We have quorum. Can you please call the first item. Im 2, the citizens advisor report. Im john larsen, chair of the citizens advisory committee, and im here to report on january 22nd meeting of the c. A. C. We began the meeting welcoming to members, representing district 5 and 9, so were currently on full strengthe strength of te c. A. C. Item 6 on your agenda, the c. A. C. Members discussed the vetoed legislation relating to a paved area the time, resources and funds being allocated towards a project that might have a limited impact on overall congestion, while benefiting a very specific neighborhood, could possibly be used better in neighborhoods of concern. And other thing is exploring a tax assessment around the affected part of lumbar street. Sb50 was also discussed by the c. A. C. , specifically linking housing proposals too closely with additional funds for transportation and infrastructure. One member expressed concern that efforts for needed additional housing should not be slowed or scuttled because of complex issues about transportation not being decided, setting up catch 22 situations, where transit infrastructure is expected to be in place prior to approval for increased housing density, but transit plans wont be approved without specific commencements to housing already in place. Turning to item 7 on your agenda, allocation of 8 million in prop k funds, they focused on the reconstruction project. Members umped tha urged that any timing of the closure of the bridge or any detours be timed to concert and events in the area, and be sensitive to local needs, given the vital role that third street plays in the community. And they want to keep the bike routes open as much as possible during the time of the bridge. The pier e2moa for the quarters 9 and piere pier e2. And expressed excitement about the design and rollout of pier e2 and future development of the adjacent torpedo building. Lastly, a great deal of discussion was generated by a presentation on the Public Information and Outreach Campaign for the u. S. 101deck replacement and a alemany replacement. They asked about prioritizing Public Transit in the corridor during the traffic diversions, such as implementing a busonly lane. Additional recommendations were for adding Traffic Control for the outer bart stations to accommodate traffic spillover from people exiting the freeway early, before they get to the affected area. Caltrans promised to refer the suggestions to bart and local authorities. Caltrans was also strongly urged to conduct preferential hiring among residents impacted. The district 10 c. A. C. Rep emphasized that whoever was engaged to assist with d. B. E. Really reach into the local community to do their hiring. Another c. A. C. Member recommended internet search because the caltrans replacement project website currently appeared in the web. We look forward to welcoming mr. Tomlin to the c. A. C. In the near future. And that completes my report. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Larsen. And thanks for that information. Are there any questions for mr. Larsen on behalf of the c. A. C. . Seeing none, is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing no Public Comment, Public Comment is closed. Item 3, approve the minutes of the january 28, 2020 meeting. This is an action item. Chairman ms. Smith. Were approving the minutes first. Chairman my apologies. Ive jumped ahead. Are there any comments on the minutes of january 28th . Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the minutes made by commissioner preston, seconded by commissioner walton. Roll call, please. [roll call] we have final approval. Chairman the next item. Item 4, appoint one member to the citizens advisory committee. Good morning, april smith at the transportation authority. The transportation auth has 11 members, which each member serving a twoyear term. The board appoints any individuals to fill any open seats. To qualify for appointments for the c. A. C. , applicants must be san franciscan residents, and must appear before the board to speak about through qualifications. In the packet is a list of applicants, and it has information on each applicant. The vacancy under consideration today as a result of the term expiration of mr. Tanon. Chairman any questions for ms. Smith . Seeing none, mr. Tanon, come on up. Good morning, chair peskin and members of the commission. Im peter tanon, a district 8 resident seeking reemployment. Prior to returning, i served at the Program Manager for s. F. M. C. A. P. So so i have a City Employees knowledge, and institutional knowledge, and experience of transparency issues, and im an involved citizen who use muni and bicycles almost every day. My most important c. A. C. Objectives are the implementation, monitoring, and following up. Muni workshop and recommendations to the new sf m. T. A. Director, who is making the leap for more than 20 years as a very wellconnected consultant, to head a 2. 2 million public agency, which has had a history of problems. And key issues to track include operator shortages, transit supervision, especially in regards to the effects of bus bunching, the short and longterm subway reliability, and an application of Lessons Learned from the van ness project to the garry project. And secondly, a continued monitoring and increased regulation of Transportation Network companies bicycle and scooter sharing. [buzzer] and, thirdly, input to the downtown congestion management pricing study. Id be happy to answer awe questions, and thank you for your consideration. Chairman thank you, mr. Tanon. Are there any questions . Seeing none, are there any other applicants who would like to testify . Is there any Public Comment on this matter . Seeing none, we will close Public Comment. And is there a motion to reappoint mr. Tanon to the c. A. C. . Im sorry, supervisor mandelman. Thank you, mr. Chair. We did interview several qualified, extent applicants for this position. I wish we could appoint all of them. The incumbent, however, as far as i can tell, has been doing a great job. He is the longestserving member of the c. A. C. , and he is active and engaged, he has chaired it and vice chaired it, and i see no reason to not reappoint him. I would like to move we reappoint him. Chairman motion made by mr. Mandelman. And seconded. Next item, please . Item 5, state and federal legislation update. This is an action item. Chairman mr. Watts. Good morning chair and board members. Im grateful to be here this morning because i got to get out of the wind up in my area. So this is a very nice res pit for me respit for mere. Me. A week from friday will be the last day to see bill introductions. It has been a slow period for the last several weeks of maybe a dozen or two a day, and i think it will pick up in the next coming weeks. We will most likely have a lot of bills to bring forward to you at the next cycle. On your agenda, on table 1, we have a couple of bills that are poised for action. First is ab1848 by Assembly Member lac lackey out of southern california. His bill would propose to appropriate as much as 4 billion from the remaining proposition 1a high speed rail bond program specifically to the regional transportation Regional Rail corridor in southern california, operated by metrolink. As a side note, we know that the highspeed Rail Authority is going to be seeking an appropriation this year to continue the work on the Central Valley to bay area segment that is under way. So thats so that measure is in direct competition with the efforts that the administration and the highspeed Rail Authority board will be seeking. A second measure that were recommending opposed unless amended is ab1964, by mr. Fraser, the chair of the Assembly Transportation committee. Essentially it deals with remoteoperated Autonomous Vehicles, and provides a slightly expanded definition to bring that category into the Autonomous Vehicle regulatory scheme. But the amendments we would like to see are similar to what we sought in the past, which would be at least language requiring consultation by the commercial operators with local entities on safety issues that may be anticipated. And that will be right out of the gate, the first thing we push for on that measure. Two bills that we have down for a watch position are very similar in concept, but slightly different. Ab1350by Assembly Member gonzales from san diego deals with free youth passes by transit. And similarly, assembly mr. Chu has introduced ab2012, which would require the availability of free passes for seniors. In both cases, they have a similar trigger in order to qualify for a certain state transit funds, and the Transit Agency would have to adopt these operating principles. So we have those as watch for now. There is a concern about the amount of revenue that could be affected. And we dont have a good handle on that yet. So until we know how much it is going to be redirected for these purposes, the staff is recommending a watch position. I want to comment on two of the bills that in the wake of the 2019 half of this session and the twoyear month of january having passed, whereby any bills in the first house had to pass. There are two notable bills, ab40, by mr. King, which failed to meet the deadline, and that bill would have limited the eligibility for cv rp, assistance for is electric vehicle programs and manufacturers. Unless the manufacturer of the vehicles had entered into an agreement with the state of california, and in this case, the measure was not able to muster enough votes, so it was not taken up for a final vote. In addition, a bill that was very carefully monitored throughout the year, sb50, by senator weiner, and i think you know the outcome of that. It was not ready to move forward this year. We do expect, and by all accounts understand, that senator weiners office and senator weiner will be working on this issue throughout the remainder of this half of the legislative session. So we expect to see more activity in the housing projection arena. A couple of hearings of interest i want to height. Highlight. One is underway later this afternoon. The Senate TransportationCommittee Hearing on an update on sb1, how the programs have been implemented, how well is the money getting out the door, how well are contracts being let, and trying to flag or identify any problems in the sb1 arena. That update will be completed later today. In addition, a second hearing is scheduled on february 25th by Senate Transportation committee dealing with t. N. C. S. There was an initial t. N. C. Hearing in the fall. This one is going to look more closely at privacy and datasharing. Your t. A. Staff plans to in in attendance to monitor this hearing. Ive been in touch with the Senate Transportation consultant, and we have had access to the agenda. And i think well have a good handle on that and be able to report that out when that happens. For the november ballot, there is the the staff asked me to double check the status, and i have on the revision to prop 13, the socalled split roll initiative. That is one of the lone items ready for november nov 2020 at this point in time. And there are some pending initiatives as well. The one bit of news is there is a reference in the summary document at the Controllers Office im sorry, the secretary of states office, that indicates they have seen the legislative analysts revenue estimate, and it looks like an annual estimate of 6 million to 10 million, depending on the market for housing. And as a reminder, 40 of that would go directly to schools, and the other would be retained for distribution within the communities from wence it came. In closing, staff member Maria Lombardo has a presentation briefly to talk about a couple of the bay areas specific members. With that, i bring my part of the propertytation t presenta close. Chairman thank you, mr. Watts. Are there any questions for mr. Watts . Seeing none, ms. Lombardo. Ill be very brief. I wanted to talk about two regional bills. One youve probably all seen in the news, ab25727 bbyAssembly Member chu. It tries to get our 27 transit operators to operate in a way that is more customerfocused and seamless. Many know you have to struggle with sometimes didnt payment mechanisms, findings and maps that require a degree. There is a lot to make our transit operators Work Together as a single system, with the goal as making it easier in helping us to achieve many of our environmental goals, getting people to ride transit. One of the sponsors of the bill is seamless bay area. And we have ian griffith, the cofounder of the organization, if you have any questions. Owfeour understanding is right now this is a spot bill, which is why we have a watch bill. There are few sentences describing the intents. Our understanding is when the bill is amended, there will be a provision to appoint some sort of commission or Blue Ribbon Panel that is recommended to come up with recommendations. Those who would need legislative authority would then go back to the legislature. This could range in the gamut from consistent mapping and way finding, coordinated schedules, and so forth. On the very high level, this all sounds great, and were very supportive of it. And we will, in fact, be bringing back an action to the c. A. C. In march to adopt a position of support for those highlevel principles. But like many things in life, the devil is in the details. Ill give you two examples. Were working with many of the stakeholders and assemblyman chus office to provide some input. When you form a commission to do this, the tendency often in sacramento is to go on a population basis, or one county representative. That probably wont work for us here. The urban core tends to get diluted. And when you think about it, muni, bart, and a. C. Transit, the three biggest operators, i believe they are 80 of the bay area transit ridership. That should be reflected in the composition of that panel. And one of the proposals is to try to come up with a commonbased fare. It might very well be possible, but it warrants a lot of study. Each Transit Agency has different financial setups, some with voterapproved measures, places like San Francisco with a strong history of supporting transit first, and we have regularly subsidized our transit system. We dont want it being diverted to catch everybody else up with where we are. So we are looking very much forward to working with the author at seamless bay and others to make this workable because there is certainly a lot of room for improvement. The last bill ill highlight is sb278, from the south bay, and this is a spot bill. This is the place holder for the potential regional transportation measure that is being led by commissioners from business interests, and right now theyre looking at a onecent, ninecounty sales tax for primarily Regional Transit and first and last mile. It is also being looked at with a mandated contribution from employers that would take the form of requiring them to provide, like, shuttles or subsidized transit passes for their employees. Ill come back to that in a second. That is one of the regional numbers. I want to point out two others because theyre all in the race together. We also have ab1487, which was authored and approved in the prior year from assemblyman chu, that allowed a variety of reach maregional housing mechanism mechanisms to be approved and then put on the ballot. The housing folks are looking at a 10 billion general Obligation Bond for november for housing. And we also have sb797, that would go to the sales tax, which commissioner walton is well aware of. All of these because the timeline is so short, by proceeding in concert, it was just at the end of january a workshop, and i know commissioner ronen had tended. And the direction was, keep them all moving forward right now, knowing well have to make some tough decisions about what stays on the ballot. The other piece of news i want to give you there was recently a poll done that polled a combined measure, onecent sales tax, with housing and transportation, and fit them both together, and it looked like it hit the twothirds threshold for approval. If transit and housing got together and see if it made sense to go together for a joint bill or go their separate ways. We expect well bring back regular updates to this body in the next few months. Thank you. Chairman thank you. Commissioner ronen . Yes. I just wanted to add or clarify marias comments about the poll. Yes, there was a poll that we saw the answers to without the questions for them, showing over twothirds for a onecent sales increase for a combined housing transportation measure. But im very skeptical of seeing the pol without poll witt seeing the actually questions. When i tried to drill down on the questions, the question was avoided and avoided and avoided until i finally got them to answer that they were asking sort of in a vacuum whether or not the regions voters wanted to see Traffic Congestion improved or wanted to see more affordable housing. It wasnt in relation to would you be willing to pay . I think the polls presented a falsely rosy picture for a very aggressive tax. I want us to remain extremely skeptical about that. And i dont think were alone in our skepticism. Chairman isnt the entire document a Public Record . We were not given the entire poll. We were given pieces of it. I believe, chair peskin, it was a private poll, but ill see if theyve released it. Chairman it seems like the right thing to do. All right. Are there any speakers on item 5 . I have one speaker card from ian griffith of the seamless bay area. Some decostus, youre up there, go ahead. Come on up, ian. Good morning, my name is ian griffith, and i