Aaron peskin and sanders. Mr. Clerk, will you call the roll. [roll call] taking roll call. [roll call] chair we have quorum. Thank you, mr. Clerk. I think you have a Public Comment announcement. I do. For members of the public interested in participating in this board meeting, we welcome your attendance in person and the ledge slaytive chamber, room 250 in city hall or watch cable channel 26 or 99 depending on your provider. Or stream the meeting live at www dot sfgov tv dot org. For those wishing to make Public Comment remotely, the best way to do so is dial 4156550001 and when prompted entering access code 24986863170. And then press pound and pound again. Youll be able to listen to the meeting in real time. When Public Comment is called for the item you wish to speak on, press star three to be added to the queue to speak. Do not press star three again or youll be removed from the queue. When the system says your line is unmuted, the live operator will advise you that you will be allowed two minutes to speak. When your two minutes are up, well move to the next caller. Calls will be taken in the order received. Best practices are to speak slowly, clearly and turn down the volume of any televisions radios and Public Comment will be taken from members of public in the legislative chamber and afterwards, from the remote speaker from the telephone line, thank you. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Before calling the next item, as chair i want to limit total Public Comment to 30 minutes for todays meeting and unless i specify otherwise, each speaker will have two minutes to speak on a given item. Mr. Clerk, can you please cal the next item. Item 2, final approval on first appearance, approve the resolution minding findings to allow teleconference meeting under government code 54953e, this is an action item. Great. And i do not see any of my colleagues with comments or questions. Is there any Public Comment here in the chamber . Do we have remote Public Comment . I can promote Public Comment. And no pug no Public Comment. Moved by peskin to move item 2. Seconded by dorsey. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. [roll call on item 2] there are ten ayes. The motion passes. Thank you. Please call item 3. Item three approve the minutes of the july 26, 2022, meeting. This is an action item. All right. And i do not see comments or questions from colleagues and lets open this item to Public Comment if theres any in the chamber . And i do not see any. So lets see if we have remote Public Comment. Checking for remote Public Comment on item 3. And there is no Public Comment. All right. So, Public Comment on item 3 is closed. Is there a motion to approve item 3. Moved my ronen. Seconded by preston. Call the roll. On item three, commissioner chan . Aye. Commissioner dorsey . Aye. Commissioner mend . Aye. Commissioner mar . Aye. Commissioner melgar . Melgar absent. Commissioner peskin . Aye. Commissioner preston . Aye. Commissioner ronen . Aye. Commissioner safai . Aye. Safai aye. Commissioner stefani . Aye. Commissioner walton . Aye. There are ten ayes and the motion passes. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Please call item 4. Item four, Community Advisory committee report. This is this is an informational item. We have kevin from the t good evening, commissioners. My name is kevin ortiz, im not chair cline but im here to provide the update for the San Francisco county transportation authorities Community Advisory committee. And i represent district nine. So, we had, for the july 27th meeting, we had updates on our bylaws as well as ethics training. It was very an informational meeting we did. You know, this last meeting, we ended up having a couple of reports on the obag request, so the one bay area grants and so, there was a lot of discussion particularly around the 16th, 24th and balboa park stations particularly around funding for the design funding for elevators. Now, i will say that i made the motion that we did support the project accordingly for moving to basically put the grant in, moving the funding, the design funding away from the 16, 24th balboa stations to replacing the bart fair gate fair, so theres 1 the bart fair gates thats going to be matched accordingly and they have to be submitted by july or january 1st, but there was a lot of concerns brought up particularly about moving design funds away from those particular stations, particularly because they were in working class neighborhoods and serving latinx serving neighborhoods and so, we did request that the cac that we have more of a regular update on what happens with those stations accordingly. So, having bart coming to actual present at the next cac meeting and the december meeting as well, too. So that way we can get regular updates since it was made clear that there was not going to be any particular timeline about what would be happening with actually the funding of those designs accordingly, so those are some of the quick updates that happened with the one bay area grant at our last cac meeting earlier this week but im here for questions as well too. Thank you, member ortiz. And any Public Comment in the chamber on the cac report . None. Remote. Checking for remote Public Comment on item four. And there is no Public Comment. All right. Public comment on item 4 is closed. Thank you again, mr. Ortiz. And mr. Clerk, please call item 5. Item five, appoint one member to Community Advisory committee. This is an action item. All right. I think we have oh, there we go. Mike pickford. Each member serving a twoyear term, the board appoints open seats and staff and the cac make recommendations on appointments and applicants must be San Francisco residents and appear before the board once to describe their interest and qualifications and attachment two in the packet is applicants and theres detailed information on each applicant and theres one open seat requiring board approval. I can take any questions and chair, i believe one district ten applicant, daniels is lear to speak to her qualifications via teams. All right. Lets hear from the applicant. Can you hear me. Good morning, commissioners and chair mandelman. My name is daniels and im a San Francisco native. Im born and raised in district ten. Im still living and working in district ten. I have been an avenue ive been a rider in muni and travelling to the 19 pope and the downtown and the 53 Southern Heights on Grocery Store runs and im familiar with transportation and the need to be equitable in all districts of our city. My professional employment as a Union Representative with sciu1021 and the largest organizations in San Francisco, i can have access and understanding of city class residents and what is concerns and related in travelling. We need transportation to travel to life functions and commute to work and participate in work related business. Accessible Reliable Transportation ensures we can participate in the labor force and gain and retain meaningful employment. Im excited to take part in this work to make travel safer and equitable and easier for all San Francisco. I thank you for your consideration of my application to the transportation Community Advisory committee. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner walton. Thank you, chair. Im ex excitemented about ms. Daniels and her role as wanting to step and wanting to serve on the cac. As mentioned shes native to San Francisco and really knows a lot about transportation as well as the city and county in San Francisco as a whole and so having her ready for this role is something that i appreciate and wanted you to know and her to know that. Thank you, commissioner walton. Lets see if theres Public Comment on this item and i dont see any in the chambers so lets see if theres remote Public Comment. Checking for Public Comment on item five and no Public Comment. Okay. Then Public Comment on item five is closed. Commissioner walton, would you like to move the nomination of ms. Daniels . I would. I would like to move the nomination for ms. Danielles forward. Second by stefani and lets call the roll on that. On item five, commissioner chan . Aye. Commissioner dorsey . Aye. Chair mandelman . Aye. Commissioner mar . Aye. Commissioner melgar . Absent. Commissioner peskin . Aye. Commissioner preston . Aye. Commissioner ronen . Aye. Commissioner safai . Aye. Commissioner stefani . Aye. And commissioner walton . Aye. There are ten ayes. The motion is approved. All right. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Ms. Daniels, welcome to the cac and thank you for your willingness to serve. Mr. Clerk call item six. Item no. Fix, state and federal legislation update. This is an informational item. I think we have mark watts remotely. And amber crab. And either of them chair mandelman and commissioners, im pleased to be here today. Sorry for the slow start. Today, i have a presentation to cover those remaining active bills that you took positions on or the staff was monitoring. There are four measures that are still active and sitting on the governors desk, pending his action and there are two, those that were monitoring as well. In addition, ill provide a little of an update on some august activity related to the state budget of note, so first ever all, the bills that are first of all, the bills thats actively awaiting the governors decision, i include ab117, this is a measure that would make electric bicycles eligible to receive funding from the Energy Commissions air Quality Improvement program. I checked this morning, it has not been addressed yet and it is enrolled on the governors desk so we await that decision. In addition, ab1938 by Assembly Transportation chair freedman, its a bill that makes some minor technical changes and improvements and clarifications to her speed limit reduction strategy legislation from last year and that bill too is awaiting the decision by the governor. Ab2147 by senator member ting deals with the jaywalking laws and that measure is pending decision. The last one i would point out thats actively awaiting, you took a support position is sb942, this allows the lcltp which is the low Carbon Transportation Program to be used to provide free or reduced fare transit. Or transit fares and this is a bill you supported and among the bills that were watching that i want to highlight would be ab2594, another measure by Assembly Member ting and this deals with revisions to or reforms to roadway and bridge tolling throughout the state related to toll tags and making the process more equitable. And finally i would point out, sb922, we are watching that measure by senior wiener and that extends the life of e exemptions to transportation related projects, in particular, a number of transit oriented project relief measure, so that measure is due to be addressed between now and the end of the year. I would remind you that in june, the state, the governors budget that was approved included 200 million for Climate Adaptation programs and created three programs, one thats or competitor grants by over seen by caltrans to local agencies to do planning for Climate Adaptation and the next was for the local agreement of local projects distinguished from planning and the third category was funding within that 200 million to be move forward with caltrans so they can move forward with Infrastructure Improvements to adapt to Climate Change and the update to that is in the august budget, another 150 million was added to the program, so it provides Additional Resources for those three categories. In addition, the august budget provided a specific 75 million for Sea Level Rise activity. Ive been monitoring state agencies and so far no guidelines have been developed and ill keep staff apprised as they are. And the last component is 85 million, that was allocated to the strategic code council for Community Resilience programs and that, too, has not begun to shape their guideline and allocation process yet so ill be monitoring that for the next couple of weeks and with that, i bring my presentation to a close and id be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, mr. Watts. I do not see any. Ms. Crab, did you want to add anything . No, i have nothing to add to marks presentation, thank you. Okay. Great. Lets open this to Public Comment. I do not see any in the chamber. Do we have any remote Public Comment . Checking for remote Public Comment on item 6. And there is no Public Comment. All right. Public comment on item 6 is closed. Thank you, mr. Watts. Lets call item 7. Item no. 7, adopt San Franciscos one bay area grant cycle 3 project nominations. This is an action item. And Deputy Director for policy and programming. Good morning commissioners. Let me pull up my screen and my Powerpoint Presentation to share with you all. Here we go. Okay. Sfg tv, im sharing my screen, if you can pull up the slides, thank you. Okay. All right. So, this item that is before the board today is for the one bay area grant cycle three program and im going to call it obag Going Forward in the presentation. This is the largest source of federal funding that flows to the region through the metropolitan Transportation Commission and it is targeted to support the implementation of planned bay area which is the long rain Transportation Plan for the region. This is the third cycle of obag and covers four fiscal year so fiscal year 2223 through 2526 and half of the funds so its 340 million are available throughout the region for the county Share Program and this targets investments and Priority Development areas. One important change for recycle three compared to cycles one and two that mtc will be selecting the projects from a regional pull of candidates thats nominated by the management Transportation Agency like in San Francisco and its like in the past where cma was responsible for selecting the project. Mtc asked for project nominations that exceed the available funds by 20 and so thats to ensure theres enough projects in the regional pool for when mtc picks what gets funded and as part of obag, mtc sets the minimum targets and thats based on a formula that considers population and housing, particularly Affordable Housing and based on this formula, San Francisco shares 15. 2 of the Funds Available and thats just compared to for reference, 11 of our population share. And lets see here. So, our target at 120 is 62. 1 million. Priority development areas, lets see. So one of the hallmarks of obag, mtc is using the program itself to incentivize planning and production of housing and two examples of this are in urban county 75 of the obag must go to improve access to pdas. Its not an issue for San Francisco. Clearly. Most of our cities included in the pda. One of the, another example is one of the obag requirements is that jurisdictions have an updated Housing Element, approved by the state by december 31, 2023, in order to receive these funds. And you have to comply with other state housing requirements. San francisco is still working to get approval and the Planning Department anticipates being able to meet this december 23rd deadline, however, if we were to miss it, mtc would be able to direct their funds elsewhere and we anticipate just like last time, mct will work with the cmas and jurisdictions to get on track for a timely manner but losing funds is an incentive for bay city areas to comply. The county program, we had to use basically all of mtcs criteria with specific criteria. These are the projects we can find bike, ped, transit, efficient zero and transit reliability and improvements and indiscernible . In may, the board adopted San Franciscos obag three framework and this included the screening and prioritization that we use for the call for projects which is the action item before you today. The board also approved at that time obag funding for safe routes to school. Its not an infrastructure and cma planning funds, so after the board took action in may, we released our call for projects for the competitive Funds Available. As mentioned, most of the criteria are from mtc. Ill just add that the focus of the types of projects is that they had undergone a Community Based or robust public planning process and are ready and able to meet the strict timely use of funding requirements that goes along with the federal funding. These are are the San Francisco criteria we added. What is on your screen now is the list of nine applications that we received in response to the call for projects. What ill callout, the list is organized by agency and then by priority order that the agency submitted and the first three projects are bart projects and then fair gates project was a priority for that agency. This is compared to the 52. 8 million, 855 thats available in funding and so what is on your screen before you now is the list of recommendations for the one bay area grant. Its in order from highest to lowest scoring and i callout that four of these projects have already received prop double a, vehicle Registration Fee funds as well and some have also received prop k. We are not recommending funding for two projects on this list, as you can see, the embarcadero master plan and its a Resilience Program and obag is not designed to fund, theres no check boxes on mtcs application for this type of project. It will produce high level concepts for how to redesign the roadway to a drive seismic and sea level risk. Were not recommending funding for the elevator project at 16th and 14th and balboa stations and were doing to fund barts highest priority applications and the next is fair gates and noted in the cac report earlier in this meeting, the cac adopted a motion of support for the staff recommendation with an amendment that would require bart and Transportation Authority staff to come back next month to review the funding strategy, in particular for advancing this project along with the schedule. Were happy to do that and there are various Funding Options thats available for the design phase which starts in january of 2025 and these Funding Sources include but are not limited to prop k, prop double a, the vehicle Registration Fee or measure l if thats approved by the voters in november. Okay. So, on to the projects, the highest scoring project was the Bay View Community multimodal corridor which is also funded by prop double a. Stems from a robust Community Based planning process to identify the projects and it brings direct safety and accessibility improvement to the this equity priority community. The scope includes traffic calming measures such as bulb outs and speed humps and median and islands and visibility, high visibility or decorative crosswalks and this is to address the safety and accessibility on the wide roadways through a residential neighborhood since this would be creating an alternative multimodal path to third street. Mta is requesting funds for noninfrastructure. Supportive programs, so to be delivered with Community Based organizations, so about 860,000 of this request would fund that work. I will just callout that mta has a pending application with the state for a particular vision zero safety funding program. If mta c is successful in obtaining this grant, we would be able to free up some of this request from obag and we are encouraging mtc to allow for San Francisco to keep the funds on the San Francisco obag priority, however, we will not know about if and the amount of funds thats available. It could be as late of june of 2023. The central embarcadero safety projects stems from a public planning process. It has funds from prop k for the environmental documentation and project approval phase, which is underway right now. And prop double a funds for the construction phase. This one bay area grant would round out the full funding plan for construction and it will have a whole host of scope measures including spending on quick build measures and extending the bike lane on osom street and enhancing the protection existing bike lane between mission and broadway and curb ramp upgrades and other traffic calming for Pedestrian Safety and accessibility. Among other elements of scope. The westside bridges project is, lets see here. Its a project that would retrofit, it would, one of the structures will be retrofitted while the remaining bridges will be replaced. These are the structures you see as youre going eastbound on bay bridge and approaching Treasure Island and the projects are shovel ready and helps to Fund Construction and the project is westbound on the bay bridge to accommodated expanded service for the 25 bus route and new request of bike lane along Treasure Island and helps to support that work. Once funding is secured, construction can start as soon as 23 in the early spring. I will callout that in early 2023, once mtc makes its recommendations, we may need to ask the board to approve a Fund Exchange depending on the availability and timing of when the obag funds will be available to ensure that the project can Start Construction as soon as possible. The 29 sunset phase i, the alignment is shown on your screen. This is the first of two phases of the project for muni forward and vision zero safety elements for the entire corridor. This funding would complete the funding plan for phase i which also includes prop aa vehicle registration, fee funds per design and the project provides service to golden gate park, and clairen park and the presido. Its done through a public works pavement work on sunset boulevard between lincoln way and lake merced boulevard and that work is anticipated to Start Construction next summer. Design will be ongoing through 2024 and it will happen with Public Outreach which is supposed to start in november and the design for the sunset route will be completed by the time the paving is supposed to start. Elevator modernization, this is for funding for five stations including the four stations on Market Street that are shared stations between bart and muni patrons as well as the growing park station elevators, design is slated to start in the turn of the year in part with, lets see here, i believe its prop k or prop aa funds. I think its prop aa funds thats on this project, hold on. Let me get to my right slide on my packet. Okay. Lets see here. So, i skipped my notes for this one. So, the project includes four stations that are shared elevator spaces and bart and mta had a longstanding agreement since the 70s that the cost of improving shared stations space would be shared between the two stations, so this would be in the accredited of the bart side of the ledger and bart will fund 70 of the project cost and were funding the design phase at civic center and pal low street stations so sorry. That came back to my mind. The mta has asked that these funds be credited 50 50 so a portion of the funds credited towards sf mta and we funded this at mtas request and are continuing to recommend that this is funding for bart. The boone owe multi youth path, were recommending three of a five million request and this will be design and the Construction Funds is the first fund programmed to the 70 Million Construction phase. Obag will leverage an active transportation grant from the state and position the project to be highly competitive for additional state funds including solutions for congested corridors, Funding Grant that mtc intends to submit by the end of the calendar year. And the last project is the next generation fair gates in San Francisco. This is to replace the existing fair gates that reached the end of their 20year useful life and requires maintenance to remain operational and the fair gates that we would be funding are off the shelf. They are swing barrier fair gates that feature modular components that can be switched out when in need of repair and reducing down time and improving maintain ability and bart can Start Construction as early as early 2023. We are not recommending funding for the fair gates at the airport station, however, so we have stipulated that our funds are not to be used in that regard and that bart would be working with the airport to find Additional Capital funds in order to pay for that station work. Next steps are that we bring our recommendations to you today and then present them. They are due to mtc by september 30th and mtc is slated to take action at its commission in january of 2023 to select the projects. And with that, i can take any questions and we also have various project managers here and im done sharing my screen. Thank you, director lafort. Commissioner ronen . Thank you. I dont understand how we got from a request for close to 5 million for elevator modernization at 1624 balboa bart station in that staff recommendation is zero. I dont understand why embarcadero, montgomery, powell, civic center and glen park were prioritized but not the mission elevators and balboa station elevators. Those elevators need modernizing desperately and i just, how did that happen . Im very unhappy about it. Sure. I can certainly speak to the funding and as far as the condition of the elevators, i would ask bart staff to speak to that in that regard. Both elevator projects scored closely, however, the first of the elevator projects will round out the funding for construction and design is fully funded and its slated to start in the beginning of 2023. The construction or design phase for the elevators at the two Mission Stations and at balboa park, the design phase is slated to start in january of 2025 and one of the things that we look at, we dont exclusive go in score order although this did score slightly under the elevator project, its alternative Funding Sources that could be available, you know, in fact, taking that into consideration in the final decisionmaking process, and we do have a history of funding with prop k with the sales tax and with vehicle Registration Fees and potentially with state transit Assistance Funds as well, funding evaluator design and also construction, so that was one of the considerations that we took into place and the recommendation from the cac to report back on the Funding Strategies is totally appropriate and will help to ensure that the conversations advance and that the schedule stays on track. Yeah. That doesnt cut it for me. Im wondering if theres a bart representative that can talk about why the mission and balboa stations are sort of getting deprioritized compared to the other stations. I mean, the 16th and 20th, ill let supervisor safai talk about balboa but the 16th and 24th street bart stations are a mess, quite frankly. And we are working with bart to fix that at 24th street but those stations have not been prioritized historically and i dont understand why there they are in a later timeline than the rest of the stations. So, good morning, commissioners. Chair mandelman. My name is rob, im the manager of grants and funding advocacy at bart and im happy to answer your question, commissioner ronen. It improves and modernize elevators across the system which there are well over three hundred and one of the challenges with that is securing the funding for doing so and so, the team, the Elevator Team has prioritized the elevators systemwide on a basis of a couple of factors including their current condition, rated generally by down time, mechanical malfunctions, that sort of thing and also by ridership at the station, so the heavier used rider elevators or stations with elevators in the worst condition will be prioritized over those that are in slight better condition or used less. With that being said, within San Francisco, in general, the elevators are prioritized with the 4 Market Street elevators being of a higher priority than the Mission Street ones on the basis of the combined factor of condition of ridership. With that being said, there were investment made at 24th street station in 2019 and 2021 to replace certain components when the elevators went out of service to work as a bridge until were able to secure funding to advance design and construction for that elevator. Additionally, weve managed to secure significant funding for the four downtown stations in glen park in the past several years from prop k, prop double a, San Francisco and our partnership with muni and other Funding Sources including our federal funds we received for elevator modernization and state of good repair projects so the project is ready to advance to construction and will be completed by 2029. The remaining stations in San Francisco do not have any funding committed to them yet and they are in an earlier stage of development, if this project were funded at this time, that would fund the design work which would begin in a few years. One of the factors that we considered when submitted our application was how long the expenditure timeline for the funds in request were. With the obag funds, they had an obligation deadline when the funds need to be spent and put into a grant of 2027 and based on that, if you see our prioritization of our three applications as a sequencing as opposed to one is more important than the other, in terms ever sequencing the projects that were first and second and third in that order could spend the funds more quickly in that order and so that factored into how we prioritized them for this specific funding source. I know, supervisor safai is anxious to ask questions but i have one more question. First of all, you did request this funding and it was the staff that decided to recommend zero allocation, so ive got i wanted to note that and say i have a major issue with that. I did not weigh in on that in any way, shape or form. But number two is given that you if we follow the staff recommendation, what would that mean for the timeline of replacing those elevators . Yeah. We are looking ahead at prop l which has funds designated for bart including 100 million we have set aside for the Core Capacity Program and the reminding 45 million that we have targeted for other group and transit investment in bart which is identified for this elevator modernization project. The specific question is, if we followed staff recommendation and didnt allocate the close to 5 million for those three elevators how would that impact the timeline to get the elevators replaced . I see your question. It would depend on a number of factors and you know, our ability to secure additional funding would play into that. We have significant amount of federal resources that we can put toward a project but it could delay the design phase of the project. So this is sylvia lamb who is our chief maintenance and engineering officer. Hi, good morning. I just want to speak to that. We do have funds invested in those elevators right now. They are in planning so as rob said, the progress of the design and being able to go into construction is i would say its not more about those elevators being delayed but the elevators get to be accelerated because they are ready to go. Were constantly looking for funding to keep these projects moving and its a rolling funding request to keep them so the elevators at 24th street for instance is next in the list and were working on planning and continuing to work with our other funding to go through design and as we get into construction, well have to look for additional funding. Let me ask the question a different way, if you got the 5 million, would that accelerate the timeline . Yes, it would. Thats all i need to know. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner ronen. Commissioner and sorry, director commissioner safai . Thank you. I just, im disappointed in the staff recommendations this morning. I will say that i understand that we are planning for a future growth on Treasure Island and im for that but i have been on this board for six years and the level of invest. That come to the balboa bart station or transportation infrastructure in my district has been poultry. We had to literately fight and scrap between bart, sf mta and ta to get a million or two millions to finish a plaza on one of the largest transportation oriented developments there just so we could finish the plaza. Balboa bart is the most highly frequented stations in the entire system that bart has, so im all for bike paths and travels on Treasure Island. I want to see that happen. But when stories are written that seniors and those with disabilities cant get into the station when we have those in abundance in my district, this is a mistake. I will not be voting for this recommendation today. I think staff needs to go back and do a better job of making better recommendations and i look at this central, and embarcadero freeway safety, six million, westside bridges which is down ten million. Elevator modernization, everywhere other than in the neighborhoods, 13 million which by the way, we need to do that. That needs to happen. Boone owe multiuse buena multiuse, three million. Its everywhere but in my district and its consistent. Im sorry and im not going to be supporting this and i think you all need to do a better job and im tired of my district being overlooked and continuously passed over. Thank you, commissioner safai. Commissioner melgar . Thank you, chair mandelman. So, i wanted to echo a couple of the things that my colleagues, supervisor safai has said. Balboa station is not in district seven but it serves district seven. Just like glen park serves district seven as well and im grateful for the upgrades that are going to happen there. I just wanted to ask staff to talk a little about everything thats going on besides transportation but related to transportation, so you know, supervisor safai and i have been working together on the transit plan for ocean avenue which you know, you have been supporting us on and staffing, which is related to the ridership on the balboa station for both muni and bart and the connection of immune muni and bart is terrible t. Serves city college and the most important institutions in our city as well as werdon and indiscernible high schools, so its important were creating the infrastructure for young people to succeed as well. And the merchant corridor on ocean avenue which has been affected by the pandemic than healthier district so in looking at the Housing Element that were supposed to approve in january, those areas are slated for a lot more density, both you know, ocean avenue and all of the surrounding neighborhoods. Were adding thousands of new units, 50 of them affordable at the balboa reservoir which this station will serve so i understand what the bart representative said about the combination of ridership use and condition but my question is, how do we, like, look forward to all of the ambitious things that were doing that are frankly attached to more transportation funding, housing funding, and the climate crisis, you know, Going Forward . I think director chan is ill take that, thank you and thank you to commissioners ronen and safai for your feedback and your comments. I want to let you know we hear this and i would recommend we continue this to thoughtfully consider the feedback and work with bart staff which submitted three projects and good size projects, two of which were the elevator types weve been discussing and the third is fair gates. The 29d sunset is on this list. I do the 29 sunset is on this list and serves this corridor and it serves balboa park and district 22 riders, commissioner safai but we hear the question, how to reconsider the bart stations that are in the mission in balboa park that frank lear 5 million of design we can be creative and work with the bart staff to look at perhaps other ways to fund that design in parallel, the obag funds are one source and we can look at the prioritization but i think we should also consider all of the other programmic things happening. Were working constantly with your offices and the agencies on projects such as the ocean corridor action plan and the projects that have a land use component as well. Thats important to the obag program. We have taken the criteria that mtc gave us into account. I would ask that we try not to try not to shift funds away from things like the embarcadero and the baby multiuse path and the westside bridges, thats shovel ready. It has federal funds on it and we can be, i think, creative and look at other ways to advance the Mission Street stations but let us work on it and come back to you if thats all right. Thank you, director chang. Commissioner walton. Thank you, chair mandelman. A quick question because we can pull projects out of here and vote on projects we want to support . Yeah. I believe thats the case, director chang . Thank you. And commissioner ronen . I would make a motion that we continue this item to the next meeting. While i understand what president walton is saying but im wondering, i just think the funding is relational so we should probably consider it as a whole. Will this delay, i mean, will this cause any catastrophe to any of the projects and i want to make sure it doesnt do that . The deadline that were up against is giving our list of prioritized projects to mtc by the end of september. Okay. So the 27th works . It does work, okay. I would like to make a motion that we continue this item until the 27th. Great. Theres been a motion made by commissioner ronen and seconded by commissioner safai. Thank you, ms. Laford and we have bart director dusty here. Would she like to come up and say hello. [laughter] youre welcome. Commissioners, its nice to see everyone here. You know, i think everyone knows that we came to see all of you accept for commissioner dorsey during the obag process and we were very outspoken in the needs that bart has and how important we see bart as being to the recovery of San Francisco so i welcome this conversation with my fellow sweeper who is out there for me month and months at 16th and mission when i started as a bart director and you know, a lot of our key staff are here and we welcome the opportunity to work with director chang and her staff and to meet with supervisor, commissioner, excuse me, safai and ronen. Thank you. All right. Thank you, director duffy and i believe director lee may be online with us through the inter web or maybe not. Ah director lee, would you like to say hello . You know, i dont have much [laughter] i dont have much else to add. Ill say i really appreciate the comments and the Due Diligence that your cac appointees take. I echo director duffies comment and well continue working with you, sf mta staff and bart and you have our commitment to fund it all with the limited dollars we have. Thank you, director lee. Lets item 7 to Public Comment. Is there public in any public in the chamber. None. Remote Public Comment online . Checking for remote Public Comment and there is no Public Comment. All right. Public comment on item 7 is closed. We have a motion made by commissioner ronen. Seconded by commissioner safai to continue this to our next meeting on the 27th. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Oh, commissioner mar . We have commissioner mar. Can you hear me . We can. Thank you, chair mandelman. I wanted to say that i appreciate the discussion around how to ensure that the elevators or modernization projects are at the mission and balboa park are able to move forward whether its from obag or some other source and i support the continuation to allow more time to have the discussions but i did want to take this opportunity to really express my strong support for the 29 sunset Improvement Project on the list and that this is incredibly important project for so many reasons. The 29 sunset line, i believe its the longest, if not the longest meeting lines in this city and it really connects the westside of San Francisco with the southeastern neighborhood and theres so many School Communities on the 29 sunset line including in my district, lovely high school and epg mill school and indiscernible high school. They connect sf state and to city college and i think for, with my colleagues on what side, commissioner chan or melgar, weve been advocating for significant improvements to north south transit on the westside, so this particular funding allocation for the phase i of the 29 sunset line will go a long way or important for improving and expanding north south transit so i want to thank the ta and mta for their work on this 29 sunset project proposal and also just for the mta staff for the overall package of the grant proposals, thank you. Thank you, commissioner mar. Im reminded by our staff we dont have to take a vote on continuing this. I can do it as chair, so were going to do it. Well take this up in two weeks, thank you Deputy Director laford but i dont think you get to go away because mr. Clerk, can you please call item 8. Item no. 8, allocate 4,412,805 in prop k funds and 324,000 with prop aa funds with conditions of four requests. This is an action item. Director lafort, this is your item. Thank you, im sharing my slides on my screen, sfg tv, if you could please pull those up, thank you. The, there are four request before the board today, the first of the request is from caltrain for just under 2 million for the fiscal year 2122 Capital Budget contribution from the city and county of San Francisco and prop k has a long history of providing those funds on behalf of our member role and this is for replacing two rail bridges over the Guadalupe River in san jose and its a systemwide benefit, so its in their capital program. The next request is for just under a Million Dollars for the excelsior calming on sickle avenue between caluga and mission and theres a host of traffic calming projects including pedestrians scale lighting, new planted median and street trees as well as bulb outs and the design phase is slated to be completed by summer of 2024 and the project would be open for use by 2025. The next request was a request that was presented to the board in july, this is for Tree Planting and establishment throughout the city and including so the first three years of watering and weekly watering. We have worked with public works in response to discourse again the Board Members last last meeting about how the performance of some of the contractors who are doing the watering, how thats been going and if its related to the mortality rate for these newly planted trees so well be getting information from public works that lines up who planted which trees and how the watering and who has been responsible for watering which tree so we can get some sense of the mortality rate. And then the last request is for oakdale lighting improve. S from the double a Registration Fee program for the design phase and the double a program will be supporting the construction fees of this request for about 15 new pedestrian scale lights on oakdale avenue between 3 and phelp streets. And with that, i am done sharing my screen. Sfg tv and folks are here to answer questions and also online. Thank you, director lafort. Commissioner commissioner safai . Thank you. Im happy to see this moving forward today. We have been working on this for over four years. This corridor on sickles is the highest injury corridors in the entire city. It is extremely dangerous. It is bookended by seniors and families on both sides so were very happy to see this design move forward today. So we can begin to deal with some of the, hopefully look forward to building this project to deal with some of the injurys and some of the Pedestrian Safety injuries and Pedestrian Safety issues and Bicycle Safety issues. This is a connector point, its a major entrance to a freeway and connects to neighborhoods and has bus lines in this area. Im happy to see we resolved the Tree Planting and followed up and theres a representative from clean city here today, again, very proud to have that female owned Small Business in my district. Does a phenomenal job for our city and trees and urban canopy of following up and ensuring that the not just when we plant a tree but a tree takes root. Its about three years of work to ensure a tree establishes itself and im very, very happy to see this moving forward and finalized today. Thank you. And thank you to the ta and their team for resolving both of these issues. Thank you, commissioner safai. Lets open this item to Public Comment. If theres any in the chamber, i dont see any. Lets see if we have remote Public Comment on item 8. Checking for remote Public Comment. And there is no Public Comment. Okay. But i think we might have pb we might have Public Comment in the chamber. My name is gio grant and the executive director of clean city. Were a nonprofit but operate as a social enterprise. We have been watering the trees in district 11 and in the southeast part of the city for close to five years now and you know, i took a deep dive into the information given the comments that supervisor peskin and what we found is that the trees are thriving. Im hope that dpw will be able to speak to that. And some of the information but we have been very committed to the Community Input in addition to just doing the watering the trees, its a Workforce Program for a very lowincome san franciscan. We have provided bags on the trees that have 311, so that information can come back to the city, so im here to answer any questions now and on going about the tree watering, thank you. All right. Thank you. With that, Public Comment on this item is closed. Is there a motion to approve item 8 . Im going to say, commissioner safai wants to move that. Is there a second . I will second that. Or is that a preston . Preston, we got commissioner preston seconding. And madam or mr. Clerk, please call the roll. On item 8, commissioner chan . Aye. Commissioner dorsey . Aye. Chair mandelman . Aye. Commissioner mar . Aye. Commissioner melgar . Aye. Commissioner peskin . Aye. Commissioner preston . Aye. Commissioner ronen . Aye. Commissioner safai . Aye. Commissioner stefani . Aye. Commissioner walton . Aye. There are 11 ayes. The motion is approved. Great. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Please call item 9. Item 9, San Francisco Transportation Plan update. This is an informational item. All right. And i believe we have ms. Paz. Hello, give me one second to pull up my slides. Im sharing my screen. Okay. Good morning commissioners, my name is alisa ill give an update on the San Francisco Transportation Plan. Im going to call is the sfpt for short. So the sfpt is our long range Transportation Plan to establish our Investment Priorities over a 30 year horizon so 2050. Its updated four years on the plan bay area and the sf and plan bay area are says constant with one other and plan bay area was adopted in october of 2021 and we did outreach in 22 to understand priorities for our discretionary revenues and the revenues that have the most flexibility in how to be used and we worked with Community Based organization to promote the survey and town hall and we got 530 responses to the survey. We also met with cbos in every districting including 17 meets with the youth, business and leader and Community Groups and prioritized equity communities and conducting meetings in english, spanish and chinese. As a note the outreach process for the sftp overlapped with the process for the expenditure plan and the feedback we heard in these two efforts were consistent. The sfpt feedback we heard two types of themes, invest themes shown on the left, where guidance for how the sfpt discussion revenues are prioritize and the need to restore and Transit Service from what is currently operated and improve transit reliability. We also heard the need to improve Street Safety and to continue planning for the next generation of transportation investments. Policy themes on the right are areas where we need to continue our focus, to continue to focus efforts through projects and programs. We heard the need to improve accountability and project and improve transit affordability. We also heard the need to improve personal security both on our streets and transit system, particularly for women in the ap community. And we heard the need to make regional trips easier and reliable. Im going to shift on the invest. Scenarios for the sfpt and its 80 billion. That is a transportation revenue over 30 years. Theres also the vision plan which includes 95 billion of potential new revenues. Within the revenue estimates, theres two types of funds, committed funds shown in blue on screen. They have limited flexibility for how they can be spent but they make up the majority of our revenue benefits and in green, they have the most flexible in how they can be spent and this is where outreach was focused and as a note, this includes the 2022 transportation expenditure plan. The Transportation Needs that we have exceed the total amount of money that we expect to have in the future. For example, we could put all of our discretionary revenues towards maintenance and not meet the need. Were spreading it based on our Community Priorities we heard throughout reach, our known regional and city priorities and previous working correct sf. Our revenues also include a mix of local Regional State and federal sources and the sfpt is considering how to prioritize these different revenues to advance our goals. To note here about 75 of our revenues are from local and regional sources and these are important to match state and federal funds. Now im going to go through benefits of the Investment Plan and these are based on a compare son without the sfpt investment. So first is safety, the Investment Plan includes funding for about two hundred miles of pedestrian and bike improvements to advance vision zero action. This includes things like continuing favor routes to school program, investing in traffic calming to slow vehicle speeds and also safety improvements like signal, sidewalk extensions and crosswalks. We also invest in street maintenance to a level that maintains average current quality of our roads and upgrades, sidewalks, signs, and signals and bike lanes and as we invest in street maintenance we can prepare for the risk of Climate Change. Theres also investment in transit capital to make the system operate more efficiently. This includes core capacity for muni and bart to run longer and frequent trains, it includes transit priority to keep buses on the busiest lines from being stuck in traffic and theres funding for peri transit operations and free muni for youth. Excuse me. The Investment Plan for the sfpt helps address congestion and improve access. We would see commute times Fall Citywide for people taking transit and driving. We would see job access improve citywide and regional trips and we would be able to plan for the next generation of transit and freeway projects. Through all of this, were able to shift some trips from driving to other sustainable modes. It leads to an over three percent increase in daily vehicle miles traveled per San Francisco resident. Paired with electrification of the transit fleet and ferry, we can help reduce Greenhouse Gas emission. Heres a summary of all the areas where benefits were measured and how the benefits align to the sfpt and connect sf goals combined, and you can see the sfpt investment helps with our goal areas. Now were going this is a summary of the draft Investment Plan. So again, this is 80 billion investments. The investments are shown in blue and unmet in red. This allows us to address our many needs, equity gaps and advanced citywide transportation improvements but you can see theres still gaps. The most notable gap is in transit operation at the bottom. This means we cant increase our investment levels for transit operations beyond what we have in 2022. We also have Additional Needs for Street Safety and transit and street maintenance. This is a summary of our vision plan and this is 95 billion, the vision revenues are shown in green here. The additional investment of the vision plan help us address Street Safety. We can meet the Street Safety improvement needs and safe routes to school needs. We can also increase our investments and new signs and signals and complete streets efforts. We can also help transit operations by closing the gaps for bart and caltrain and exceeding the 2019 investment levels for muni operations. We can support state of good repair by closing the maintenance for bart, ferry and muni and invest more to continue to plan and implement the next generation of transportation projects. Almost done. [laughter] the policy initiatives, our areas where we need to continue to advance our citywide policies and identify some new policy areas in the coming years. Im going to highlight a few on this list. First, equity access and affordability, this is continuing our neighborhood planning efforts. But also expanding the efforts to include equity planning and planning to address the changes of land use. This helps create a pipeline of projects across the city that reflect Community Needs and priorities. Traveler safety and security is supporting investments like light being, elevator a tend znswer and security cameras to increase visibility across the system and also continuing to invest in safe streets and pursue legislation for speed management tools. Transit sustainability for all operators is the need to explore ways to expand funding for transit capital and operations. And finally new mobilities and antonymous vehicles is realizing theres testing of antonymous vehicles and vehicles in San Francisco. We want these options support our longterm transportation goals and priorities. To conclude with next steps, we are doing an additional round of outreach right now. Theres a town hall scheduled for october 5th, more information can be found at s fpc at i can take any questions and im done sharing my screen. Thank you, ms. Paz. Commissioner preston . Thank you, chair mandelman ask thank you for the presentation and thank you for the presentation on this. I did have a question on the revenue projections over the next 30 years here. What assumptions are you making in the revenue projections regarding fares . Im going to have maria answer that question about fare revenue assumptions. Sorry, maria, chief deputy. Sorry commissioner. The fare assumptions, we used whatever mta assumes in its longterm planning because covering operations. Your question about covering free muni for youth . [multiple voices] its in the baseline. Got it. I mean, obviously, mta has indexing affairs that has been controversial whether they will impose those increases during the pandemic so i guess im wondering if youre assuming that the scheduled fare indexing increases go into effect and youre assuming that other than free muni for youth, no expansion of free or reduced fare programs, is that, are those the assumptions . Thats correct, yes. Lisa can repeat something if its helpful in the vision slide towards the end because operational fiscal challenges are so great, we fear discussion in keeping the same levin investment as today for the full 30 years of the plan. And then on free muni for youth then, the assumption is obviously thats been approved and funded for the first year and then extended for a second year and so what is is there a source identified as an assumption of on going funding of that or how is that commissioner, its assumed its funded for the full duration. This is a 30year plan, not a programming document, so we didnt match up Funding Sources. Thank you. And related to that just on the investment side, i see among the policy priorities and initiatives, affordability is listed there but when i look at the investments, i dont see any investments that relate to affordability, so other than what well, i guess theres no commitment necessarily investing in muni for free use, so i wont assume that. But what are the what are the investments looking at the 80 billion. Free muni for youth is included in the investment so thats one affordability component and then the other ways that transportation becomes more affordable is through investments to make the system operate more reliable and efficient so transit can be a more reliable option for many people, where transits may be slow or not reliable option for many trips. Sorry, so thats reliability but in terms of affordability other than free muni for youth, no assumptions around investments . No. Okay. So, i just im going to comment. I understand there are different perspectives on free muni programs. I think when were projecting out 30 years, we need to be building in some efforts to expand discounted and free muni, some efforts to pilot those things and i just have got to say, as i have said in other circumstances but every time i talk about this, theres another half dozen cities around the nation that are recognizing that we need to get people on to Public Transit and one way to do that is by making it cheaper or free. We need to be piloting free muni. This isnt the place for us to decide the contours of a free muni program but i really hope as we move forward to a more final plan here that theres more discussion in the document around what assumptions are being made around fares and whether there are approaches that could directly invest in affordability and greater discounts in free muni fare programs and again i want to reiterate, that is a 30year plan. Its inconceivable to me that we cannot do some planning and incorporating incorporate some planning around relieving people of fare burdens over the next 30 years, thank you. Thank you. Commissioner preston. It would be interesting to see what, how reduced fares or free fares kind of move that bar and what it does to operate, like, you know, is it a huge impact or minor impact . Which i dont have a tremendous idea of. Thank you for free munis or other ways to deeper the affordability. We know its needed and its a right condition, even nationally and i dont know if people heard the economics podcast with commissioner wu. Its a national debate, however, im obligated, i think to point out even in the vision plan, so Investment Plan which is the constrained Investment Plan over 30 years and Business Plan which assumes more revenue, we dont get fully funding levels as they are today and were trying to get back to 2019 Service Levels and restoring all the lines that still yet not come back. Were hard to get to full funding of the operations of that network, so its an important debate to have and how to spend the marginalize dollar to further deeper the affordability or restore service which we do not get all the way to, even in the Investment Plan and thats a National Conversation. I think cities across the state and in the country are very concerned about what we face in the next few years with the covid relief money running out and fare is not coming back and needing to shift to a different way of funding transit that is not based on ridership and fares but broad based, perhaps similar to the libraries, you know, where were tapping, asking voters to tap the property base tax, so i look forward to continuing this conversation with you all. And so, just to repeat, the operational assumptions is built into these off raugss bars are pre these in the operation bars. The transit operations have investment levels thats equal to what we have in 2022. So it assumes the same investment levels we have currently, in the vision plan with the additional revenue, we can start to get close to the 2019 investment levels but as mentioned, there are gaps and meeting and exceeding the amount of service that we had prepandemic. Thats not great. Thats not a terrific plan. [laughter] i guess i mean go ahead. Commissioner preston is interested in a bigger, a longer line that shows fare reduction. Im interested in a longer line that shows service that comes frequently and see which which we werent at in 2019. I mean both of those things should be absent from this so we have a plan to get to a place thats not great and still has an unmet need. One thing i would note one thing i would note, the sfpt is updated every four years so this is a challenging time its tully pointed out. This is a snapshot in time and we can look at where the revenue estimates are in four years and look at how operations would change at the next update as well. And i noticed, well go ahead, director chang. Thanks, alicia for mentioning that. Ill note that the state, i think is a potential partner here, not just muni and we mention this to our state delegate and they were sympathetic but its a National Problem so they didnt want to come in and begin solving this before the National Conversation could catch up so i think the next four years will be instructive to see how ridership responds and see how the state and National Conversation evolves and this is also a color of money issue because if we could put more discretionary money on operations, we would have but we are constrained in mtcs funding world that the color of money being for capital governs how we could even represent that in the plan, so operating funds are very very dear and hard to come back and its an important conversation for general revenue issues in the future. I was a little struck by the page that has, that says nearly 75 of the invest. Planned revenue are local and regional. I know as we are talking about our sales tax, were talking about how much we leverage Federal Capital dollars, is this swing because of operational cost primarily . Meaning being going from pretty well, you know, leverage bringing in lots [multiple voices] not getting a lot of help. Indeed and thats why its confusing so thanks for pointing that out. Okay. Commissioner preston, i have you on, is that because i didnt take you off . Go ahead. Thank you, mr. Chair. I will, i would like to follow up because it is an on going source of frustration that the approach seems to be to exclude any serious conversation around fares, fare relief, for muni pilots, discounted fares from these conversations. Fully bake the cake here, right. Have your 30 years of planning and then frame any attempts to reduce fares as an effort to take away service, so this is an on going source of frustration for our office. It is inherent in the framing that we hear today. It is one thing to look at a present budget and say that if you take a dollar less over here on fares, you have a dollar less to spend. Its one thing to say that in the immediate, what is before us, when you dont have options like going to the ballot or seeks state funds or other things but to have this drafted document, i cant emphasize strongly enough, we need a more open and transpoint discussion around fares and as chair suggested, to looking at however of the revenue is from fares, what would be the impact for. For example, mta did not impose the indexes or if the existing programs were expanded so more lowincome people could have discounted rates or free fares or there were pilots and so forth. It is just, for longterm planning and we are making this mistake over and over again in San Francisco and this kind of document is where we should be at least exploring what some of the assumptions are and what some of the possible scenarios are, so i just would urge, like, this is one of the great problems right now. You have a lot of people that feel passionately about fare relief and about free muni and believe that we need to tax the wealthy and get money from the feds and from the state to Fund Operations and to fund service and fares and if we continue to act as if the sole discussion is assume that everything stays the same on our fare policy and talk about the service and capital needs, its going to be i think a real missed opportunity for us as a city, so anyway. I look forward to collaborating with the ta on ways to have that, to have the longterm planning documents at least more openly reflect that discussion and the possibilities and i will just end by saying, goggle free transit and its like every week, theirs a new city somewhere in this country theres a new city somewhere in this country and San Francisco is supposed to be the leader in transit first and were not piloting or pioneering free transit other than the free muni for youth that i know we all support, thank you. Thank you, commissioner preston. Lets open this item to Public Comment and i dont see any in the chambers so lets see if theres remote Public Comment. Checking for remote Public Comment on item 9. And there is no Public Comment. All right. Public comment on item nine is closed. Thank you, ms. Paz and mr. Clerk, call item 10. Item 10, introduction of new items and this is an information item. And i dont see anybody popping up in the queue, so please call item 11. Item 11, Public Comment. If theres anyone in the chamber who would like to make Public Comment, please come forward. Lets see if theres anyone who wants to make remote Public Comment . Checking for remote Public Comment. Hi caller, your two minutes begins now. Good morning, this is ron of the i want to speak on the item 8 but unfortunately, [muffled] the other thing i would like to say in regard to the comment, i would really like the supervisors or rather the staff in conjunction with mtc to pay close attention to some of the projects that come to you for funding. I cant speak to item no. 8 but i know that speaks very well because i take it. Its between indiscernible and i take it every time. I go to dividend the bridge on the slide was a Union Pacific bridge and the cal trains uses the one behind it. The other thing i wanted to say, you really, really [speaker is muffled] and find out where the money is and the amount, thank you. Thank you, caller. There is no more Public Comment. All right. Then, Public Comment for item 11 is closed. Mr. Clerk, please call item 12. Item 12, adjournment. We are adjourned. [gavel] bayview. A lot discussion how residents in San Francisco are displaced how businesses are displaced and theres not as much discussion how many nonprofits are displaced i think a general concern in the Arts Community is the testimony loss of performance spaces and venues no renderings for establishes when our lease is up you have to deal with what the market bears in terms of of rent. Nonprofits cant afford to operate here. My name is bill henry the executive director of aids passage l lp provides services for people with hispanics and aids and 9 advertising that fight for the clients in Housing Insurance and migration in the last two years we negotiated a lease that saw 0 rent more than doubled. My name is ross the executive directors of current pulls for the last 10 years at 9 and mission we were known for the projection of sfwrath with taking art and moving both a experiment art our lease expired our rent went from 5 thousand dollars to 10,000 a most. And chad of the arts project pursue. The evolution of the orientation the focus on Art Education between children and Patrol Officer artist we offer a full range of rhythms and dance and theatre music theatre about in the last few years it is more and more difficult to find space for the program that we run. Im
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.