition to that, there were previously some concern about the accessibility of the brick sidewalk and particularly for people who have disabilities. can you speak to what positive changes included here for pedestrians? >> sure. as mentioned, the traffic signal, all of the traffic signals will be upgraded between fifth and eighth street. they'll all have countdown signals and pedestrian signals. so improvements at the intersection. we'll be replacing all of the curb ramps at all of the street crossings. so a wider, more accessible curb ramp. the curb ramps on market street don't meet our current standards, so all of them will
meet the latest standards. we'll also be widening the sidewalk where we have painted safety zones right now. so at 6th street, at turk, mason and market, at 8th street, all of those locations have painted safety zones right now and they will be sidewalk extensions. i actually don't think we had sidewalk widening planned at fifth street before because of the 27 bryant and the bus stops along fifth street. but we can -- i can look into that in more detail. we'll also be, as i mentioned, adding cables that will reduce speeds mid block and calm traffic throughout the segment. for the bricks specifically, that was a tradeoff between the disruption to local businesses
and the surface. traversing the surface. so we'll be replacing the sidewalk in limited locations where it's either the bricks are broken or damaged. i'm also going to be replacing the sidewalk at the corners around the curb ramp. and where we replace the bricks mid block, if we replace them with brick, we'll improve the joints, so you don't feel the joints as dramatically as you do today. but replacing the sidewalk would have increased our construction duration significantly. installing each paver takes much longer compared to our standard concrete sidewalk. and we do hope to come back and replace the brick at a future date when businesses are doing better and our economy is doing better. but right now, we will just do targeted replacement work where it's needed the most.
brit, do you want to add on pedestrian safety? >> no, i wanted to add on what you were just saying. when we come back in 10, 15 years to upgrade. we will hopefully be in a different state of economy and funding situation and at that point we can learn from what we've done in this phase. this is going to be a phased journey. we're only doing 5th to 8th and we can learn as we're going. this is the most appropriate design for this moment. it allows us to keep 85% of the curb line in place, but it's not committing us to never coming back again and making a different design later. when we come back to redo the paving, we can take another look and see what the best design is. i really do want to emphasize that the bikeway was theoretically eight feet wide, but most of the time, it is only enough for one biker.
it's not wide enough for side-by-side biking. we had more than 800 bikes an hour after car-free market. and that -- the recommended width is 11 feet. so if you have -- we had half of the distance as director tumlin said. it was unfortunately not the right design for the volume we were -- the success we had and this really is the best design we have at this moment. >> i'm going to ask one more question. then i'll let my colleagues jump in and then i'll come back for big picture, next step things. we went from a project where people who ride bikes, people who ride transit, people who walk and those who advocate for them were all excited about it. now we're at a place where all three of those groups of folks have really serious concerns.
i asked about pedestrians and people who bike. for transit riders, they -- the s.f. transit riders said they think this will negatively impact transit riders. the big thing is moving all transit to one lane in each direction. the possibility that this is actually going to slow things and is not going to adequately expand transit capacity on market. can you speak to the capacity for transit that is in this design? and whether it assumes that we're where we are now, or in the future? i imagine we hope there will be many more people back on public transit and a need for greater capacity. >> director tumlin or brit, would you like to address the transit question? >> i can speak to that. sorry.
so we've done modelling of the way that the transit lane operates. and we have enough capacity between fifth and eighth to provide all of the service that you're providing prior to covid and increased service, up to 20%. and still provide reliable service that is improved over what we have today. the modelling, we would still have travel time savings if increased by 20% and put all the transit into one lane between fifth and eighth. i want to emphasize that the transit stops at the lengthen and widen. they'd be twice as big. and that change, we'll be able to have two buses stop at the same time and have people get on and off which we cannot do now.
previously it allowed taxis. all of these combined. i think that adding the stop at 6th street will provide access to the tenderloin and again, i feel this is a great improvement for the transit service. >> okay. well, again, i think that, you know, this project is still very -- i a lot of money and it should have clear and demonstrable safety and accessibility benefits for people who bike, walk and ride transit. and it's very concerning to me that the people who are experts and who have been partners on the project in most cases right now don't believe that is the case with this current design. i'll let my colleagues, chair peskin and i'll jump in at the end. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, commissioner haney.
commissioner yee? >> president yee: thank you, chair peskin. i think commissioner haney covered the similar concerns i was going to raise. i want to reinforce that in regards to outreach and a time line for outreach, we need to look at it carefully to give adequate time for input and to maybe look at -- have all the parties come back and do another kumbaya and everybody support the project. everything that commissioner haney already mentioned, my concern around the fifth and market street. i would explain improvement to sidewalk and the curb wrap and so forth. i don't know what the improvements are for pedestrian safety measures.
especially when we brought this project out to the public, it was pretty much billed as the major vision zero type project so again, i would to see whether or not -- like this see whether or not there could be other elements added so that there will be net gain in terms of pedestrian safety of that intersection. in particular, that intersection, but i would say all the intersections along market. thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, commissioner yee. any response? >> i would just emphasize that pedestrian safety is one of our top goals for better market street. and we continue to look at the intersection. i know that is the concern for walk san francisco. what are we doing at the intersection? is there more we can do?
and it is an ongoing discussion. >> supervisor preston: thank you, chair peskin. and thanks, everyone, for your work on this. i share a lot of the concerns that commissioner haney has articulated i think very well. and hearing from the same advocates. i did want to follow up a little bit on commissioner haney's last line of questions surrounding muni and better understanding this shift to a single lane. i think as everyone knows, a, it's not the major artery into which so many of the muni lines cede in our city, not just impacting the stretch of market, but the entire transit system. i did have a couple of questions just for clarification.
currently, the curb lane use that you mentioned, is there any sense of how that breaks down between -- what percent of it is muni, commercial vehicles and taxis right now? >> brit, do you have the breakdown in the curb lanes? i know we did some evaluation before shelter-in-place. we were going to do an extensive data collection after quick-build was implemented, but because of shelter-in-place we've had to defer that evaluation. but, brit, i think you did some preliminary counts. >> yeah, we have data for how people in the streets of january of 2020. from that we figured out what would be left. we found there would be 30-45 vehicles per hour and that is less than one vehicle every one
to two minutes. that would be about 20 commercial vehicles and 15 taxis. it depends on the location, but it is a fairly small volume, less than one car every two minutes. one vehicle. >> in terms of the muni usage currently, how many vehicles? because that's what is moving into the exclusively now muni lanes? >> right. so currently between fifth and eighth street which is the only segment we're proposing to have all the transit in one lane, there is no transit in the curb lane until the -- i think -- i believe it's the curb lane until the five comes in at mcallister. so there is about ballpark off the top of my head, i would say
roughly 20 vehicles, 20 muni vehicles an hour in the curb lane. i would have to confirm the numbers, though. >> supervisor preston: then, what you were saying previously about the new proposed muni lanes could handle a volume increase of 20%, if i heard correctly? >> correct. >> supervisor preston: and what happens beyond that? >> it's not -- yeah, no, at that point we would have a less stable lane. it doesn't break and separate immediately. but there would be more risk of unreliability. we have models that show it would work up to 60 vehicles per hour in the center lane. and we don't anticipate that volume unless we went 20% of what we were providing prior to covid. >> supervisor preston: how many of the muni lines are going
through the stretch? >> we have five, five r, 9 and # 9r, 21 and f and 6 and 7. >> supervisor preston: have there been any alternatives considered that would have more than one muni lane going each way, either a third lane available for passing as needed? or maintaining the use of each lane two ways? >> you're breaking up. there is not enough room for us to add a third lane because of the way that the curb lines are right now. >> supervisor preston: so -- >> sorry, i think i have a bad internet connection. >> supervisor preston: my question, any consideration of any alternatives that would
either have a third lane available for muni vehicles needing to pass one another, or having two lanes available for muni going each way? >> having two lanes available for muni each way means we have muni buses sharing the lanes with bikes, which is something that transit and bike advocates and frankly, m.t.a., would agree is not the preferred design. so that is not considered. having a third lane available in the curb line or moving the muni track, that's not feasible with our current construction timeline and funding available. >> supervisor preston: okay. thank you. so you know, i just want to say, i think what looks doable in the very short-term here where we have not -- our muni system is not fully back in action, we
have lower volume, you know. it's one thing looking for the very short-term. i am concerned about the potential for backup and especially congestion pricing and getting our economy back on track. i think we're going to be -- i'm concerned we're going to be creating severe backups through this. but thank you for the answers to the questions. and commissioner haney has other questions as well. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i will hand it back over to district 6 commissioner haney. >> supervisor haney: thank you, chair peskin. i will try not to go too long here and try to wrap this up. you know, i do want to make sure that we are honoring and reflecting on the fact that the original design that was approved had been worked on with key stakeholders for years and
then in a very short amount of time we've changed the design and in doing so, clearly do not have consensus. and there are a lot of concerns about the pace of this and the plan for outreach and partnership. can you talk a bit about what outreach and engagement of stakeholders around these changes has been done so far? and what is the plan for public outreach moving forward? it seems like this is moving very quickly. and i think to say that i don't have strong support on these changes from our key stakeholders would be an understatement. >> sure. so in september is when we unveiled our new design proposal. at that point we notified the board of supervisors, the
mayor's office and our key stakeholders. so we met with bike coalition, block san francisco and the transit riders as soon as we made the announcement. we also met with our community advisory committee, our c.a.c. they met on september 28. so we introduced the proposal at that point. then we had a series of info sessions with our c.a.c. we had three one-and-a-half hour sessions to walk through all of the design changes and to discuss the schedule and the funding. and then we have -- we've had the key stakeholders as part of our community working group. our c.a.c. we also have representatives from some of the community business district like mid market, cbd, the hotel council,
and people who both live and work along the corridor. some local businesses as well. as we move into november, we'll be having a virtual open house because of our continuing health orders. so all of our, you know, open house materials will be available on our website for a two-week period. november 2-13. and we picked those days because we wanted to finish outreach before the holidays begin, or before thanksgiving. so we'll have a two-week period where people can access the information when they're available or have time on their website. we'll have two live meetings. wednesday, november 4th is a lunch time, brown bag, 12-1. and monday, november 9, we have a little more time in the evening, or late afternoon, from
4:30 until 6. so links to those meetings will be available on our website as well. and then the -- there is some parking and traffic changes to reflect the quick-build implementation and some cleanup for the next phase of construction. those are scheduled to go to the m.t.a. board on december 15. and that will be another opportunity for public comment -- for public review and public comment. so that's the outreach that we have planned between now and the end of december. >> supervisor haney: of the various groups that you have brought to the table around it so far, have any of them indicated their support for this new design? do we have any support for this? >> i think there is still, you know, a lot of questions and lot of concerns, as the commissioners have expressed.
and, you know, i think we've reached some agreements on the separation, having the painted buffer and the curb, adding the speed tables to the curb lanes. those were all directly -- those were all added directly because of the comment that we received. so i think we reached agreement on certain elements. but i think there are still concerns. >> supervisor haney: so right now, none of these groups or stakeholders have indicated their support? >> i don't think we have their full support, no. >> supervisor haney: have disability advocates been involved or briefed and what is their level of support or concern? >> yes. so we have -- yes, they have been included. we have numbers our c.a.c.
we've reached out to -- scott blanks is staff at lighthouse for the blind. so we reached out to him and we'll be scheduling a meeting hosted by lighthouse for the blind. that's something we've done throughout the project and we'll continue to do. so we have engaged and reached out to some of the senior and disability organizations, advocacy groups. bob has also shared concerns with not replacing the sidewalk now. we've also been working with the mayor's office on disability to make sure they're in the loop on this. nicole, the executive director has provided guidance throughout the project and continues to do so. one the other things we've done, we had a loading zone near 1155 market, where the loading zone was going to be right next to a center boarding island. and significantly narrowed the
roadway -- sorry, significantly narrowed the sidewalk to, i believe, seven or eight feet. this is another change we've implemented to aimprove the sidewalk -- improve the sidewalk for people walking or rolling. we moved that loading zone now to the east, closer to the a.c.t., the theater. so just east of the bart muni entrance. that means that the sidewalk will not have to be narrowed so much. and it will still be similar to the existing width that it is today. so we have reached out to many of the advocacy groups and will continue to do so. >> so i just in terms of the outreach, i do hope that there is -- that we don't rush this. that we do partner with the folks who got us this far. and try to address these issues and concerns.
and that there is an adequate amount of partnership and outreach with stakeholders. and i would love to see how that is going to be accomplished. and then just last quick things. we're looking at fifth through eighth here. there is also concerns that because of the changes to this particular segment of market street, that it will have impacts on the broader plan. and we're not seeing that and not talking about that. and are we in danger here of not having kind of a singular fluid clear comprehensive plan for market street and ending up with some have called sort of a frankenstein like situation, where we're doing a set of one-offs of individual pieces and not having an overall comprehensive vision for the street? >> our goal is still to have an
overall comprehensive vision for market street. we're continuing to move forward the hub area design. in our environmental documents it was the hub variance or the design of the western part of the project. so west of eighth hasn't changed. it is one lane in each direction. muni only. transit -- sorry, commercial vehicles and taxis would be detoured westbound at hayes street. and then in the eastbound direction, the last place to turn off would be 12th street. but most would detour at gough. so we know that west of eighth is the hub and we'll have that design. east of fifth street, we're working closely with the sfmta to stay closely connected with the transportation recovery plan. we're just waiting to find out
what the transportation recovery plan will include for market street so we can continue with this design to the east of fifth street. but our goal is to have one cohesive design that works throughout the corridor. brit? >> i would add onto that and say we could have a cohesive plan based on the segment. west of 12th we have a lot more cars on the street because that's where they would still have access. when you get east of sixth, we have higher muni volumes. we have the 38 coming in with a great number of vehicles. but we also have many fewer people biking. so the need for the street, while we might have one at eighth, we could have a different design east of fifth because that's when the street needs. again, this is not a
forever-design. i've been on the project for a very long time. i love the design. i was -- one of the advocates for it. but if you remember in 2014, we had a totally different design. we had a roadway track elevated two inches. we learned after experiments, that was not the preferred design. now we have the -- [inaudible] -- best design, 2020 and we can come back in 10-15 years and make any changes that we need to at that point. >> supervisor haney: thank you. last thing i'll say. and i know there are folks in the public are going to call in and this will be ongoing, but we had a project that was, you know, close to $195 million or somewhere there, that had very clear safety benefits, transformational design that had
consensus to now a redesign project that is still very expensive. i believe in the area of $120 million, yet for our key stakeholders, there is not demonstrate those clear benefits and safety consequences. and i think that's a very serious concern. and if there is work that can be done in the outreach -- you know, i think that a lot of these folks are just kind of processing this now. so i'm hopeful and i hope we can commit to it over the next number of weeks and months, trying to figure some of these things out and getting back to a place of joy, celebration and clear safety benefits for everyone who will use this street in the future. thank you for your hard work. i know this is not easy stuff and you've been working on it for a long time. we want to make sure we keep up the momentum, but we keep the
momentum toward a transformational projects in one of our, if not most important, thoroughfares. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, commissioner haney. thank you for your engagement with this project. i know that our head of public works is here, but i do see that commissioner fewer is on the roster. commissioner fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yes, thank you very much, chair person. i'm wondering, did we do any outreach to the taxi drivers at all considering that this would be a change for them also? >> we did have a number of one of the taxi -- member of one of the taxi groups attend the info session. i know that brit has been talking to m.t.a. staff that works on the taxi commission as well. so, brit, do you want to talk about the taxi side? >> yes. so taxis have been supportive of
the project, because they still have access to market street. they would be in the curb lane. they would need to share the road with people biking, commercial vehicles, transit. however, they still have access to market street which is something that most other vehicles don't. >> supervisor fewer: is your answer that, yes, you have engaged in a meaningful way with the taxi drivers and they're in consensus? or am i hearing that you spoke to one taxi person and that person said it sounds okay. i think it's a big different in how we're engaging these folks. just clarification. >> we have reached out to the director of our taxi services at m.t.a. and she is apprised of the design.
ad >> supervisor fewer: having someone from m.t.a. that works with taxi drivers is a little different than speaking to taxi drivers, quite frankly. so if you could answer that question, that would be great. >> we've only had one representative from the taxi -- i don't remember the name, was it the taxi alliance? taxi group. taxi drivers alliance. there was one representative of that group who attended our info session. we haven't done extensive outreach to the taxi drivers. >> supervisor fewer: okay. so maybe that is something that we should be doing considering that it is a change for them also. and then i wanted to ask, are we going to have to upgrade our utilities that we will -- because i feel like this is so expensive and what you showed us wasn't just about the transit, it's all the stuff underneath and stuff. so will there be utility
upgrades in the next 10 years? >> actually the utility upgrades are still part of better market street's next phase. i think that gets to some of the questions that commissioner haney had about the cost. some of the things i didn't talk about, were m.t.a. is still replacing all of the overhead wires. even though we're not replacing the o.c.s. poles, we're still replacing all of the wires. we're still repaving, fully reconstructing the curb lane, replacing all the track between fifth and eighth street. not just the rail, but the track itself, from asphalt to concrete. and then s.f. puc will be replacing sewer and water line and upgrading the water supply system. there is still utility work happening and this is work to the infrastructure that is expected to last another 50-75 years.
you know, they are permanent improvements to their infrastructure. >> supervisor fewer: and we won't have to do -- what i'm concerned about is will we have to rip up the street again? or rip up to continue to fix our infrastructure? >> not within the next 20 or 25 years in this area. our typical life span for our roadways is 25 years. we try to repave our streets every 25 years. so we expect that the roadway will be completely upgrade as part of this next phase of construction. >> supervisor fewer: i probably of all the commission was least excited by better market street. i just saw that, when i first came in four years ago, eric mar cast, was about to approve it.
i was floored. it was beautiful. i thought, there goes my -- i just want commissioners to be aware, we have made a commitment, this commission has made a commitment to have better transit out in my district. and what has happened? i have few improvements, quite frankly. little infrastructure. i think there is a whole movement to build more housing in my district, which we are building more housing along the geary corridor, but i don't see any improvements. when i saw better market street, i thought, here we go, a beautiful thing and my district is going to be ignored. i am leaving this commission in a few weeks. i hope that my commissioners will hold true to geographic balance around our improvements for transit. because as it is, the geary bus,
as you know pre-covid, was at full capacity or over. so better market street was beautiful, but quite frankly, i had transit riders in my district that have been suffering under the same system for how long? and so even if we were to move some way on phase 2, come to some agreement and move forward, but to have zero is actually kind of insulting. you know. i know phase one went for it, but that's not my hood. my hood is phase two. so just wanted to say i think this is a lot of money. again, when i see this type of money put toward a beautiful project that are really jazzed about, but yet those in my neighborhood are not getting any. i think that what commissioner haney is saying about the deeper
engagements around voices would serve us better. thanks. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. alex, you're up. >> i'll be quick. i think my colleague has answered most of the questions raised today. i want to talk briefly about one other group of people we thought about when we were making these changes, the small business owners along that corridor. we as the city are beginning to pivot and try to come out of covid, very slowly, we know that we are now using our sidewalks in a different way. we're using those as those
businesses are trying to recover. we felt that was something that we certainly needed to think about. so at this point -- and we have not gone out to businesses, but i'm certain that would be in the interest, we as a city, be mindful of and feel it's necessary to protect those interests as well. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. why don't we now -- director tumlin, jeffrey, anything that you want to add? >> j. tumlin: no, i think all the key points have been covered. >> supervisor peskin: would you like to wrap up for us?
>> you're on mute. >> chair peskin, i suggest we go to public comment and certainly we can follow up on all of the commissioners' concerns raised by commissioner haney, preston and fewer. and certainly we'll look forward to the public comment as well. >> supervisor peskin: if you can turn your camera off until we get to the next item. why don't we open this up to public comment. i believe we have quite a number of individuals who would like to comment. first speaker, please. hello, caller? i'll move on to the next caller.
caller, your two minutes begins now. caller, your two minutes begins now. >> hi. am i on with everyone on this call? >> supervisor peskin: you are. >> i cannot hear anything. i just heard that my line is unmuted, but i'm unable to hear the call. >> supervisor peskin: we can hear you. >> okay, it sounds like people can hear me. i will keep speaking. thank you very much for including me. i have comments to make. first of all, my name is michele solomon, i'm a resident of san francisco. i live in the district of hillary ronen. and i used to -- san francisco.
so these are some of my comments. to respond to high demand with remove the dedicated bike lanes, for me is the definition of regressing. san francisco should be representing progressive policy. so we're moving a dedicated lane and replacing it with a shared lane and commercial vehicles and to say, it's okay with cars and drivers, will be nice. to me personally it's unacceptable and complete reversal on the original objective of this campaign. personally, i've been very afraid to bike again. a few years ago i broke my collar bone snowboarding, i'm injury prone. i have two young children. i would prefer to bike and drive to downtown and i look forward
to doing that. but i would like to be clear i will not bike if i have to share that lane on market street with commercial vehicles. i mean it's unsafe, for me, and i will not participate. i wish you would instead add more dedicated lanes on more streets. that is the definition of a progressive response to the wonderful high demand in my opinion. i have another additional comment on the years of community planning with stakeholders. so i work in a startup. i'm one of the founders of the startup. it's an online community platform. one of our clients is the national association of city of transportation -- >> thank you, caller. >> thank you, caller. your two minutes are over. >> i'll move on to the next caller now.
hello, caller, your two minutes begins now. >> hi. my name is liz. and i've been participating in the better market street for at least five years. i strongly oppose the changes to the better market street plan. i think that most trips downtown have been on transit and any plan that does not call for -- that does not accommodate muni does not support a recovery and downtown businesses. as a bike rider, this plan doesn't protect me from taxi drivers and commercial vehicles and therefore does not protect me. taxi drivers will hit bicyclists and injure them. and they will do nothing to prevent that. i know that from my experience cycling on octavia.
so i would really love to see -- i would definitely love to see the commercial vehicles, taxis banned from market street. if eight feet is too narrow, the banning of the commercial vehicles from market street. but no separation is no safety. lastly, the sidewalks are an accessibility nightmare and the people using mobility assistive devices deserve better. thank you for your time. have a great day. >> supervisor peskin: next speaker, please. >> hello, caller. >> oh. my name is -- i'm a resident, voter and someone without a car whose main mode of transportation is biking. i'm extremely disappointed with the proposals of the bike lane to a shared lane.
[inaudible] bike around, but it doesn't biking -- sechelt in place -- but not -- [inaudible] yes, even these -- people like her, people like me complete faith. -- try to run us off the road. safety is -- concern is that the -- [inaudible] -- by adding -- [indiscernible] issue of life and death for those vision zero falling short. year and a half ago. i just want to be able to bike safely. thank you very much and have a wonderful day. >> thank you, caller.
>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is janice lee. i'm speaking on behalf of the bicycle coalition. i currently serve as vice chair of this project. the project of outreach is not just check off the box and then do the project as proposed. the role of the city is to be responsive to the concerns, accommodate, amend and do better. after four meetings with the c.a.c. in the last month, none of the organizations are ready to support this proposal. that includes the bike coalition, walk san francisco, transit riders, market street railway, and many others. many c.a.c. members, including myself, recommended to push back the public outreach. we heard the concerns and the project manager herself said there are still a lot of questions and concerns. here's the thing. after over a decade of unanimous
approval by the board last year, the changes proposed to the phase one design represent a radical departure from a hard-fought consensus. people biking and those driving -- [inaudible] -- design. we understand the project budget must be reduced in order to save financial reality as -- economy. we're not asking for a return to the original proposal. what we're asking for is a right-sized design to deliver benefits and goods that the public is on board with and this proposal isn't there yet. further more, this will cost over a hundred million dollars. are we getting a hundred million in benefits? we have opportunity in generation to work on transforming market street and it is important about the large tradeoff here. we do want to thank the staff for the immense work in the last month and we appreciate all the comments from you all as
commissioners today asking if it is there yet. we don't think it. and we ask the city to work on this, do better and then bring it back for more outreach. thank. -- thank you. >> hello, caller. your two minutes begins now. >> good morning, chair peskin and commissioners. i'm walk san francisco organizer. i'm speaking because walk sf is concerned about the outreach process the city is undertaking on this major revision to better market. in january, we were proud to be there. city officials and celebrate the opening of market street when it was implemented and we took cars off market. and better serve the half of million of people who walk and the tens of thousands of people who bike and take transit. i know it's the beginning of this major vision zero project that the city and the public had worked collaboratively on over ten years.
better market street was slated to be the crown jewel and the grand boulevard of the city. now nine months later when the city does face very real financial challenges, we're talking about a pretty radical change to the project, but without the outreach and engagement to support that. we're shown one version of the new plan on only three blocks on a rushed time line. is this new version being shortsighted and reactionary? this is the moment we need to be asking ourselves if this new proposal meets the expectations and the goal that led to the project that was approved. the better goal is the safety. they prioritized safety along the corridor because market street has half of the city's top 10 most dangerous intersections. currently, there is no -- fifth of market. it only took two weeks after the quick-build in january before a
person biking was severely injured in a crash. walk sf doesn't want another 10 years of outreach and planning but we want to know if the current project before you today, reaches the goals set out. >> thank you, caller. >> in the end, we'll be proud -- >> thank you. hello, caller. >> commissioners, let me make it very clear. i feel that all the changes that were made on market street could be place by five years. you just have to go all over the city, whether it's van ness, geary boulevard, to see the construction and how m.t.a. looks upon seniors and those that really need help with
empathy and compassion. there are new people. i would like to study their resume before i write an article on them. for now, no more changes on market street. we're the taxpayers. we don't need this mickey mouse type of generalities. you need to do proper outreach and the same for the seniors and those that adhere to the american disabilities act. this presentation is full of b.s. i repeat, b.s. no more changes on market street for another five years. thank you very much. thank you, caller. >> supervisor peskin: any other callers in the queue? >> yes, there are. >> hello, caller.
caller? i'll move on to the next. hello, caller. >> hi, my name is eric kaplan. i live in telegraph hill. i don't own a car and rely on my bike to get around town. i'm just going to speak frankly. this plan doesn't make any sense. it's a major regression from the consensus plan that was approved last year. it's unclear what is better about it. it's unclear what is different about market street. so this is not better market street. this is the same market street, but we're spending $100 million on -- i'm not sure what. i'm not sure how we spend $100 million to keep market street
the same. the other thing is, every time i bike it, there are cars on it that aren't supposed to be there. are there going to be any changes to market street to actually make it car-free? and you know -- one of the worst things that the sfmta hoisted upon the world and i don't know why we're doubling down on this failed unsafe design. so thank you for your time. please go back to something closer to the original consensus plan. thanks. >> thank you. >> hi, this is the san francisco transit riders. i want to thank you for your
hard work and the commissioners for thorough questioning and discussion. i don't want to take too much time. i'm going to echo the questions raised and concerns. we understand the realities are forcing difficult decisions because of budget and time length. but this is not suit transit riders. we're not convinced that transit to one lane is going to improve transit service. we understand the modelling -- need to understand the modelling more clearly to understand if it's even physically possible to move 60 buses an hour down one lane, with traffic signal issues that have always plagued muni service. this is more likely to slow down buses, cause delays. we're going to need more transit -- on market street, not less. [inaudible] the subway upgrades are probably going to have more service on the street. so we have a lot of concerns that this project as many people
do. we look forward to continuing to work with you and city staff to evolve a better market street that will put transit riders first. thank you. >> hello. good afternoon. i'm a -- primary mode of transportation is bicycle. i would like to thank my supervisor matt haney for what is happening here. mixing bicycles with cars, taxis, trucks, transit, is not safe. this is being sold as a bike lane. it isn't if there are taxis there. i've heard arguments from the staff how there is going to be less traffic. it's arguments that are boiling down to -- you can argue that all day long, it doesn't matter
if it doesn't feel safe. because that is what riders -- [inaudible] an 11-foot wide lane probably could work, but it would have to be clearer it is for bikes only. for example, you can look where the pavement is entirely red, the people in the green here. and where it's clearer that cars do not belong there. i've also heard talk about going back, that it's not a forever-design, but your staff, what they're proposing, pouring concrete for say -- [inaudible] muni will only be in the center lane. it will break the -- design and you're setting -- what happens with -- market? are we going to end up with a -- embarcadero and but not -- i
think you don't have the full picture. and i think you should put -- and let the staff -- thank you. >> hello? your line is unmuted. >> commissioners, my name is robin. i rely on transit and bicycling for transportation. i understand the difficult challenges we face. however, i'm calling to share my extreme opposition. the crux of the better market street plan was separation between bikes and vehicle. although the vehicles allowed are limited, they are present. i have been threatened by commercial and taxi drivers while biking down better market street. a comfortable and safe bike route does not allow for such interaction. we need physical protection. i'll mention that while -- are not allowed, there is zero
enforcement of this. -- [inaudible] -- all day long. further more, do not work, bufferers do not. have i made my point? it does not work and does not protect people. the rendering of the proposal looks eerily like market street. that's not a better market street. i question a project that is still this expensive, and so watered down and fruitless. i beg you to look long-term and separate bikes and vehicles. we could potentially have a narrower protected bike lane and a shared -- on the dynamic with the pan handle -- the proposal shown today does not meet the project's primary goal which is safety. please go back to the drawing board. i thank supervisor haney and preston for their astute questioning and pushback on this
plan. >> hello, caller? >> yes. i think this is a cautionary tale about too much planning and outreach. we spent years on this, and apparently most of that has been discarded. we should be focussing on design and quick-build projects that go from idea and implementation within a year. second, having people on bicycles, mixing in a lane with a car on a major street is something that has proven to be unsafe and unable to attract a significant percentage of people to biking. our taxi drivers are much more skilled than the average driver, but in my experience, they can use that skill for arriving at their destination faster, but not with the safety of others they're sharing the street with. it's unconscionable to spend $100 million at what this point is essentially a beautification project that doesn't deliver
significant safety benefits when people are being hurt on the street every day. >> thank you, caller. hello, caller. your two minutes begins now. >> hello, can you hear me? >> yes. hello? >> yes, we can hear you. please proceed. >> supervisor peskin: madame clerk, are we having technical difficulties >> i'm not having anything on my end that i can tell. i believe they can hear me. >> supervisor peskin: commissioner haney says that apparently there are some people who may be experiencing some
technical difficulties. >> okay. let me try the next caller and then i'll get back to this caller and see -- >> supervisor peskin: yes, if anyone wants to get back in the queue, please do. >> hello, can you hear me? >> hello, caller, your two minutes begins now. >> hello? >> yes. >> supervisor peskin: are we having technical difficulties? >> i'm not having an issue on my end that i can tell --
understand that you can hear me, but i can't hear you. so that's probably what people are having a problem with. this is jason henderson. okay, so i'm the co-chair of the octavia c.a.c. and the planning committee and i just learned of these proposed changes. and i do want to weigh in and agree with many of the concerns from the transportation advocacy organizations. but i also want to point you to the western variant which was briefly mentioned and urge everyone to pay attention to north-south bicycle traffic and
opportunities that we have right now to really discourage private vehicles and t.n.c.s and all these delivery vehicles from swarming the market and van ness area by having a connector from valencia over market street to franklin for cycling. a protected bikeway. also want you to really consider e-bike delivery and cargo bike delivery. maybe restricting delivery on market street to only pedal power delivery. it's flat. this can work. the mixing of buses and delivery vehicles and taxis is not going to work. we -- the city needs to be thinking about a 20% mode split of bicycling. and that kind of mode split is
possible, supeespecially on thet side of the city. it works with our climate goals, our equity goals. you are not going to be able to make that happen if children and less skilled cyclists are mixing in with these heavy vehicles. it just doesn't work. it doesn't work anywhere. >> thank you, caller. >> the places where you have high rates of cycling, you're not mixing cyclists with -- whatever it is that i heard. i urge -- >> thank you. >> thank you, caller. jason. he can't hear us. and i do have some suggestions about this, which is given the technical difficulties that we are having, i would actually suggest colleagues we continue
this item, because clearly we are able to hear the caller, but i don't think people are able to hear us. so why don't we finish the queue and then i'm going to suggest that we continue this and with your indulgence, the next item to our next meeting. and we open this item because it's abundantly clear we're having technical difficulties. next speaker, please. >> caller, your two minutes begins now. i'll try the next caller. >> supervisor peskin: technical difficulties. >> hello, caller, your two
minutes begins now. >> hello. my name is -- i'm advocate with group street people and environmentalists. i want to speak in opposition to the removal of the protected bike lane from the better market street plan. it doesn't make any sense as they currently exist given the reduction in service due to the pandemic when those levels of service will not continue after the pandemic. this is a multi-decade project we're planning. it's definitely -- the issue is that the bike lanes will be over capacity from day one, then there are solutions for that. one is to continue to allow bicycles in the traffic lanes so that faster and more experienced cyclists can use the lane and slower can uthe protected -- use the protected bike lane.
it's important to have a separated bike lane to make the street accessible for everyone ages 8 to 80. additionally, we could add protected bike lanes on mission street to add capacity on a parallel street. we could do this today by removing the parking lanes and it is -- there is a perfect opportunity to do this now. and it is not happening. i just want to finish by saying that it is disappointing to see the sfmta go backwards in terms of scale and scope on an ambition, particularly under the new leadership. thank you very much. >> thank you, caller. >> supervisor peskin: madame clerk, clearly we just heard words i uttered 30 seconds ago just popped up on this. there is something that is quite wrong with the technology right now. so, colleagues, what i and i'll
defer to legal council. we might want to continue the balance of this entire meeting, general public comment, the item number 11 and public comment on item number 10 to our next meeting because i think we're having some serious technical difficulties. madame councillor, can you hear me, jill? >> i can, chair peskin. and, yes, i would agree. you know your direction to continue the item, then the public will have another opportunity to comment at the next meeting when it appears again. >> supervisor peskin: so given what is going on and i'm now getting e-mails from people, including mr. lebron -- lebrun that people can't hear us and there is a 30-second time delay. colleagues, if you're willing, i would like to make a motion to continue public comment on this
item number 10, items 11 and the balance of the calendar to our next meeting in november. >> second. fewer. >> seconded by commissioner fewer. any discussion on that rather extraordinary rare motion. i don't think i've made one of those in 20 years i've been on this body and the board of supervisors, but we're definitely not doing well on the technical side. seeing no names on the roster, why don't we hear this at our first meeting in november. on that motion to continue the balance of the items, or continue the balance of this meeting, a roll call, please. >> supervisor fewer: aye. >> supervisor haney: aye.
>> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> supervisor preston: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> supervisor walton: aye. >> president yee: aye. there are 10 ayes. motion passes. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. and our sincere apologies to members of the public who had trouble communicating with this body. we will continue this item obviously we're not making any decisions today. and we'll await further public comment. with that, we are adjourned for now.
just take a deep breath because it is so exciting and magical, not knowing what the season holds holds is very, very exciting. it was fast-paced, stressful, but the good kind of stressful, high energy. there was a crowd to entertain, it was overwhelming in a good way, and i really, really enjoyed it. i continued working for the grizzlies for the 2012-2013 season, and out of happenstance, the same job opened up for the san francisco giants. i applied, not knowing if i would get it, but i would kick myself if i didn't apply. i was so nervous, i never lived anywhere outside of fridays
know, andfridays -- fresno, and i got an interview. and then, i got a second interview, and i got more nervous because know the thought of leaving fresno and my family and friends was scary, but this opportunity was on the other side. but i had to try, and lo and behold, i got the job, and my first day was january 14, 2014. every game day was a puzzle, and i have to figure out how to put the pieces together. i have two features that are 30 seconds long or a minute and a 30 feature. it's fun to put that altogetl r together and then lay that out in a way that is entertaining for the fans. a lucky seat there and there, and then, some lucky games that include players. and then i'll talk to lucille, can you take the shirt gun to
the bleachers. i just organize it from top to bottom, and it's just fun for me. something, we don't know how it's going to go, and it can be a huge hit, but you've got to try it. or if it fails, you just won't do it again. or you tweak it. when that all pans out, you go oh, we did that. we did that as a team. i have a great team. we all gel well together. it keeps the show going. the fans are here to see the teams, but also to be entertained, and that's our job. i have wonderful female role models that i look up to here at the giants, and they've been great mentors for me, so i aspire to be like them one day. renelle is the best. she's all about women in the
workforce, she's always in our corner. [applause] >> i enjoy how progressive the giants are. we have had the longer running until they secure day. we've been doing lgbt night longer than most teams. i enjoy that i work for an organization who supports that and is all inclusive. that means a lot to me, and i wouldn't have it any other way. i wasn't sure i was going to get this job, but i went for it, and i got it, and my first season, we won a world series even if we hadn't have won or gone all the way, i still would have learned. i've grown more in the past four years professionally than i think i've grown in my entire adult life, so it's been eye
>> i just don't know that you can find a neighborhood in the city where you can hear music stands and take a ride on the low rider down the street. it is an experience that you can't have anywhere else in san francisco. [♪] [♪] >> district nine is a in the southeast portion of the city. we have four neighborhoods that i represent. st. mary's park has a completely unique architecture. very distinct feel, and it is a very close to holly park which is another beautiful park in san francisco. the bernal heights district is unique in that we have the hell which has one of the best views in all of san francisco.
there is a swinging hanging from a tree at the top. it is as if you are swinging over the entire city. there are two unique aspects. it is considered the fourth chinatown in san francisco. sixty% of the residents are of chinese ancestry. the second unique, and fun aspect about this area is it is the garden district. there is a lot of urban agriculture and it was where the city grew the majority of the flowers. not only for san francisco but for the region. and of course, it is the location in mclaren park which is the city's second biggest park after golden gate. many people don't know the neighborhood in the first place if they haven't been there. we call it the best neighborhood nobody has ever heard our. every neighborhood in district nine has a very special aspect. where we are right now is the mission district. the mission district is a very special part of our city. you smell the tacos at the
[speaking spanish] and they have the best latin pastries. they have these shortbread cookies with caramel in the middle. and then you walk further down and you have sunrise café. it is a place that you come for the incredible food, but also to learn about what is happening in the neighborhood and how you can help and support your community. >> twenty-fourth street is the birthplace of the movement. we have over 620 murals. it is the largest outdoor public gallery in the country and possibly the world. >> you can find so much political engagement park next to so much incredible art. it's another reason why we think this is a cultural district that we must preserve. [♪] >> it was formed in 2014. we had been an organization that had been around for over 20 years.
we worked a lot in the neighborhood around life issues. most recently, in 2012, there were issues around gentrification in the neighborhood. so the idea of forming the cultural district was to help preserve the history and the culture that is in this neighborhood for the future of families and generations. >> in the past decade, 8,000 latino residents in the mission district have been displaced from their community. we all know that the rising cost of living in san francisco has led to many people being displaced. lower and middle income all over the city. because it there is richness in this neighborhood that i also mentioned the fact it is flat and so accessible by trip public transportation, has, has made it very popular. >> it's a struggle for us right now, you know, when you get a lot of development coming to an area, a lot of new people coming to the area with different sets of values and different culture.
there is a lot of struggle between the existing community and the newness coming in. there are some things that we do to try to slow it down so it doesn't completely erase the communities. we try to have developments that is more in tune with the community and more equitable development in the area. >> you need to meet with and gain the support and find out the needs of the neighborhoods. the people on the businesses that came before you. you need to dialogue and show respect. and then figure out how to bring in the new, without displacing the old. [♪] >> i hope we can reset a lot of the mission that we have lost in the last 20 years. so we will be bringing in a lot of folks into the neighborhoods pick when we do that, there is a demand or, you know, certain types of services that pertain more to the local community and working-class. >> back in the day, we looked at
mission street, and now it does not look and feel anything like mission street. this is the last stand of the latino concentrated arts, culture and cuisine and people. we created a cultural district to do our best to conserve that feeling. that is what makes our city so cosmopolitan and diverse and makes us the envy of the world. we have these unique neighborhoods with so much cultural presence and learnings, that we want to preserve. [♪] >> hi, i'm chris manners and you're watching can the coping with covid-19." today i'm going to talk about some of the steps that you can take to stay safe as we slowly lift our restrictions. (♪)
>> keep wearing your mask when you're outside your home. there's a board consensus among medical professionals that wearing a mask will help to contain the virus. and in california you're now required to wear a mask in public or in high-risk settings such as when you're shopping or taking public transit or seeking medical care. not being able to see your friends or family is hard, even if you are video conferencing with them. limited socializing is now okay, but keep the number of people to a minimum to be safe. and try to only spend time with the same folks. getting together with people indoors is much riskier. so meet up outside, instead of in your home. if you don't have a backyard, choose a park that's nearby. many of the parks in san francisco now have social distancing areas on the grass so you can maintain a safe space. and take disinfecting wipes to sanitize anything that others may have touched. unfortunately, shaking hands and
hugging are still out with the virus. and these days a thumbs up are much safer ways of acknowledging somebody else. some restaurants are now allowed to serve food outside. if you do choose to dine outdoors it's safest to only sit with people from your own household. make reservations at the restaurant and arrive on time so you don't have to wait too long. many restaurants can't serve food outside because they don't have the space. so don't stop ordering food for pick-up or delivery you if you can afford it. purchase multiple items each time that you go to the supermarket. it's probably the place that you're visiting that has the most people, so minimizing the number of trips that you take is a sensible choice. remain in a minimum of six feet apart from people not within your house hol household is very important. maintain a safe distance from others. finally, keep watching your
hands. moving the virus from your hands to your face is one way that you can get sick. fortunately, soap and water kills the virus. so regular handwashing will help to keep you healthy. here's a quick recap -- in response to the pandemic and our current restrictions are changing quickly, go to sfgov-tv to review the most up-to-date guidelines. that's it for this episode. remember that the virus is still with us. so be careful and stay safe. you have been watching "coping with covid-19," for sfgov-tv,
proposition b, a proposition that will be on the ballot and before the voters on november 3. the city has three departments tasked with cleaning tasks. the city administrator oversees the department of public works and appoints the director with the mayor's director. proposition b is a charter amendment that would create a department of sanitation and streets which would take over some of the duties of the department of public works. this new department of sanitation and streets would be responsible for sweeping streets and cleaning sidewalks, providing and maintaining sidewalk trash cans, removing graffiti and illegally dumped waste and maintaining city buildings, public rest rooms, and street trees. the department of public works would continue to provide all other services required by law. proposition b would create a five-member sanitation and streets commission to oversee
the department of sanitation and streets as well as a five-member public works commission to oversee the department of public works. the mayor would select the directors of both departments. if you vote yes, you want to create a department of sanitation and streets with oversight from a sanitation and streets commission, and you want to establish a public works commission to oversee the department of public works. if you vote no, you do not want to make these changes. . >> i'm here with honey mahogany, a legislative aide with supervisor haney's office. we're also joined by lari m -- larry marso, an opponent of the measure. we're going to start with some opening statements, and we'll begin with honey.
>> thank you so much for having us today. i think that as a native san franciscan, someone who grew up here, and a small business owner, it's become very clear to me that san francisco has really failed at keep our city clean the clean. there is trash all over the streets, some streets are covered with feces, and sometimes you can't find a bathroom when you need one. we've been working on how the city can better address this issu issue. what we found is the system that we have in place is broken. no matter how hard the workers at d.p.w. work, they're unable
to get the streets clean because the system is ineffective. d.p.w. is too big, there isn't enough focus on the streets, and especially during the time of covid-19, sanitation's now more important than ever, so we are putting forward a new department of sanitation to effectively keep our streets clean, wash our sidewalks in our most busy corridors and also to establish commissions overboth d.p.w. and the department to ensure that both departments are accountable to the public. the commission will also set baseline standards for cleaning, something that really doesn't exist now under the current system. >> thank you, honey. now, larry? >> hi. please vote no on proposition b, which takes a $400 million san francisco agency and needlessly cuts it in half and
politicizes what remains. it's the case chaos and paralysis that will worsen the squalor on our streets. san francisco has the political will to clean the streets. the board of supervisors does not. proposition b creates two new bureaucracies and injects politics into the department of public works. this is a failed model of oversight. we have over 100 boards and commissions in san francisco already. proposition b sets no clean streets standards. there's nothing in here that says we are going to deal with the needles, the syringes, the feces on the streets. it's not there. matt haney writes in his argument that they're in
proposition b. there's nothing in proposition b that sets baseline standards. we need -- we need -- we need to address the fraud and waste in the department of public works. >> thank you, larry. that's 1.5 minutes, so we're going to go into questions now, and the first question will go to you, larry, and then honey, you'll have a chance to answer it. the question is the amendment would create a new department of sanitation and streets to perform duties that's currently performed by the department of public works. if that's the proposition, what's the argument for creating a new department? >> the city controller says it's going to cost upwards of
$6 million a year. that's over 50 million in ten years. that's a lot of money. but if you look at the paid arguments for proposition b, you see a long list of public sector labor unions. the seiu and the san francisco labor locals representing the trades that engage in cleaning our streets and maintaining some of our parks. they're talking about we need more resources, we need more resources. they believe that this new structure, which is going to put the board of supervisors in the position of straiting political appointee -- placing political appointees into governing these agencies, they believe it will mean significantly higher spending. and nowhere do the proponents of proposition b stay straight
to the san francisco people that this is a major spending increase. will it address any of the core issues of cleaning san francisco streets? not if it atdss drug addiction, homeless, and mental illness on our streets, the root of so much of our problem. >> thank you. the same question to you, honey. why create a new department? >> well, i would like to first address some factual inaccuracies in some of those statements. one, the measure does require the department to set public standards for cleaning. we want to hold community outreach to set those standards. there is a metric to address that. also, i do want to correct that the controller report says --
the updated controller report says this will be closer to $2.6 milli 2.6 million in costs to create this new department. the reason we have to create this new department is the current department is broken. there is not enough oversight over cleaning and sanitation in the current system. it is less than a quarter of what d.p.w. does. d.p.w. is a department with 1600 employees, and like you said, a $400 million budget. less than a quarter is dedicated to cleaning. we feel like a metro city in san francisco where tourism is its number one industry, we need to have a focus on cleaning with metrics that are created in a very transparent manner, a method for us to have feedback, and for the public to have feedback, and again, really providing some very close oversight and accountability for a department
that, up until now, really hasn't had any. >> thank you, honey. our second question, and it'll start with you, honey, is again, about the cost. the office of the controller states that this amendment, in the report that i read, ranged from 2$2.5 to $6 million annually. honey corrected that it will be just over $2 million. do we think this is the right way to spend the extra money on sanitation or is there another way that is perhaps more beneficial? >> you know, $2.6 million is a very small -- it's less than a percent -- or a fraction of a percent of the city's current budget. it's a small amount of revenue that the city would generate through improvement to its business districts. it has been very public how
we've been criticized by -- all over the world, really, for our filthy streets. the travel industry has been impacted, our hotel industry has been impacted, so those are our biggest industries for our city. so for the city to spend $2 million on an issue that we haven't been able to fix in decades is nothing. i will note that the legislation actually also reduces duplication in terms of staffing by putting some of the staffing as shared with d.p.w. for the back end, which larry referred to earlier, and it also required city administrator to also provide that support. so the additional hiring is really minimal. there is some costs for the commissions, but again, the controller actually -- the f.b.i. and the scandal
recommended that supervision be placed over d.p.w., so it is good governance. it'll put a commission over d.p.w., and it'll also put a commission over the department of sanitation and streets to oversee them. >> okay. larry, same question to you. >> since 2014, the portion of department of public works spending on cleaning our streets has doubled. if you look around you, do you see that our streets are cleaner? spending money is not the solution to cleaning our streets when we have significant significant endemic root causes of drug abuse and mental illness on our streets. the department of public works, if it's split in half, it's
going to generate more costs than simply what the controller has documented. there are duplications of band-end services -- back-end services. okay. but why are the biggest unions in san francisco pouring money into this measure? they're doing so because they're looking for higher pay and more hiring. >> sorry. i have to cut you off there as time is up for questions, but we're going to move into closing statements, and we will start with honey. >> thank you so much. it's funny because i think larry and i agree that we've been pumping money into d.p.w., and things haven't gotten any better. in fact, things have gotten worse, and that is why we're establishing the department of sanitation and streets because the current system is broken.
we're going to be providing accountability, setting baseline standards. i have to say the reason why so many labor unions are behind this is we figured out a solution that would work for everybody. it's not about raising salaries for anything like that. these are hard working san franciscans, people who really care about their city and want to be proud of their city and the work they do, and they know best how to address this problem because they're dealing with it every day. so we're proud to have worked with them, to provide this measure of accountability to provide safer, cleaner streets, trash cans that will work, access to more rest rooms. more green infrastructure which has been sorely lacking. and, again, public accountability and a real focus on street cleaning. so i'm very proud of the measure, and i implore san
franciscans, if you want to see our travel industry be reinvigorated, our children and familied supported by the picking up of needles and keeping our streets clean, then please vote yes on proposition b. >> thank you, honey. closing statements from larry, please. >> proposition b will politicize the department of public works. that's why i and a number of centrist politicians and organizations are opposed to proposition b, on the board of supervisors, supervisor sandra fewer voted no, raff vel mandelman voted now, more man yee, voted no, catherine steph he knee voted no. the ed lee democratic club says no. the sfgop says no.
you have people across the political spectrum who recognize that this is going to increase costs significantly while at the same time inducing chaos in public services, paralysis in the cleaning of our streets. uncertainty at a time that san francisco needs to be smart and focused in how it spends its money, how it raises its money, and to address the real causes of what we see going on in our streets. matt haney does not represent a common sense approach on homelessness, drug abuse, or mental illness. i have tried to bring these solutions myself to a citizen ballot measure on the regulation of navigation centers. the entire ballot you're seeing was put together by the board of supervisors. no one could even collect
signatures under shelter in place to propose alternative measures, as i tried to do. >> thank you, larry. thank you very much both for your comments and for your time. we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information, please visit the san francisco elections website at sfelections.org. this year, every person in california will be mailed a ballot starting on october 5. you may drop off your vote by mail ballot in person starting on october 5 in the city hall voting center located outside of bill graham city auditorium 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. you may drop off your ballot at your voting center for the two
educational opportunities for our community every day. in this role, i also monitoring the entire budget for the program. my passion for education started at a young age. i grew up in a low-income household and have experienced firsthand the transformative nature of education both as a student and teacher. but over time, i realized how education systems failed our most vulnerable students. as a former legislative aide, i worked on legislation to ban the box on private college applications, making san francisco the first city in the nation to do so. during this time of a global pandemic and a social movement to dismantle systemic racism, city college needs a new voice and a proven leader in education. my life's mission has been to ensure institutions are accountable to the people they are built to serve. i am running to make sure city college remains the people's college. if elected, i will fight to
invest in a permanent emergency grant program for students, establish a jobs guarantee program, with clear career path days, and grow free city. i will advocate for increased transparency and further education resources. i would be honored to have your support. please vote alia chifsky. you and are four your time. hello. we have a choice of two paths. the road ccsf is traveling is one of financial challenges, instability, and a decrease of 18% in enrollment. i see a second healthier path. with strong experienced guidance, ccsf can gain
financial stability, and reengage as an important and diverse institution. ccsf is in danger of closing, creating a crisis in san francisco. ccsf must be saved, but electing the same type of candidates, politicians be-holden to stakeholders will result in the same outcomes. i have declined all offers of consideration for endorisment by stakeholders so that i can focus on slufl doing what is right to save ccsf, i will not be be-holden to interest groups. i'm the only candidate who has raised over $40 million for
educational and other causes and will bring creative funding ideas and other opportunities to ccsf. i'm the only candidate who has served on a finance committee of a fiscally fit company. i believe that ccsf is a gem that must be preserved. i will be your independent and experienced voice on the board. thank you, and please vote for me. >> i'm juanita martinez, a family poor in money but rich in family history. my family came from northern mexico. my father was especially proud of his indigenous roots, comanche and navajo. we moved to california when my father was forced to retire. that opened up higher education for me because community college was free in california. i studied at delta college,
earned an associate's agree. i transferred to s.f. state, and i was often the only student of color in any of my classes. my grassroots activism started in the ethnic strike. we didn't win all of our demands, but ethnic studies is now included and growing in area schools. in 2019, i was invited to speak at the city college ethnic studies teach-in during black history month. i told the students that as a former student and community college teacher and administrator, i was passing the baton onto them in the struggle for social justice. as i finished speaking, i should and could go one more lap on the city college board
of trustees. i'm running with the support of students, faculty, and trustees that are just as concerned as i am. too many classes have been cancelled, outcomes for black and brown students need to be improved. my campaign is not me, it's about sharing what i learn frd my work experience, being a student, teacher, and vice chancellor at city college. it's about keeping city college a community college, a college of and for the community. >> hi. i'm dr. vic trolgary. i'm a former senior university administrator with 15 years of experience in higher education. i i am grated to the united states when i was 12 years old. my parents never even finished high school. i struggled through the e.s.l. system, and we were quite poor.
i know just what our students are experiencing because this was my old life. i worked hard to transfer to a four-year school. i worked hard by earning pell grants, and scholarships, and taking out some student loans. i went onto get a ph.d. in political science. i taught at a university level, and i game the chief of staff at the university of california riverside, and since then, i've helped manage universities, i've guided campus master plans. i've helped hire some of the diverse faculty members across the state of california and directed budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars. this is everything that city college desperately needs to be doing right now. i'm still a professor of
political science, because i will always return to teaching, but i have directed a workforce of companies here in san francisco. i'm currently serving as cochair of the california democratic party, but i have worked on 600 resolutions to drive some of the best policies in the state. i have endorsements across the democratic party in san francisco. check out my comprehensive plans at victorforsf.com. >> my name is jeremy peter, and i'm running to represent you on the ccsf board. many people ask why i'm running in this year's election. i have a great job at an efficiency project manager. i love spending time with my partner, eric, and i love living here in the bayview. education has afforded me opportunities, and i believe that education is a human right.
advancing tuition free education allows our most vulnerable students a chance to make a difference in their lives. the climate crisis was my call to action. in march, san francisco voters approved $845 million bond for ccsf infrastructure improvements. using this deal, my greparty w put the green plan into action. environmental, financial, and educational sustainability are intertwined. with students as our guide is principle, we will appoint a community oriented chancellor who is committed to implementing a strategic plan that is interested in sustained eligibility and the sustainability. now more than ever we must be laser focused on providing
transparency on board matters and education for students that have been displaced by covid-19. i will -- am asking for your support to protect free education, upgrade our learning spaces, and camp i don't know the opportunities ccsf offers. as an ally of if a stoplight associations and student organizations, i will fight for you. >> i'm tim chronicle, and i'm proud to serve as the vice chair of the board of trustees. i know how important it is to have access to quality well funded public education. community college classes helped me get back on track when i got sick and had to drop out of high school, allowing me to graduate and enroll at san
francisco state university. this experience inspired me to run for the board of trustees in 2016, when i was elected to a four-year term. during my last four years serving as your representative on the city college board, i've worked with students, teachers, and staff to secure important victories for city college. i i ensured that our accreditation was reinstated for the next decade. i worked with if a ultimate to create the cannabis studies program. i helped create the workforce and education fund, and i fought for new resources and policies to support undocumented and lgbtq students. over the next four years, city college will need to combat severe funding cuts at the state and local level, put in place new support services to
help our communities succeed during this challenging covid-19 environment, and create workforce programs in areas like health care and technology to meet the needs of our changing economy. i have experience solving challenges like this and hope to continue to bring that experience and leadership to city college. >> i'm alan wong, and i'm running for college board to ensure it serves working and immigrant families like my own. i'm supported by a.f.t. local 2121 and seiu 1021. i was born and raised in san francisco, and my entire family went to city college. when my dad came to this country as an immigrant, he was laid off from his factually job, so i went to city college to improve his english. he learned about the city
college culinary program, and he supported my family as the sole provider for two decades. the training my dad received enabled my dad to afford housing in the sunset and get health care. my mom took e.s.l. classes that improved herself confidence and talking to family members. as a senior going to s.f. high, i took ccsf classes when i was a junior, helping me to graduate from u.c. san diego when i was just 19 years old. i expanded city college into the sunset by working with city college, sfusd and local nonprofits, and i spent a year writing the city college workforce and recovery fund education legislation to ensure that we provide opportunities for our working families during covid-19. today, my dad has been played off, like many other service sector workers.
city college is a place of hope and opportunity, where my dad was able to start a new career. i'm running so city college can once again be that place where miraculous things can happen for working families like my own. >> my unanimoname is han so, a running for the board of trustees because it was education that changed my life. i immigranted to the u.s. when i was six years old. my mom was the first person in her family to go to college, where she studied public health, and my dad and i and my two grandparents were able to come to this country. the five of us lived in a one-bedroom apartment for the first five years. like a lot of immigrant families here in san francisco, my grandparents took care of my while my mom worked to pay the rent and my mom focused on her studied. i still remember my mom teaching me the words hello and
bathroom before putting me on the bus and sending me on the way to the first day of school. my first job was at asian law caucus where i worked to bring education services to asian and a.p.i. families as well as undocumented immigrants. as executive director of the democratic party, i staffed the agenda. city college is hugely important to our community and towel all immigrant and working class families, and as trustee, i want to bring my experience and my background to ensure that post pandemic, the communities that have been most affected by the shutdown can use city college to learn new skills in a new economy. i'm proud to be endorsed by the
locate the candidates and local ballot measures if those residents are u.s. citizens at least 16 years old and registered to vote. local candidates include candidates for city offices, the board of education, and the community college board of trustees. if you vote yes, you want to amend the charter to allow san francisco residents to vote for local candidates and ballot measures if they are at least 16 years old and registered to vote. if you vote no, you do not want to make this change. i'm here with chair achung, a proponent of the measure. we'll also joined by ricky green burg. a political commentator who is
an opponent of the measure. thank you for being here. >> -- when you are a16, this is a much better age to start the lifelong habit of voting, and you can make the informed decision with the support of teachers, peers, and families. allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote will make it more likely that they will continue voting as older adults. additionally, 16 and 17 year olds care and will use their vote. 16 and 17 year olds are the ones organizing major protests
throughout the city such as the mission high school and golden gate bridge protests, and they continue to carry this momentum, organizing and holding elected officials accountable. in cities, such as tacoma park in maryland, the voter turn out rate of 16 and 17-year-olds is double the rate of the general electorate. >> thank you, sarah. we're going to move to ritchie for our opening statements. >> thank you so much for having me. prop g is asking the questions, should 16 and 17 year olds be allowed to vote in city
elections? voters should reject this as being a nonserious question this election day. there are three real factors in what we need to consider: legality, the maturity, and the effects of social indoctrinatetion in school and social media. 16 and 17 year olds are still children in the eyes of the law and incapable of performing many tasks that we can do as adults. children cannot sign contracts. they cannot purchase a rent a car, own a house, own a business. how can we let teens vote on such important issues such as property taxes, changes to city government operations? the concept of teen voting is absurd. the second idea of maturity, that often, we see through research and reports from
psychologists, that cognitive functions, functions rational decision making are not developed until the mid20's, and the third is social justice indoctrination in schools are being pushed by the curriculum, so for those issues, we should vote no. >> thank you, ritchie. i think both of you touched on this, but we'll start with you, ritchie. 16 and 18 are just two years apart, so why do you believe that these two years do or don't make a difference? >> well, there's two ways to look at it. in a maturity way, there's some 16 year olds -- i know someone
or my next-door neighbor or my brother or my sister is so much more mature, but i already touched on this in my introduction is legality. 18 years old is the age of the majority. it's the age that society and the laws have been written to say that this is the point that now, you can function as an adult. we trust you at this point. there has to be some time, some age that we start. you can't keep getting lower and lower and lower, and 18 has been what has been the established for all the legality for signing contracts, joining the army, and more. >> same question to you, sarah. why 16? >> like i mentioned in my opening statement, when you're 18, you're in a time transition, you're going off to college, you're moving away, and this becomes very difficult to figure out how to register to vote or registration to vote
or going to vote can become on the back burner. when you're 16, you're learning about civics and u.s. history, and this makes an ideal time to learn about voting for the first time, and you're supported by peers and family and teachers to make that decision. actually, 16 year olds have the same political knowledge as 21 year olds. when you're 16, you have something called cold could cognition, and this is the thinking process necessary for voting. hot cognition is the more spur of the moment thinking, which is not fully developed when you're 16. voting is more on the cold
cognition. >> thank you. >> yeah, of course. >> and we're going to do the second question, and it's going to go to you, sarah, first. >> so a second message was put before the voters in 2016 and did not pass. four years later, however, san francisco faces new challenges, and we are revisiting the idea of youth voting, why do you believe now is the time for this measure to pass? >> well, i think that especially what's been going on politically in the past four years has made it so that young people feel very spurred to take action. like i mentioned, youth are at the action of so many social justice movements that have arisen the last few years, such as the black lives matter movement or climate justice. young people are continuing to fight and hold elected
officials account. but we see that young people are continuing to demand action from elected officials for years on and for years on because as cliche as it sounds, it is most definitely our future, so 16 and 17 year olds are taking action in a way that we haven't seen them taking action in the past. we can see that 16 and 17-year-olds care about issues and how they affect us. >> same question to you, ritchie. this was voted down fairly recently, so why do you think that it's not the time to take this up? >> it's time to put this to rest and never bring it up again. holding officials accountable has nothing to do with teen voting, has nothing to do with climate action, has nothing to do with black lives matter. what we really need to look at
is the indoctrination of children in school. social justice is not the way to run elections. we have students in school, including that teachers that bring their kids out of class to participate in protests and marches is not a way to teach civics. it's not a way to rationally show both sides or more than one side to an argument. we see over and over again that there's the indoctrination. the children don't know what their protesting, and we don't need this. >> currently, the 16 and
17-year-old population in san francisco is did he dominantly people of color. allowing 16 and 17 years old to vote will help ensure that young people of color are represented in our democracy. additionally, 16 and 17 years old should get a say about issues that affect us. under covid-19, 16 and 17 years old are the most impacted as they have many responsibilities. on top of education, they also take care of household duties and can get a job and pay taxes, some even taking on jobs of essential workers. 13% of grocery store workers are groce 16 and 17 years old. also, this is not a new idea. there are 14 cities in the u.s. that allow 16 and 17 years o-y
we have -- we hope this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other measures in this year's election, please visit the san francisco elections website. this year, all registered voters in california will be mailed a vote by mail ballot starting on october 5th. if you plan to return your ballot by mail, your ballot return envelope must be postmarked by-election day, tuesday, november 3rd." alternatively, you may drop off your ballot in person starting october 5th at the city hall voting center located outside of the auditorium monday through friday, 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. you can also drop off your ballot at the voting center on the two weekends before election day from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. make sure to vote in person at one of the 588 locations across the city or at city hall on tuesday, november 3rd. thank you. [♪]
>> hello. i'm shawnna longhorn with the league of women voters. along with the league and sfgovtv, i'm here to discuss proposition f, a ballot that will be before the voters on tuesday, november 3. the city collects taxes from san francisco businesses, including the payroll expense tax, the gross receipts tax, the administrative office tax, the annual business registration fee, the child care tax, and the homelessness
tax. the child care and homelessness taxes have been challenged in court, and the money collected through these taxes has not been spent by the city. state law limits the amount of revenue, including tax revenue, the city can spend each year. state law authorizes san francisco voters to approve increases to this limit to last for four years. proposition f would change certain taxes the city collects from san francisco businesses, including eliminate the payroll expense tax, increase the gross receipts tax rate in phases, expand the small business exemption, and eliminate the credit for businesses that pay a similar tax elsewhere. increase the administrative office tax rate in phases, and change the business registration fee. proposition f would further increase the city's business taxes if the city loses either of the child care tax or
homelessness tax lawsuits, but it would exclude money collected from these increases when determining baseline spending. it would also increase the city's spending for the next four years. if you vote yes, you want to overhaul the business tax structure. if you vote no, you do not want these changes. >> i'm here with jennifer brooks, a proponent of the measure. we're also joined by starchild, a libertarian, and an opponent of the measure. we're going to begin with some opening statements, and we will begin with star child. >> yes. this is starchild, the libertarian party of san francisco. we believe that tax adding on right now is just absolutely the wrong time. there's so many businesses
suffering under the lockdowns. i live in the castro, and it just seems that every other business is closed and boarded up. the measure, furthermore, is so confusing. it's, like, 125 pages long, and reading through it, i couldn't even tell on my own what it was going to do. so i'm substantially relying on the controller's statement which says it's going to be nearly a $100 million tax increase. i think it's egregious whenever they pass measures that are so complicated that the average person reading them, everyone someone who's somewhat familiar with reading these kinds of measures can't really tell what's going on, and i'd be happy to hear the proponents spell out exactly what the different aspects of these measures are and how they affect everybody. but from what we can tell, it's a huge tax increase and it
comes at a time when businesses are already super struggling in the city. getting rid of the payroll tax would be terrific, but there is a net tax increase. i don't think this is something that anyone was clamoring for, and i think people should vote no. >> thank you, starchild. we'll move to jennifer. >> thank you. mission neighborhood center has been a community anchor in the mission district for more than 60 years, and it's really from that vantage point that i've seen the impact that the pandemic has had on san francisco families, and that is why i feel very strongly that we must pass proposition f. at this time, san francisco is facing three distinct crises that have come out of the pandemic. the first is job loss. more than 5,000 businesses
across the city have shut their doors since the pandemic began. the second is child care sector. it's operating at half its capacity because of the need for social distancing, and third, our city government is facing potentially a $1.5 billion shortfall over the next three years. this proposition will help all of these factors. it will help businesses like hotels and recreation. it will unlock $400 million of voter approved child care funding that is currently tied up because of litigation, and third, it will contribute $156 million towards balancing our city budget, and finally, it will create more than 2,000 jobs over the next two years.
at the same time proposition f addresses our immediate needs, it solves some long-term needs that have become apparent during the pandemic. sfesk o specifically, our outdated taxes -- >> sorry to cut you off, but we're going to go to questions. the first question, jennifer, will go to you. san francisco is facing a budget shortfall of $1.5 billion due to the covid-19 pandemic. this amendment is part of an attempt to address this deficit. why do you believe it's the right way to do so? >> so, there are a couple of reasons. first, because it helps small businesses, and they are the ones facing the critical and are in need of tax relief right now. what this measure does is it rebalances who's paying the
business taxes. it is not a new tax. it is overall the same net amount of taxes, it just ensures that small businesses get relief, and bigger sector, particularly the information sector, pays its fair share. >> starchild, same question to you, except why do you believe this is not the right way to address the potential deficit? >> well, it's not revenue neutral. you don't help small businesses by taxing them more. the people running city government, they always seem to portray these things as a choice between, you know, well, we have a budget shortfall, so we either have to cut services that you want or raise your taxes, but they never look at the third option, which is to cut their own budget. there's thousands of people in city departments who are making six-figure salaries.
you think they could tighten their belts, quite frankly. it's not too much to ask when so many other businesses, people have lost their jobs or businesses have entirely had to close. i don't see anything that's going to create 2,000 jobs is pie in the sky speculation. taxing the information sector? that's what's been driving the san francisco economy years and years, the tech economy. there's real risk of losing -- losing the goose that laid the golden egg, tech being driven out of town if they continue unfriendly policies. >> thank you. thank you. we're going to go to the next question, and we'll start with star child. the question is san francisco's child care and homelessness taxes has been challenged in court, and the money that's ae been collected through these
taxes has not been spent by the city. if this prop is passed, that will free up these funds for the city. what's your position on that? >> well, we don't believe those propositions should have been passed in the first place. i think there's academic questions about the ledger being written illegally skprks that should skprks -- and that should be allowed to finish winding its way through the courts. the government should not be rewarded for doing things illegally. there's a number of places where they did not follow the law in the language in terms of how measures are presented in the ballot handbook, and in some cas cases, they're presen them in a biased manner.
they shouldn't sweep that under the rug and allow them to take this money and keep imposing the tax going forward. you know, it's -- it's good to have child care, but if people don't even have jobs to go to, they're not going to need child care, and they're going to kill jobs by raising taxes. there's no reason why this shouldn't have been written revenue neutral. there's no reason why taxes should be going up. >> sorry to interrupt you. we need to move to jennifer. >> first, a rebuttal. this would replace the payroll tax with a gross receipts tax and increase the number of small businesses that are exempt, and it would also reduce business registration fees. now onto why child care. early care and education chaz high quality is demonstrated to be more effective antipoverty strategies than any other on children, on parent, and even
their grandparents. we need to increase and continue our investment in this essential service. we need to be able to shore up the programs that are at the brink of collapse at this critical moment, and we need to invest in proposition f. >> thank you, jennifer. so at this point, we're going to move into the closing comments, and we'll start with star child. >> yeah. again, the bottom line is that this is a major, almost $100 million year estimated tax increase per the controller, and the measure is 125 pages long, very confusing about exactly what the effects are going to be, and, again, confusing legislation tends to have a disproportionately bad impact on small businesses because they don't have armys of lawyers working for them to figure this stuff out. it's, again, going after the
wrong target. it's going after businesses in the voluntary sector rather than the coercive sector to cut their budgets. of course, the supervisors making six figure salaries can be return today what it was not that many years ago, you know, under $100,000 a year. $99,000 i think, is enough to be made in city government. they don't need to be paid at citizens' expense. if it they want more funding for child care, again, reducing the payroll tax would be great, but there's no need to impose greater taxes that are going to unfavorably affect the business climate at a time when businesses are already struggling. i have not heard a good reason why this particular measure is -- is the way, why they could not have made another measure that doesn't raise taxes overall.
>> thank you. closing statement from jennifer. >> thank you. so san francisco was also facing a crisis in child care and education and unbalanced taxes for small businesses even before the pandemic, and the pandemic has always exacerbated each of these challenges. i've done my homework. proposition f will address our immediate needs while addressing long-standing programs that have become more apparent during the pandemic. struggling businesses need tax relief, parents need child care, and children need early learning and our economy needs a stimulus to restart and recover. proposition f will enable us to help small businesses who are struggling, unlock voter approved child care funding, balance our local budget, and create jobs, and that i why i
think we must say yes on f. >> thank you both fof for your comments and your time. we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other measures in this year's election, please visit sfelections.org. this year, all voters in california will be mailed a vote by mail ballot starting on october 5. if you plan to raurn your ballot by mail, your ballot must be post marked by election day, tuesday, november 3. alternatively, you may drop off your ballot in person starting on october 5. you can always drop off your ballot at the city hall voting center starting two weeks before election day, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and if you don't mail in voting, vote in person
at one of the 500 locations across the city and at city hall on tuesday, november 3. >> hi. my name is matt alexander, and i'm a teacher, and a community organizer. our public schools are stretched to the breaking point. to address this crisis, we need school board members who value the voices of the people who do the work in schools and classrooms. i started teaching at balboa high school in 1996 and spent 20 years as a teacher and principle since then in the san francisco public schools.
in this moment, we often need board members who understand how to create change in a complex system. i helped lead a grassroots community organizing effort that resulted in the founding of a new public school, june jordan school for equity, one of the most innovative high schools in this city. four years ago, i supported immigrant students to rewrite sfusd's policy for immigrant students. i spent ten years as a principal of june jordan high school, where we spent a strong track record of positive outcomes of black and latinx students and students with special needs. i've led campaigns to get people released from i.c.e. detention and help families
facing eviction. if we work together, this crisis actually gives us the opportunity to strengthen our public schools and make them the center piece of a san francisco that truly reflects the progressive values this city stands for. i would be honored if you would join me in that effort. >> hello. i'm honored to speak to you to tell you a little bit about myself and the future of san francisco schools and to ask for your endorsement for the san francisco school board. my name is andrew allston. i am a public schoolteacher in east oakland. i love being a teacher and fighting every day to make sure my students progress toward their goals. my perspective as a teacher is important because it allows me to understand how to balance the needs of students, teachers, and family. this is something that i believe the school board needs more of. historically, our school district has struggled to be the best version of itself. we continue to see achievement gaps between rich and poor, and between our white students and students of color.
the emergence of the coronavirus pandemic has exacerbated these gaps and made solutions more crucial. tax laws are important, but they won't address the issues that our struggling families are facing in real-time right now. our most vulnerable families need things like equitable access to the internet, meals, and our teachers need innovative solutions and training making schools work. this is a pivotal moment that offers a unique opportunity to not just put band-aids on issues that have plagued our district for decades. thing like de facto school segregation and the lack of public bussing. we can make the necessary decisions that change our students' lives for the better. this will be my focus when i'm elected to the school board.
i'd be honored to have your endorsement, and i'd like to have your note in november. i plan on being your partner as we fight to make our schools the best in fact nation. >> hello. my name is michelle parker, and i i i'm running for a seat on the san francisco school board. i want our students to feel value, to have a high quality education and leave our schools with confidence. our school district is in a massive crisis. we face a budget shortfall and we are trying to educate students in the middle of a pandemic, and our systems at every level haven't been set up to support families. the reality is that even before the pandemic, our schools haven't worked for the record lots much our students. we need to elect leaders who can lead through this crisis and address these issues. i will lead with urgency and
compassion, with integrity and commitment. i have revenue ideas that are innovative and will ensure that we are spending our money on items that have the most impact on students. i will work with the city to address the foundational causes of the opportunity gap for many of our students. housing and food insecurity, unemployment, and public health, so we can close that gap faster while also expanding the practices that are closing the gap in some schools by double digits each year. i was president of the san francisco p.t.a., serving and supporting more than 60 schools. i guided us through an organizational merger and a complicated process with the city as we became tenants of the geneva power house in the sunset district. i have oversight experience. i was coshare of the school district aways parcel tax oversight committee for two
years, ensuring $32 million was spent to improve teaching in our district. please vote for me on november 3, and check out my website at michelleparker.org. >> hi. i'm joel. i worry about san francisco's future because san francisco has worried about the families for too long. the budget has doubled in a
decade and nothing is twice as good. now we're facing massive deficits. city hall has to stop treating residents like a never ending a.t.m. we need to audit every program and only pay for what works. we noticed crimes like burglary and homicide are up, so we still need police to protect the public, and we can't forget about the victims of crime. i've lived in san francisco for 22 years. i've lived in district seven for a decade. i worked for many years as a journalist. i worked hard at city hall to give residents a choice. i was raised by my single mom and grandmother. they didn't have much education, but they taught me how to get things done with the
resources i have. i'm running for supervisor to be an advocate for parents, small businesses, and homeowners. city hall should be treating them like customers, without without them, we don't have a city. an entrepreneur should be able to open a business without road blocks. people should feel safe living here. that means focusing on the basics and getting the basics right: clean streets, less crime, and better services. my name is joel engardio. please, vote joel engardio on your ballot. >> hello. my name is steven martin pinto, and i hope to be your next district 7 supervisor. my family has lived here since 1848. i have been involved in local politics ever since i moved
back after leaving the military in 2014. i've served as president of the sunnyside neighborhood association, secretary of the west of twin peaks central council, and commissioner of veterans affairs. i'm different from anyone else running in the entire city. honesty, straight talk, availability, and common sense. when was the last time you hear anyone mention those as themes of their campaign. when i decided to run, i decided to always tell the truth and never hold back. as supervisor, i plan to take a bold stance on the issues. first of all, i will have a see ror tolerance policy for crime, garbage, and drug dealing on our streets, and that position is nonnegotiatable. second, i will audit all the nonprofits that do business with the city to discover fraud
and abuse. our homeless need real help. i will not defund the police. instead, i will seek to increase funding while pushing for the construction of a multiacre, fully modern joint police-fire training facility. i will aggressively expand muni metro by pushing for the construction of more subways and supported light rail. finally, i will do whatever it takes to protect small business by reducing fees and permits. i humbly ask for your first, second, our third choice votes. let's bring common sense back to san francisco polictics. >> my name is ben matranga. as a new father and a first time homeowner, i know the stakes in this election are high, and i know our city is
calling out for leaders that can use common sense, standup for our values, and actually deliver on our promises. as your supervisor, i will focus on helping small businesses and local residents recover from covid-19. i will work to address homelessness with compassion and accountability. let me tell you about my background. i was born and raised in district 7. i'm a fifth generation san franciscan, and i met my wife in high school at st. ignatius. professionally, i've worked with entrepreneurs building hospitals and transportation infrastructure around the world. i've served on the board of five companies, and i've led multimillion dollar investments alongside the u.s. government, the world bank, and for tune
500 companies -- fortune 500 companies. previously, i worked for mayor ed lee and serves as san francisco -- served as san francisco's first ever pedestrian director. we were able to cut red tape, and we delivered more than 13 miles of improvements, on time and under budget. i led our neighborhood emergency response to covid-19, and we've distributed over 5,000 masks. i've been endorsed by dianne feinstein, and former district 7 supervisor tony hall. i respectfully ask for your number one vote this election. thank you. >> hi. my name is myrna melgar, and i'm a candidate for the board of supervisors district 7. i am a mother of three girls and have lived in ingleside terrace with my family for the
past 2e7 yearten years. i was a legislative aide to two members of the board of supervisors: jose medina and eric mar and also worked for mayor good afternoon newsom. i was -- gavin newsom. i was also the president of the planning commission until january of this year. the policy decisions we made today to adapt to changes on housing, employment, land use, transportation services, and the investments we make to our infrastructure can pave the way to our continuing future as a world class city of opportunity. i i mmigrated to san francisco
from el salavador. my life experience has given me a unique ability to negotiate through conflict and make progress on the things that i believe in and to understand that income inequality is not a sustainable system, and we need to tackle our homelessness and afford janel affordable housing crisis. i will support my d-7 community and rebuild a san francisco of opportunity and compassion, a city where no one gets left behind. thank you. >> after serving as a city official for 20 years under five mayor, i was leaving my position of the san francisco department on the status of women the very week that mayor breed issued the shelter in place order. i had a choice to make. should i gather up the beautiful bouquets or declare
my candidacy in d-7 to help my city, my neighbors? raised in san francisco, i've lived in district 7 with my spouse for over 15 years and raised our two adult daughters here. i'm the only candidate in this race who won elections before. as a city department head, i was held accountable for every public dollar i spent. with a focus on ending violence against women, i managed my department budget through the 2008 downturn and doubled our budget with $10 million in outside funning, by partnering with law enforcement and neighborhood advocates, we eliminated domestic violence
homicide to zero. this race is about what it means to be san franciscans. we all want the safe things: to live in a safe neighborhood and to live in a city that treats everyone humanely. i will fight to strengthen our over 40 distinct neighborhoods in district 7. i will fight to expand public safety with more community policing and foot patrols, and i will fight to sustain our local businesses with new ways of doing business. i'm emily murase for district 7 supervisor, and i ask for your number one vote on election day.