tv Government Access Programming SFGTV August 16, 2019 3:00am-4:01am PDT
a part of the data. we want to continue to work on a revolving loan program, and the proposal of that we had zero% interest. again, his projects impact businesses, what we want to help them do is meet their cash flow during the course of that project, knowing that they would fully recover, and as they pay back those loans, we would go for future businesses that would face that situation in the future. that is my presentation. thank you. >> thank you. i know this issue is of great concern to virtually every member of this body, and i appreciate that the m.t.a. is taking this seriously. i do have to put it in a little bit of context, and i'm not pointing fingers or crying about spilled milk, but it is rather astounding that we are playing
such a game of catch up. i am not pointing at you, it is better late than never, but whether it is the central subway , which is far behind schedule, and as that gentleman with the red hair to my right sitting behind the commissioner reported, it is going to be further delayed, and now i actually am going to point a finger because i said to this reporter when he called, and i said the project management oversight reports that the central subway was going to be even later and that the whole construct that it was still on budget, behind schedule but on budget, may no longer be true, either, and i said the truth, which was, alberto from the sfmta stance in front of all 11 of us and repeatedly says it will be in revenue service on december 31st of 2019, and we
will not be overbudget. it turns out, it is time to rip the band-aid off of that lie, but the reason i am saying that is because the businesses on the 1,900 blocks on stockton street will be, excuse my french, screwed. we have known about that for years. and then we go headlong into, sorry for getting this off my chest, but then we go headlong into venice be rt, knowing that all of the lessons of the central subway, these are major projects, i'm not questioning their needs or their eventual benefit, and there you have on van ness, 572 days, it just made up the number, was somewhere around there, behind schedule. we have already depressed reports of businesses going out of business. i get calls and we will hear from a woman today who runs a
gym on van this avenue who has a landlord who i called yesterday, who has no understanding because he doesn't live in san francisco , that the value of his property has plummeted and he still thinks that it is worth only $4 a square foot, it is worth probably half that. this woman is at her wits and as she should be. i appreciate all this, what it is a minuscule effort. it was a gratuity. it was like a reparations payment of a fraction of what they have suffered at our behest we are the decision-makers who decided to build this 1.6 billion-dollar project, which is in a norma's amount of money, by
the way, if it were not for my ten colleagues, public works not like the idea of giving them money, sfmta did not like the idea of giving them money, the last mayor did not like the idea of giving them money. their income has been cut in half. i was going to go to dinner right across the avenue from supervisor stefani. it was boarded up and shut. that is what is happening. at any right, i appreciate this. i want to get the money out the door. i don't want to hear this again in december, and in january, and i don't want it to be a remarkably complicated process. we will hear from her in a minute. if she has to go hire somebody
in order to fill out the forms and get a c.p.a. and a lawyer to fill all the stuff out, then it is worthless. we have a lot of crises, but this is a real-life crisis. it is happening all the way through four supervisorial districts in realtime. i want to cry but the person that got killed by a tesla, want to be -- i want to cry about all these businesses that are getting forced out by us. with that, thank you. that was really cathartic. >> i didn't know if you were going to stop. [laughter] thank you, chair. i just have to say, is a person that was really pushing for this during our conversation, this has been exceedingly frustrating is oewd in the house? please come forward.
i think the simplest thing to do is have the money work order and have oewd manage this. this is not an sfmta program. this is not in your wheelhouse. this is probably why it has taken so long for you to get to where you are and icy frustration on all my colleagues ' faces. we have a project coming up in a year that will be a significant impact on mission street. it is the improvement project, but there will be a lot of construction and a lot of delays to one of the parts of town that already has a one of the highest rates of vacancy. all of these businesses are already under assault. $500,000 is maybe half a month's rent for some of these places. i think it is more on the magnitude of ten to 25,000-dollar grant. i think the majority of the money should be grants. i don't think a revolving loan, asking anyone to take out a loan when they are already, the businesses on the brink of shutting down as is pointed out in some of these instances, i
think there needs to be -- anisa be completely simplified, it should be in the office of economic and workforce development, we should be hearing directly from you. this is something that ultimately should go to the sfmta. this should just be quickly proposed, simplified, grants, out the door, help these businesses survive and anticipate where the remaining schedule of construction is. i gave my stuff to oewd. i see them somewhat reflected in here. i think $5,000 is not enough. should be on the magnitude of up to $25,000 grant. i don't think loans is the appropriate strategy to take. i don't think this is something that will be revolving. this is about getting them money out, getting it out quickly, and helping these businesses survive that is it.
>> i have actually tried having a discussion about robust no interest loans and about whether or not that would be helpful to them. i have generally gotten a yes to that. and the reason i'm saying that is because if we did have a robust revolving loan fund that can be used for years and projects ahead, in the business of microlensing, those people actually pay that money back. if we can help them survive for a period of time, get that money back, and use it again, that may be the right course, but i think we should have a conversation about that. commissioner brown? >> i just want some clarification. i know there's 5 million in the pot, but there's actually two kinds of projects. we have the m.t.a. project which is gary and venice, and we have the d.p.w. projects which is paid cash.
i think it was in her sunset, those projects, so are you telling me -- and i thank you recommended cash payments to the m.t.a., which would be gary and that this -- then nass, is that correct? >> yes, just to be -- the 5 million of the fund came from the general fund set aside that goes to the m.t.a. for pedestrian safety projects or four fleet replacement or all the things related to that. we have significant projects that are going on right now that are major transit projects in san francisco including then nass, terra bill, central simply , so course what we are hearing from this commission is those are major knees. we need to get the money out for those people. however, the mtas a partner on a number of other projects in san francisco where we are heading pedestrian bowls or the element
of our project is not that impact will overall when you're looking at m.t.a. specific improvements. is part of a larger citywide project to replace sewer or water line and doing repaving. the idea of doing revolving loan fund using m.t.a. budgeted fund is recognizing we are a partner in a significant number of projects in san francisco and we have equal responsibility being part of the city family to contribute to that. both for public policy reasons. , was secondarily, also correct to have a fund where we are a partner with other projects, and those funds can be made available to those businesses on these corridors. >> i guess my question is, because i'm thinking of haight-ashbury, it is summertime , this is where they make most of their money because they are a tourist area, and i have porsche to try to make sure
that the sidewalks are not ripped up until after labor day, but i have also heard from merchants that a lot of them stores have been close during the time when sidewalks are ripped up because they won't be able to afford to have staff come in, and they won't be able to afford it without that kind of business. so we are looking at a revolving loan, but i guess my worry is that what if people don't make it through and then they are supposed to pay a loan back? i am really worried about that. i know that the merchants have said to me, how long do i have to pay it back, what -- what if i don't survive this construction project? there are all of these questions i'm merchants are asking. to take your name and sign, you are responsible. i worried that i would be out of business and two years. i would be stuck with this loan.
it would be an insult to injury with the situation. i just need to know what these terms are on the loan. >> thank you. i think terms on the loan are yet to be determined. there is a suggestion to connect with merchants so they can provide them guidance and feedback on the terms. i think what wait we are looking at right now is the present interest. i think there's a lot of flexibility in terms of how we work with the underwriters to make that work. i think what the intention is to make sure the business stays afloat during the construction period and we can support them throughout the process. every time a grant is given or provided, or a loan in this case , the tenants are provided with working with pro bono consultants so they can implement their business plan or improve their business plan during that time as well. >> what if they close? what if they hang on for that year or year and a half and then
they close because they just don't have the business? are they going to be on the hook for that loan? >> in short, we would work with them to figure out a payment -- a payment plan and what that can look like. this is building upon our current revolving loan fund, which there is a 96% repayment rate from our current small businesses. >> so can we look at, if they don't seem business that they don't have to pay that loan back if this construction project drives them out of business, can we really look at that there is a forgivable loan? >> we can explore that option, yes. >> and one other question, so you were doing the finishing touches on the inner sunset, the construction project. there are still some things that are being worked on. with those merchants have suffered for two years and they weren't offered this, and they are still suffering from, you
know, the project not being completed. will they still be eligible, even though they are at the end of the project? >> that is a good question. again, as chair peskin mentioned , we're doing catch up on all of this. i think what we're trying to do is set up a program with clear criteria related to at least in the grant side, the sfmta related projects. if we again were a factor within a certain window, yes, it should be open to them based on the impacts of that project, but then again, 24 month project, we're talking about the most significant ones in the city, but again, if the criteria is met, yes, absolutely, they would be able to access these. >> thank you. >> commissioner walton? >> thank you, chair peskin. i just want to start off by talking a little bit about this because, in some cases, we as a city are putting people out of business by no fault of their own because of the duration of
construction, the type of construction, what is happening in construction. some people are losing their business. not because they didn't have clientele, not because their business model, would you keep going back to with technical assistance. we had a conversation in this chamber last meeting, very specific about coming up with a strategy to give people financial support, to mitigate the impacts of when they are going into construction. even when we are having constructions about this -- don't think i can speak for least a couple of my colleagues, i don't think our intent was to have to hire a whole bunch of new stuff to come over they strategy to give out money. i know sfmta and i have -- and they -- it is not a primary function of sfmta. it is just real frustrating --
and we're not talking about a whole lot of money today. of course, we will probably work on strategies to come up with more resources to mitigate impacts because we are putting people out of businesses a city. we have to care about that. that is very important that we change that. and so, i also know that we were not envisioning loans. how are we going to be responsible for putting somebody out of business and then asked them to pay back money loss of revenue that they did not cause? that is dysfunctional, is arbitrary to what we were talking about, and the whole purpose of putting these resources -- i don't know if people felt that we had this conversation in a chamber and we would just letting out hot air and letting out steam under going to come back with something that doesn't actually address what we want to do week later, how long are we going to
play this back and forth? these are real businesses that are suffering at the hands of construction here in san francisco. there has to be a way we don't have to hire a whole bunch of new people, to put something in place that says, we can do analysis on how much money they are losing with their previous revenue love prior to construction, what it will look like the forecast everything else without having to take six months to a year to come up with this strategy and this process to help small businesses that are being impacted now. the loan is not going to help a business that is suffering. so hopefully we are coming up with strategies. this is what we're going to do to help you survive in san francisco where you're already probably playing -- paying extremely high rent, you're already having to deal with m.c.o., minimum wage, everything
we fight for and are excited about, but we need to help small businesses be successful. and the construction impacts are very real. everybody in this room knows that. we can't can keep coming back with strategies that are going to make it worse and actually not help. i don't know what we are doing in these rooms to where we think that makes sense. it is unfair to do that, it is unfair to take up time in this chamber to go in circles. when i know how intelligent all of you are, i know how well you all work in terms of coming up with strategies and solutions. let's just do it, do something concrete and tangible to support our businesses to where our next conversation is how we are excited about how we saved a business or how we kept someone from going out of business, and we did that in good faith and making sure that we were really
responsible about responding to the needs of some of our small businesses. i hope we can come up with the strategy that does that. >> i don't know if you want to respond to that. >> my one response is, i can make a guarantee that it will be a complete work order to the office of economic and workforce development. i think the question for public policy is it is $5 million to build a one-time five million-dollar chunk, and how can we help as many businesses as we can in an attempt to make it sustainable for all the projects we know we will have in san francisco. >> as we are grappling -- by the way, that is the trade-off between direct grants and no interest, unsecured loans, but before we have that discussion, colleagues, we are the body in this incarnation as the t.a. that is the funding agency that funds vileness prt, gary street
purity, central subway, you name it. all of those funds flow through this agency. we don't have to have this 5 million-dollar construct. the reason agencies have historically fought mitigation payments to impacted business is because it increases project costs. it is not that earth shattering a concept. if you want to take care of your businesses, it is going to reduce the amount of money you have for building rail or building prt or whatever it is. so maybe it should be the policy of this body that we don't approve projects that do not have robust mitigation payment programs for impacted businesses , and maybe we should say, right now, we are not going to fund anymore gary bart until
the budget is revised to take care of every impacted business. we are not going to fund better market street until phase one is absolutely taken care of a relative to impacted businesses because, let's be real, they are going to be extremely impacted. maybe that should be -- then if we want to do that, projects will become more expensive, but we won't have to worry about loans versus grants, colleagues. otherwise, we are going to need to build a fund and recycle those monies. i'm just throwing out the pol -- public policy argument. i know you want to respond. >> supervisor peskin, i wasn't -- >> i'm sorry. commissioner walton, you still have the floor. >> i just want to say that when there is a problem, the solution
has to actually address the problem. to your points, and this is not the time to go back and forth about it, but the solution has to address the problem. loaning money to people who are losing money and going out of business does not address the mitigation -- does not address the problem. it just doesn't work. if you have nothing, and you are losing money, and you take out a loan, that is not beneficial to your business and it does not make an impact due to construction. so there's probably a longer conversation to have. obviously, some of us are going to be fighting more for additional resources to mitigate this in the long term, but the reality is, when you have a problem, the solution has to address that problem. a loan does not address that problem. in fact, it makes it worse, at a
higher percentage of cases when you're going out of business. >> i totally understand what you're saying. commissioner yee? >> i probably could just pull a recording of what i said five years ago in a similar discussion. there are other constructions going on around the city and impacting businesses. at the time it was oewd. at the time, i said what we need is to provide money for these people that are losing money to stay afloat, that it is not all rocket scientist to figure out how much they are losing.
they have gross receipts, they have profit margins, is easily calculated. it is not that hard. i was never in favour of loans because of exactly what commissioner walton said. what are you going to do? pay back the loan when you are out of business? and it is. i mentioned, at the time, that if we are going to do this, yes, this budget is into our projects yes, it will increase the costs of the projects, but at the same time, these projects are doing damage to our small businesses, and we need to do something about them. there is no way around to that. you either want to support it or you don't support our small businesses.
i would actually like to hear from the public. >> i will come back to, supervisor walton. >> i actually believe that we have the ability and the resources to do both. i think that during my time at community development, we actually work with local banks to help to fund a revolving loan fund for this type of activity and for other types of microloans. i think we are conflating the issues. there is the ability for our department and our city to do microloans, particularly when businesses are in distress, and then there is what we have prioritized, which is the mitigation fund for construction i wouldn't necessarily be in favour of always asking construction project to factor that into the cost, maybe that is something we can talk about, but i think there's other creative ways -- what i would like to do with this money, and i think i have heard a lot of colleges -- people say, if he
did it 25,000, it is 200 businesses. so somewhere between 20500 businesses could be helped with this. i would prefer to do this in a grant process and by giving the charged oewd to go and talk to our local banks and the other banks, and asked them to then come in and put some money toward a revolving loan fund, that the city can then, either through our funds, or other oewd money going forward, that we can work with the mayor and the budget process to make a commitment to have that money on an ongoing basis, but for right now, the thing that i have heard from supervisor mark, supervisor brown, supervisor walton, supervisor yee, supervisor fewer , when she's talking about prt, and you, supervisor peskin, it's we need to get the money
out as quickly as possible, and some of these businesses are on the brink of shutting down. they don't have time to go through the bureaucratic process to fill out a micro loan. they just need the money. the good example is the san francisco giants program that you have. you're able to get the money out really quickly, you do it in a very expedited manner. i think that is the model, and you get it in an ongoing basis. that is what i would supports. i think you're absolutely right. we absolutely have to think about the sustainability. and i think that is where we give the charge that the economic and workforce development and go to local banks and other funders and ask for some ongoing funding for a revolving loan fund. >> before i call on commissioner walton, on every capital project that we do in the city and county of san francisco, we set aside 2% for arts. why can't we set aside some% for impacts to small business?
>> 2% for the arts. >> we certainly can have that debate, i agree. >> commissioner walton, then let's open it up for public comment. >> thank you, chair peskin. i will follow up via e-mail. >> thank you. we are open for public comment on this item that clearly has captivated every member of this commission. first speaker, please. >> first of all, supervisor peskin, i want to apologize for not being prepared well enough, but what is happening here, what was addressed in london, and they don't go around after the fact paying people compensation.
it is actually at the planning stage that all the mitigation is designed and does not actually give people permits until everything has been cleared. i will give you a typical example right now. in london, google is building a million square feet. i encourage you to go to a place called canal reach which is north of kings cross. what are you -- what you are going to observe is surreal. you're in a massive construction zone. i am going to be doing some more digging around. thank you. >> thank you. speaker, please. >> i am jim patrick from patrick and company. i'm one of these small businesses that people are talking about. in the planning department, we reach out to everyone and we are
going to move a sewer line in french. we have all these vehicles to reach out, and that is handy, but now we have a big project. we need to reach out to small businesses people and offer them some alternatives. alternatives that might be a cash cow, i sort of wonder about that, everyone will line up for that one. how about supporting the fees a bank might charge to arrange a loan? maybe there can be other ways we can package different alternatives so you present to the small business. we believe your business will be impacted by acts, it will drop 25%. we feel that you may need a loan , and if that is true, you will get a loan from a -- from banc a, b., or c., and we'll fund 5% of the loan and all of the fees. it could be something else rather then a giveaway but offer appropriate choices, much like the planning department goes out and solicits -- we will put in a
new sewer line in the front yard so everyone knows about it. the economics we know about, too , what we sort of sweep it under the table. i think we can do a better job about it. thank you. >> thank you. that was helpful. next speaker, please. just get right in front of that microphone. >> i own crossfit golden gate which i have been owning and operating on my own for seven years this month, actually. i have been there for almost five years now. my march revenue this year compared to last was down 7%. my april was down 12%, and my mate was down 20%. i haven't even looked at my jew numbers because i am too scared. i can't afford to continue on this trend, and by the time any
assistance is available, i will be done. this has been my livelihood for seven years. the decreased visibility, the lack of foot traffic has just demolished my income. construction dust has quadrupled my cleaning cost. i am spending more time vacuuming and mopping the floors than i ever have had to before, yet my rent continues to go up 3% every year. i can't afford a delay in help. i need help and i won't be able to pay back a loan to make up the income i have lost when i am catching up to get back to where i was, let alone trying to grow my business to keep up with my 3% increase in rent. i sit on the business advisory committee, i have reached out oewd, and the small business development centre, i have been talking to them since december. i have been trying to have a voice and trying to get help for
months now. i can't survive a delay. time is of the essence for me or i will be driving in newburgh before you know it. >> thank you. she is exhibit a. she is not the only one. everybody else is out there trying to make a living this morning, but i said to her, you know, i have called her landlord , i have worked with the assessor's office to come up with the proper square footage because her previous lease actually had more square footage in it then she actually had, i am a policymaker, i am a legislator, but i am doing the job that the sfmta should be doing that oewd should be doing, that miss mccarthy wants to do and has been paid to do, but does not have the tools and resources to do, this is not the only one. the one that went out of business, i forget the name of
the bar that went out of business that we all got to watch and feel bad about. i think it was actually in commissioner stefani's district. the bootleg, i think it was called. if we do not take care of this, do not be surprised when we stop funding these massive projects because, yes, to be do we want a new traction system on market street, of course, we do, these are our constituents, they are a vital part of the economy. i am just not going to vote for projects anymore unless they have large, built in budgets to take care of these people. i have said this before but i'm serious this time. somehow or another, i will give you her number. take care of that woman and her business. she is the vast majority -- he put the vast majority of her life into this.
it is our fault. i'm just saying. any members of the public, please come forward. if there's anybody after this speaker, they will be the last speaker. come on up, robin. >> i just decided at the last minute to come up on this. i live on gary boulevard. i want to know what the plans are for the consensus on gary with the prt plan coming up. i have been getting a couple letters already from mitchell engineering already, but we have lots of small businesses all over the place. i want to hear a discussion on those businesses not going out of business with this project. if you could address this, please. >> that is exactly what we're talking about here. that is exactly what we are talking about. >> are there any plans at all at this point, or are there zero plans right now to help businesses? >> i can't, as a matter of law, engagement in a dialogue with
you, but we are talking about here today in creating mitigation going forwards, and maybe going backwards. i'm sorry. >> okay. thank you, we are going to need it. thank you. >> public comment is closed. we look forward to continuing to work with you online and off-line. i apologize for my passion about this, but it just makes me want to cry, and then after i stop wanting to cry, i get angry, so that is what is happening here. all right. this is an information item. there is no action that we need to take. thank you for your work and attention to this. mr. clerk, called the next item. >> item 15. update to the self -- safe routes to school.
>> good morning, commissioners. thank you for having me today. i am the transportation and demand management program manager at the sfmta, one of the programs that is in my group is the safe routes to school coordination. safe routes to school is a suite of programs that are all aimed at making it easier and safer for students and school families to get to school using sustainable modes of transportation. i'm here today because we have part of our funding that comes from pop k. that includes not only several engineering programs that are focused on schools, but also a local match for our larchmont infrastructure program. we have been working on this for the past year and a half. about 18 months ago, you programs this funding to the sfmta to take over the oversight of the noninfrastructure program and rethink this safe routes to
school program more broadly. a year ago, my colleagues came to present our framework that we have been working on with our project partners about how the safe routes to school program could change going forward. over the past year, i have been working closely with the many different project partners in this program including the school district, the department of the environment, the department of public health, which is separated -- uprooted the program for the previous decade and several nonprofit partners that are all instrumental in delivering the safe routes to school work to san francisco. the framework that we presented a year ago laid out some new program priorities for the upcoming school years, and i will go through these quickly, but i have a slide on each of these. one goal is to expand the number of schools reached through this program, adopting new programmatic goals, one is to reduce single-family vehicle trips from 48% to 30% by 2030,
that is also this -- that is also the school district's adopted goal. do school reduce school area collisions by 50%, and then broadly have stronger coordination and coordination about the safe routes to school program with the school community and with each of you. in order to reach all schools, i wanted to clarify that the safety programs at -- that the m.t.a. and other partner organizations conduct are really available to all over 240 schools in san francisco. that includes public, private, charter schools, k. through 12. for the m.t.a. programs, we prioritize based on things like collision history and school population to make sure that any engineering efforts or crossing guards, and so forth, are directed at the locations of the greatest need for that support. the outreach that we do around mode shift and a lot of what the noninfrastructure program is focused on has historically been targeted at a smaller number of
schools, around 25 to 35 schools over the past decade with the goal of providing some really in-depth support at those schools, but what we are doing to address the request from this commission is to really triple our reach to the 103 nontarget public schools that the school district works closely with and to make sure that we are providing some amount of on-site and resources with those schools that includes and lamenting displays and all of those schools, having tabling. we are planning to have a safe routes to school table, all of the elementary schools early in the fall semester, and then work on the middle and high schools later in the semester. make sure that trainings that we conduct such as bicycle learn to writer have to set up a volunteer crossing guard program , this will be open to all schools rather than just focused at a specific school location, and more generally, have a model how schools
interact with our program rather than starting out with a focused effort at a small number of schools. we want to recognize the work that lots of schools are doing on their own, and we will be helping them to provide safe routes education and encouragement while also ensuring the language forever program materials reflect the school communities. in our efforts to reduce driving to school, were scaling up our efforts to promote the four fun ways which are walking, biking, carpooling and transit. raising lessons from behavior change science to promote these modes and ensure that any kind of how-to information is easily available and accessible to all members of the school community who may be considering trying one of these out. we will be taking off to school with a strong emphasis on walk and roll to school day and trying our first transit to school day with a media event at lowell high school. we will also be doing smaller pilots at certain target schools with the idea of having an opportunity to really evaluate
different campaign and promotional efforts and resources that we would provide to make sure that before we scale things up to the entire school community, we know what is working and what is the best bang for the black in terms of staffing sources and the program resources. a lot of things going on in the city to reduce collisions, including at schools. and particular interest to this board is the new fund based on the traffic engineering assessment at 103 schools. we have 19 locations that have been approved for speed humps that have been implement it for the fall, and we are finalizing three locations for a walk audit to explore more in-depth engineering improvements and we are also working on improvements to the crossing guard program for the sfmta. lastly, i want to talk about our efforts around coordination and communication. i would like to introduce our brand-new savers to school coordinator who started this a month ago. she is really the dedicated
coordinator who will have her finger on the pulse of the many different programs that are under the safe routes umbrella, and especially the ones that are at the sfmta. her role will include providing proactive communication to stakeholders including all of you about the great work that we are doing at each of the schools and in each of your districts, both in an ongoing and informal way, as well as our formal annual reporting on the program. she and i are available for briefings and i have provided her contact information. we would love to talk to you more about opportunities to share information about our program and what we're doing at schools in each of your districts. with that, i will take any questions that you may have. >> commissioner haney? >> thank you so much for this, i am really excited to see this. you have a lot of former school board members here, and champions for this program during our time on the school board. i know supervisors he and fewer and walton and i have often been involved with this program.
i actually authored the resolution that created this goal for sfusd and made some of the structural changes and committed to extended -- extend it to all schools. one thing that i wanted to ask you is about how we track some of this data and how we look at key indicators and outcomes. we're looking to reduce single-family vehicle trips and reduce school area collisions. are you seeing those types of reductions? are you seeing them more at certain schools that have more full implementation of safe routes, and how do you look at whether a school -- how do you measure whether a school is fully implement in the program, and at what scale are we now in terms of implementation across the district? >> in terms of collecting the actual data for those metrics, we do tallies in the school classroom for kindergarten, fifth grade, sixth-grade, and ninth-grade to get our baseline
of how many people are currently using one of the four fun ways versus driving to school. that is how we connect our benchmark. that is typically conducted every two years. terms of different schools and limiting programs, we have had a different style of our programming over the past several years. we're looking to have a more focused evaluation on how individual actions that we may implement affect changes at that particular school or in that particular target community so we can understand that better before we roll it out more broadly. >> so we are talking, in that sense that single-family vehicle trips and we keep all that data. are we seeing a reduction, what are the numbers looking like? is it something that is reported regularly, and where? >> i can share with you our report that the department of public health put together for the previous allocation. the sfmta has not begun tracking that.
>> when i was on the school board, i actually recommended that we reinstate attendance period zones, and many members right now on the board of supervisors did not vote on that , but i just wanted to mention that when we have kids going across town, i am just going to say, in the morning, i have had three kids, it is impossible to pike three kids across town. it is not feasible to do that. but one actually give kids preference to leave certain areas and go away across town, we are encouraging, quite frankly, people to drive. i think that you probably should
share some of your data with sfusd because their policy on how kids are assigned to schools actually makes huge impact on the morning traffic. it is estimated that 25% of the morning commute traffic is actually parents taking kids to school. the san francisco unified school district actually serves two thirds of the school age children in san francisco, so i think the roots were kids is assigned is essential, and also, i just wanted to mention that it would be better to coordinate with munimobile and sfusd because i think that can be perfected so more some more people are taking other transportation. >> thank you. >> commissioner mar? >> thank you. thank you for the presentation. it is really informative and exciting to see this program and
the plans to enhance the program ahead. i just wanted to say, my daughter is entering high school in the fall, so i really understand firsthand the challenges that parents face in getting our kids to school and, you know, i must confess that throughout, after eighth grade or middle school, you know, either myself or my wife, you know, drove my daughter to school almost every single day, so i think, you know, really expanding our safe options, convenient options for cancer get -- parents to get their bids -- gives to school is important for so many reasons. that is also why i am now working on a transportation study with the t.a. and mda staff in the school district. look for to working closely with you on that.
what opportunities for input from parents and students is part of the plan right now? >> in terms of the education and outreach and the encouragement work that will be doing, it will be on-site and an opportunity for us to engage and learn from parents and from students about what would help them learn about or make decisions around transportation. is that what you meant? >> yeah. what opportunities to really get input and ideas from parents and students, in particular? >> we welcome that, and we're working on having on hands presence of the schools in taking input that may come. >> is that input incorporated into the plans?
>> yeah. for the outreach and encouragement events, it is about understanding what are some of the barriers that we can address through which part of the program. the barriers are related to school area safety, that sort of indicates improvements and it depends on what available funding is or what the other collision factors are around the school, for instance. at the barriers are related to not having the right knowledge, then we can work with them. making those kinds of plans plants will be responsive to what the different types of barriers might be for individual school communities. >> thinking. >> commissioner stefani? >> thank you. i want to follow up in terms of the enforcement. i know there's a little box here that says that you are coordinating with sfpd and are along the lines of what commissioner fewer said on another item.
in the mornings, when parents are dropping their children off at school and they are in line, whether it is that my children's school or sherman elementary school or others, if people get frustrated by the fact that there is a line or there is a slow down, there is crazy behavior out there. it is perfect and a right opportunity for enforcement. i don't know what kind of engagement you have with the sfpd on this, but there should be concerted efforts with the san francisco police department, in the mornings and afternoons around our schools in all of our districts, and i'm hoping that is a focus of yours. >> yes. we will meet with them periodically. i know that planning has back-to-school efforts and we'll be sure to convey that. >> all right. are there any members of public would like to testify on item 15 i have one speaker card from christopher white.
>> hi, and christopher white. i'm program director at the san francisco bicycle coalition and we are one of the partners in the safe routes to school partnership, doing primarily education and outreach and encouragement. i just want to thank the commissioners for their continued support of this really important program that has an impact on the entire city. this past spring, with the bike and roll to school week, we had over 100 schools across the city , in every district, participating. i know that many of the commissioners here attended some of those events. hopefully you were able to see what kind of an impact this program really has on people who are going to be the next generation of users of this transportation. thank you for your continued support of this program. >> thank you. are there any other members of
the public would like to speak? seeing then, public comment is closed. commissioners, thank you for your questions and thank you for that update. mr. clark, please read item 16. >> update on the san francisco municipal transportation agency light rail vehicle procurement. this is an informational item. >> thank you for your patience. i know you have a lot of things to do, so thank you for being with us this morning. i believe that we asked the transit workers union to be here , i believe they are in the audience and available to answer any questions that we may have. we will help you with your technical situation. she is on her way.
>> director of transit. i am happy to be the third hardest thing on the agenda today, early because this is, again, no action being taken, this is an ongoing effort to keep the t.a. board and our stakeholders generally up-to-date on the progress we are making to address what are some real design concerns and performance concerns related to the l.r.p. four. it is always good to start with the good news. we have had 66 expansion vehicles delivered, 57 of them are service ready. in this first phase, which is all expansion vehicles, all adding to our ability to address crowding and some other issues that we are facing, we are getting 60 in total. we are wrapping up this phase.
the second thing, as we talked about at the last meeting, the door retrofits have been completed, so we have a much more sensitive door, and we have also been able to return all of the returns to find operations without restrictions. in the spring, we're facing a situation where we only had single car l.r.p. is and we are walking up to that door. we now have two car trains in service with all doors functioning. we do have some final repair work on some of the couplers that were damaged by that design and there is a proceeding that would be done by the end of did lot -- july.
the warranty is not for the entire vehicle. it is based on each major system we will place the coupler, the warranty for the coupler at five years. as you will see in the upcoming chart, we have had our vehicle availability improve, but the breakdowns continue to be too high, which is something that we are working with the manufacturer on closely. so this is our vehicle availability. our goal by september is to consistently have 35 of the new vehicles in service every day. we are on target to reach that goal. we are about 27 to 30 right now.
our lowest point was in june, so we have seen quite a bit of an improvement since our last meeting. we have not seen a similar improvement in vehicle breakdowns. we are still breaking down too much, and we are not meeting the new reliability program that siemens laid out and committed to. the redline shows the commitment of the program that siemens develops or us when we first started having vehicle issues. the breakdowns right now are primarily related to the hydraulic pump units that i talked about last time, which locks up the brakes, and there's about four or five aspects of that system that are not working properly, some of which we have designed solutions, and others that we don't. we will continue to have that be
our hyatt -- highest priority. we are meeting with siemens and the sub manufacturer on a regular basis. and as we continue to seek progress with other issues and get that under control, anticipate that we will start seeing improvements in reliability. our goal, which is shown at the top of this graph, is that the vehicles will not have breakdowns more than once every six months. so every vehicle travels about 25,000 miles and in a six-month period, so our goal is to get to that point. that is about five times better than what we are seeing. our overall goal is to get these phase one expansion vehicles performing at a high level, that
high standard that i just discussed. and then to make sure that we are incorporating everything that we are improving in phase one into a greater replacement vehicle. we talked at many of these meetings. and i believe they are on their last breath and do pose a significant risk as they become older, just the ability to get parts alone is becoming increasingly challenging. that being said, we will not even contemplate until we know we have a vehicle that san francisco deserves. to that end, we have been working for several months with the manufacturer on these improvements, and they are essentially in three buckets. improvements that have been identified by operators to get
people who are closest to the equipment and using it day in and day out. issues identified by our mechanics, as well as the issues identified by our passengers, which largely focus on deceiving design, which we have committed to providing additional forward facing seats, lowering the seat height, and increasing the opportunity to increase the onboard and health system. as we have discussed in previous meetings, those passenger enhancements will be retrofitted back into the fleet as well. i am pleased to have the opportunity to have -- to have you here from our union partners on the vehicle. we have been working now with two generations