Commissioner mandelman . Mandelman present. Commissioner mar . Present. Missioner p. E. S. . Commission ronen . Commissioner ronen present. Commissioner stefani. Walton present. Commissioner yee . Yee absent. We have a quorum. Thank you, mr. Quintanilla. Colleagues, our board president , commissioner, supervisor norman yee is representing all of us today across the street at the earthquake safety fair, the department of building inspection has put on. So can we have a motion to excuse commissioner yee, made by commissioner mandelman, seconded by commissioner brown and take that without objection. Next item, please. Clerk item 2. Citizens Advisory Committee report. This is an information item. Mr. Larson. Oh, mr. Larson. Hello. Thank you very much, chairman peskin, as well as members. Im the vice chair Festival CommunityAction Committee for Transit Authority and i would love to give you a quick brief from the meeting on the 22nd of may and try to correlate that also with your own agenda that was going on. So to start off, im going to get the right page. Consume. Thank you very much. We had a number of action items, pardon me. And the first one was a action item which was your number 10, to adopt a motion of support for professional Services Contract to the topranked firm for the downtown congestion pricing study. We had previously awarded 150,000 to initiate the beginnings of the study. And this is for the more technical equipment. So we did a thorough questionnaire in regards to that. Also on the agenda, that we were going on, was adopting a motion of support for the proposed fiscal year budget for 20192020. Cynthia fong, our Deputy Director of finance and administration, went through a complete review of, you know, like our kind of financial standings right there. And there was some conversations about the 30year kind of publicprivate partnerships and concessions arrangements that were going on, which to the members of the committee felt pleased with the understanding of how that operates. It was something unique generally in terms of like privateprivate. We wanted to kind of discern is this something that public or private is under, overstepping in certain areas. We felt very satisfied with the answers that came through. In regards to also we had a motion of support for the allocation of a little over 4. 6348 4. 6 million pdr in prop k sales funds. And also request for 100,000 prop a funds. These were specific to aversion planning along the great highway, as well as in regards to work done on ocean beast with the wastewater facility Treatment Plant area. Some other key areas was also adoption of motion of support for the approval of the 2019 prop aa for recommendations. It was just over 4. 1 million. This is item number 8. We had a unanimous approval of this. Specifically, you know, looking to see if we could go ahead and actually chairman larson was hoping to split the prop a funds between the three programs. And that was, you know, replied as an affirmative, which which were really happy about. And also number 9 on your agenda, we had unanimously except for one abstention, unanimously approved a motion of support of the clean fund air program and projects, which is going to be item number 9 on your agenda as well today. We are very excited to continue to work in the efforts in that area. The one area that id like to highlight, this is like a point of contention, but we did go ahead and separate out in one of the contracts which one is it . In regards to bart specifically. There was an award where we were noticing that they had a 50 increase in servicerelated costs. And normally these bartrelated for an open station, whether theyre go ahead and making improvements to it. Normally only seeing essentially an inflation of 20 costs when you have an open station. So we were asking for, haney, is there another bart station project somewhat equivalent to this, that we might be able to go ahead and compare it to. Subsequently justify why theres an over 100 increase in these sort of service costs, related to that project. So we pulled out that piece of the funding for that bartrelated area. And subsequently had to ask bart to come back at our next meeting, at the end of this month, to go ahead and review with us, either comparison projects or help further justify the override in costs. Thats the report for the cacta. Thank you, mr. Klein. Are there any questions for the c. A. C. . Is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, thank you very much for your report. Mr. Decosta. Thank you. Commissioners, its very important when the citizens Advisory Committee gives a report, that everybody Pay Attention. And initially the few minutes that the gentleman was giving you the report, people are not paying attention. Even right now theres a side bar conversation going on. I think this is disrespecting the constituents of San Francisco. Dont expect us to respect you if you cannot respect us. Now having said that, im noticing that the report is coming from the citizens Advisory Committee are not like the reports that used to come before. And ive been there from the inception. Whats this that the citizens Advisory Committee just gives a commentary on the ordinary agenda items, that are going to take place today. I think the citizens Advisory Committee should really focus on one or two issues where they can make improvement to the congestion, to the carbon footprint, stuff like that, that benefits the health of the citizens of San Francisco. So i know there was a long potrero where astute citizens, who wanted to join the c. A. C. Were deprived from joining the c. A. C. [bell ringing] they did not want any static coming from astute people. So you are rubber stamping now and gives commentary on the agenda items and that we have to listen to, we want the citizens Advisory Committee to really take one or two issues that benefit san franciscans. Thank you very much. See nothing other members of the public for this item, Public Comment is closed. [gavel] mr. Clerk, could you please read the next item. Clerk items 3 and 4, consent agenda, item 4 was approved at the may 21st Board Meeting and now being considered for final approval. Staff not planning to present on the iteming but prepared to present if desired. If a member objects, any items may be considered separately. Is there any public comfort on item number 3, the approval of the may 21st minutes. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. [gavel]. And on that motion, made and seconded, roll call please. Clerk commissioner brown . Aye. Commissioner haney . Aye. Commissioner mandelman . Aye. Commissioner mar . Aye. Commissioner peskin. Aye. Commissioner ronen . Aye. Commissioner safai . Aye. Commissioner walton . Aye. We have final approval. Thank you, next item please. Clerk item 5. Seeking final approval on firstance. State and federal legislation update. Pinch hitting for mark who sends his regrets he cannot be here today. Im going to go through in a little bit out of order, first giving an update on four bills that we have previously taken positions on, that have been moving forward. On the. The first is Assembly Bill 1605, which is the bill that the Transportation Authority is sponsoring, regarding the Reservation Program on lumbar street. I just wanted to report it has cleared the assembly and will be heard tomorrow in senate governments and finance. So were prepared and working with the committee to move that forward. The second bill, senate bill 59, this is a bill to establish a working group to develop statewide policy on autonomous vehicles. Just wanted to report that we had been working with the author at the request of commissioner yee to get vision zero related language as one of the principles and that has happened. So were thankful to the author for consideration. Senate bill 127, which is senator wieners complete streets bill, that would require bike and pedestrian consideration on state highway projects. This had been stalled for about three months and were happy to report that it was amended and is now its cleared the house im sorry, its cleared the senate and is in the assembly right now, with a few amendments, but its still something that worth supporting. And then finally senate bill 1552, this was senator bill sponsored by m. T. C. To redistribute the active Transportation Program from senate bill 1, to give more delegated authority to the regions, that bill is now dead. There is opposition from the California Transportation Commission and so the senator has pulled back and is no longer moving forward this year or indicated next year as well. And then moving to table one, which is new position, one bill on there proposed for watch. This is senate bill 277, also senator bell. This is related to the senate bill 1 local Partnership Program funding, which provides about 200 million a year. Right iterations of the program directed the vast majority of it to selfhelp counties raising the funding, their own local funding for transportation. However, it was directed this time to the t. T. C. This bill would instead go back to prior iterations and direct annual appropriations, directly by formula to the local participating jurisdictions. So were watching that. Its lots of conversations happening around it right now. And well keep you posted. And then Assembly Bill 1112, this is a bill you heard about last month. We are asking for an opposed unless amended, last month we adopted straight opposed position. Right now ssmta, is working with the cities of los angeles, santa monica, san jose and oakland with the author to try to incorporate some of the changes to the bill that theyre interested in seeing. And so with an oppose unless amended position, we will maintain our opposed position until some point in the future, if the Assembly Member is willing to make the revisions that are sufficient to meet our concerns. We would then remove the amend position. It would turn it into a watch position. So with this bill, it basically states that regulating shared mobility is an issue of statewide concern. And, therefore, applies a number of different restrictions on local regulation to the bill. And structures what expectations are for shared mobility operators. Theres two main issues that we share with ssmta about the bill. The first is the restrictions on local abilities to regulate if the program, with respect to parking requirements, with respect to equity requirements. On june 3rd, the author did introduce an amendment that went in the right direction. But didnt go far enough. And so the cities and us are working actively with the author to try to address the additional outstanding concerns. And are hoping to make progress over the next couple of weeks. The second main issue is regarding data and what we are allowed to collect from the shared mobility operators, mainly we really want to be able to get the information that we need to look at how theyre complying with our current regulation, as well as giving us the information we need to continue to evaluate these new modes and what how theyre performing on the street. So it will be it was suppose to be heard today in senate transportation. Its been delayed until june 25th. And the oppose unless amended position will give us the opportunity to kind of show good faith with the author and continue working for amendments. The author is very interested in not having Public Sector opposition to the bill. So this will give us an opportunity to continue working with the incentive of removing our opposed position. With that im happy to answer any questions. So before i open up to Public Comment, after expressing displeasure and disappointment in our local assembly delegation, thank you mr. Fitzgerald rodriguez for quoting me as being disappointed insofar as our local Assembly Members voted a. B. 1112 without consulting us. Apparently the position that we took showed up on their desk after they took the vote. But i was subsequently contacted by Assembly Member chu, who indicated that he would work with the sponsor friedman to effectuate aforementioned amendments, which i appreciated and welcomed and encouraged. So i just want to update my colleagues and staff and the public on that. Are there any members of the public who would like to testify on this item number 5 . I have one speaker card alita dupree. Albert . Clerk commissioners. Do you want to talk . I have one name in the queue, you can come. Anyone who wants to follow mr. Da costa is welcome to do so. Good morning. Chair peskin. Im alita dupree for the record. I cant say ive ever been to the meeting. I cant say i have ever met any of you. I am a user of shared mobility. I come here and stay often. Im a person of modest means. A disabled u. S. Army veteran of operation desert storm. I use shared mobility because it is one of the many tools in my toolbox that i have to navigate in different communities with the various challenges that i have. Consequently, i am a supporter of a. B. 1112. I feel the need to have statewide standards. Weve had many questions to have federal answers on most challenging issues, not going to mention specifically. So to me, just as bicycles and skateboards and automobiles are able to traverse municipal, county and state lines, so should these shared electric bicycles and scooters, which i use, that help me to get to and from public transportation, especially in times of difficult frequencies of associated public transportation. To me i am concerned about what i call the constructive denial of service. I see the arbitrary limitation of these mobility services, that only hamper those of us with challenges and disabilities to navigate. [bell ringing] i have had good conversations with these scooter operator. And nevada just passed a. B. 4le 5, a landmark statewide scooter bill with minimal opposition. I ask that this city help and remember those of us who have challenges, who need these services. Thats why i speak to you today. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Commissioners, what i want to bring to your attention is that long before the bills go through the motion in sacramento, that we have a mechanism on our site, s. F. Gov, to the public can give their input. Now what we have here is that this socalled representative in sacramento have no understanding that this is the city and county of San Francisco. Even your supervisors dont take that seriously. This is the city and county of San Francisco. At one time San Francisco had jurisdiction, not only in San Francisco, but going all the way to palo alto. You all havent been given an orientation on that. So in the past, those members in sacramento, that represented San Francisco, not only represented San Francisco, but they also went beyond the region. Having said that you heard the president say that the guys in sacramento initiated something and only after initiating it, brought it to your attention. Shame on whom . So we have this socalled consultant and they have a role to play. [bell ringing] they have to follow the bills and they have to see how it impacts the constituents. So what we had today was somebody saying something of what happened in sacramento, but we had the president of this commission bringing it to our attention, that we were not consulted. So Pay Attention to that. Thank you very much. [bell ringing] next speaker, please. Thanks. I thought we had submitted a speaker card. So i dont usually like to read from notes. Because time is limited and i have a lot to say, im going to do that. I hope i dont speak too quickly. Ill read some prepared notes. First of all, im rob schwartz. And im the owner of San Francisco bicycle rentals. You might automatically think that that disqualifies me from offering a neutral perspective on this Assembly Bill. But i hope youll think otherwise after i share my thoughts. We think that this is clearly a poor piece of legislation, which actually undermines that which it says its trying to support, an effective and efficient by bikeshare in service to the environment. San francisco has 40 bike rental shops and its a unique market. We not only pay taxes, create jobs and pay rent. Heres the key thing, we serve 3,000, 4,000 tourists a day, otherwise take bikes out of the city and out of circulation to enjoy the most popular bike ride in the united states. We have worked very closely with the ssmta. Yesterday i met with paul from the Mayors Office and something that San Francisco has instituted from the very beginning, i stood up when bayarea bike share was introduced eight years ago, we support the bikeshare system, because they, from the very beginning, used a variable pricing system. Which encourages shortterm use of the bikes. The average user of the bikeshare system uses them for 25 minutes. However, 3,000 to 4,000 tourists a day take bikes out of San Francisco to sausalito to enjoy the ride. Those bikes do not come back. Theyre taken out of circulation. So weve crafted a policy, which is not only in use in San Francisco, lyft currently uses it, jump and uber do not. [bell ringing] this bill is supported by jump and uber. They its important that that policy stays as is, as recommended by the ssmta. As recommended by the Mayors Office. That will allowed bikerental industry to continue to exist, not only for our b