Minutes okay. Seeing none is there any Public Comment on item supervisor avalos. Im sorry, i he am wondering if youre mike is on. Is that better my apologies colleagues, any changes to the minutes seeing none well open up for Public Comment is there any Public Comment on item 2 seeing none, Public Comment is closed could i have a motion to or is that a roll call on the minutes. On item 2. Supervisor avalos supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor christensen supervisor cohen supervisor farrell supervisor kim absent arrest supervisor mar absent supervisor katie tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee absent this item passes. Okay item number 3. Chairs report this is an information item. Colleagues this is a few things i want to mention the first yesterday we held a hearing on the release of our last night transportation report that was paired by the last night Transportation Working Group we as you recall we had a hearing at the Land Use Commission Economic Development Community Around the challenges felt last night transportation and the needs for improvements sitting at the board of supervisors adapted the legislation to trigger a working group and ultimately a Plan Working Group did an interpretation work in the leadership of the office of Economic Workforce Development as well as the Entertainment Commission with a broadbased group of stakeholders unions and workers and employers and last night advocates in transit advocates just an enormous amount of research with the survey and produced a terrific report i want to thank the Transportation Authority staff specifically lithiasis brison and her team that just weve asked them to come in and provide the technical transit expertise and the staff did a phenomenal job working with the working group and providing that support and so the report came out yesterday very well received we held a hearing and im glad to report were starting to see progress as you recall a month ago bart and transit instituted a new transbay express in the mission and oakland and beyond in addition and well see this in a funding item on the agenda muni is going to be expanding its last night owl bus services this is a major challenge with the lack of transparency in the muni lines were seeing long term and short term grossly goals from the report well move forward well keep the working group intact to monitor the pass and why green again, i want to thank everyone including the staff in continuing that work i also want to just acknowledge february 10th mayor ed lee and others including kim and Julie Christensen came together to unveil the two vision zero strategy which has i think as far been a terrific success in terms of the unified success among the policy hordes and the 2 year plan involves a driver tangible step forward i look forward to continuing to work with everyone and thank everyone that was involved in the most recent steps and finally, i want to note that noah has joined the Bike Coalition the new executive director coming from new york city and the transportation alternative it an advocatecy group in new york city for biking and walking and transit i want to welcome him to San Francisco i know we all look forward to working with him and others to make our city even better transportation wise to than that already so those are my comments with that is there any Public Comment on item 3 seeing none, Public Comment is closed mr. Clerk. Closing arguments this is an information item. Ms. Tilly chang. Good morning this months report begins with the state level on the board equalization due to the reduction in gas prices and the state adjusts the competently kiss tax in gasoline we expect to see a decline in x kinds tax this will to come to the whole state dpw estimates a 70 percent in the gas tax k378gsz we receive for resurfacing and road with work we have joined a large group of coalitions and organizations and on letter ive attached to my are support offering to work with the govern to protect the existing level of revenues to grow the transportation revenues to grow our infrastructure and investment in addition in terms of the legislative masking ill see the items relate to two things the high occupancy one is authored by Assembly Transportation chair frazier ab 94 and another one through the cal secretary of transportation process budget trailer bill 402 we have outlined those in your legislative matrix both are how we develop the high occupancy work and the express lane working with our workers and briefing supervisor campos and supervisor wiener with the Transportation Commission and will be tracking both bills actually through the session on a related note Assembly Member kevin in san mateo choose another bill ab what is a policy bill intended to call for a regional process calling altercation to the abdomen on or about 101 calling attention to the whole coordinate and within 57 years hopefully e hoping to see investment and in a strategy for this important coordinator we applaud his original approach and call for the collaboration well keep you posted on the Affordable Housing through our cap trade work San Francisco has decided to opt a single application seeking the maximum 15 million for the Affordable Housing Sustainable Community program this will be for a proposal in the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development coordination and the access statewide fund is 200 underway well work with the city and try to result in some good funding our the Affordable Housing on the Transportation Program the program at the 125i9 e statewide that fund bikes and theres a call for projects that outline in your memo on march 26 applications are due with the mta and the city on San Franciscos application in last years cycle one on the transportation project if 3 were funded 3. 9 million the pathway to schools and mta vision zero bike and pedestrian education Enforcement Program as well as the dpw department of Public Health safe Schools Education at the Elementary School and High Schools Program in terms of regional issue the bay area study kicked off it will be lead by our mta and bart to look at the transbay coordinator a invites champion and response to the last night working Group Recommendation to look at transbay and bart services was a importantly and one medical immediate term to improve the access weve tieftd excited to kickoff that and that will be a major dovetail with our major express work happening in the same period on conflict as you recall the Transbay Joint Powers Authority approved did report for the notification project in japan now we enter the period of procurement for the bill of the contracted will be released later this week and the cal tort to are the will be working and more capacity and reliability improvements are on the way and concurly the two agencies are working 0 together well report back to the Land Use Commission chair covered the last night working group so a few notes on the local adjustments in terms of the Transportation Improvement Program on the agenda we be looking at xhovp 2kg9 to and from Golden Gate Park and improvements on the corridor were working with district 6, temple, 12 and others for the grant activities well coordinate with mta and the other departments in the coming years and finally on our dbe and lbe we have a had a successful workshop in february that had about 70 folks in attendance and over 70 companies from dbe and lbe firms the purpose to promote ethnicity and to introduce folks to our process make sure they know how to access the procurement opportunities and pleased to see the sponsoring organizations including the sfmta and the Transit District and conflicts and the parkway all of whom highlighted the procurement opportunity it was a packed reems rooms and had Asian American contractors at golden gate and the chamber of commerce as well as the africanamerican chamber of commerce finally ill note we have welcomed joe on to the Management Team hes taking liz hes excited to join our team he has over 16 years of experience in the forecasting and built the transportation back in 2000 im happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, colleagues any questions or comments relating to the to the directors report open up for Public Comment any Public Comment on item 4 seeing none, Public Comment is closed and this is an information item madam clerk call item 5 and item 5 adopt the positions on state legislation this is an action item. Im going to ask supervisor cowen precede over item 5. Okay good morning, everyone. All right. Mr. Chair would you like to provide the opening comments maam vice chair ill request we separate the questions in terms of separating ab 61 from the remainder of the state legislation and vote on that separately so maam, vice chair in the finance committee the staff recommended that ab 61 have we not take a position and instead monitor 9 progress of that bill the finance committee voted to change that represents to an opposed position so ab 16 is state legislation that will clarify the power of local jurisdictions to allow private shuttles to utilize Public Transportation stops we believe that no one everyone but the mta the city ebldz we have that ability the flaw will clarify that power and it is working its way through the process not undermine the Pilot Program we have in place in San Francisco between the mta and varies private shuttle provider that take san franciscans to work so i believe we should adopt the staff represents to watch or monitor this bill rather than oppose it i make a motion to amend the item to change the recommendation or excuse me. I make a motion to amend we adapt a watch Port Commission position instead of an opposed position. Before we vote on that i was wondering if theres a staff person that can talk about the reason the recommendation was made to oppose the recommendation and again for the benefit of those persons not in the finance committee hearing. Supervisor cowen the staff recommended a watch position on this bill it is sponsored by Southern California legislator providing the authorities to state authority for the access it is rather early we want to talk to our colleagues that have not will taken a recommendation so thats the early stages this item comes back with the matrix every month. So for clarification the consultants made the recommendation for us to opts. This was a staff recommendation and mark keeps track of it but thats a staff recommendation excuse me. The finance took the action to switch position. So theres a motion it on the table and seconded by supervisor tang excuse me. Supervisor campos thank you, madam chair im sure youre aware of those of us who serve on the finance committee voted to oppose it was a unanimous votes ones the finance committee the reason we right let me see voted in that way because lets be very clear about this this is about privatizing public space to the stent there is a need for Something Like that theres an argument that the jurisdictions already have that authority and what this is is basically, the state legislator yet again responding to the political powders the Tech Industry for another give away like the one in San Francisco and trying to take this show on the road i dont know if even can say that we know that this is going to impact whats happening here in San Francisco so theres a clear reason why the finance committee unanimously voted to oppose and i respectfully ask that you vote to affirm what the finance committee had a thorough discussions decided. Thank you very much supervisor mar. Ill agree there was a good and thorough discussion not only with our lobbyists in San Francisco but the members of the finance committee ill support the recommendation to oppose and my resident from my Community District 1 and others have been watching this and ask we take an opposed position as well i stronger urge we innovate amend this and support the finance departments decision i want to say another item on the same page right below in the summary that was given us to ab 40 legislation assemblyman bill kings legislation regarding the golden gate and sidewalk and bike and pedestrian fees i plan to introduce a resolution at the full board urging the support for the position at the next finance committee and taking a strong support position for bill kings legislation let me talk about this for ab 40 it is legislation that will ban charging a toll for pedestrians use of golden gate im sure youre aware of the golden gate is a public treasure owned below the people nont not only in San Francisco but san franciscans from the greater bay area and san franciscans enjoy the bridge as a public place a gateway to National Parks with a history in architecture wonder the resolution ill be introducing will be ab 40 comes with conversations with various planners of public space and visits as well will be moving at the next finance committee to take a support position and i look forward to our comments as it moves through the board of supervisors. Thank you very much supervisor wiener. Supervisor christensen. Im sorry supervisor wiener. Thank you, maam chair i want to thank supervisor mar for the statement about the golden gate bill we were San Francisco commissioners were these almost completely united including the bike pedestrian fee in terms of ab 61 it is important to keep in mind two things first of all this motion is not to move us from the recommended opposed position to a support position but go back to the staff recommendations to watch this bill and i think this is not completely appropriate and second the bill does not take away local control it clarifies that we have local control that we as a localist enter into an agreement for the shurltsd to be able to use muni bus stops under appropriate circumstances and in fact thats what were doing with the program i understand people want the buses to go away there are a lot of neighbors that get to work using the buses inside and outside the city it is appropriate to go back to a watch position. Thank you very much supervisor christensen. Get the milk on i want to clarify my understanding which is as supervisor wiener said were not debating whether or not shuttles should be there but where the discussion should take place it belongs at the local level the clarity is welcome if all making things easier so i welcome the clarification and im sure well continue to have the discussion about the impact. Supervisor campos. Since were talking about clarify lets be clear about what were doing theres a stronger argument it does what the bill is doing what this is and behind the political driving force a tech exultant that want to expand its reach in the state of california that is the reason where theyre pushing this forward it is appropriate and in fact i know the necessary responsible thing for San Francisco to do in light of what we see with those shuttles and, yes they serve a purpose but the question is not whether they should be here but whether or not the presence is being regulated is appropriate and i can tell you that since this pilot started i have received so many concerns from people including people that were at first supportive of the pilot that are no longer supportive so lets be clear b. A. About what this is i think we should be firm and send the message to the rest of the state this bill not only is unnecessary but have a detrimental thing especially were talking about the privatization of public space pr without by the way any requirement that payment be made. Supervisor kim. Thank you. I just want to direct some questions to staff and so can you clarify ab 61 is looking at was it mean by curbside and what localities can do under the existing legislation. Supervisor kim. I judge have a summary of the bill and its not entirely clear the bill will allow local authorities to permit Shuttle Services to stop loading and unloading of passengers between the Transit System operating buses and common carriers and shuttle providers it doesnt have a whole lot of detail it is a vehicle for discussing the relationship between the local and state authority. Can you talk about what is currently allowed in the existing law. Under the existing law someone may not park or stop with loading or unloading of passengers of a common carrier of bus transportation except when existing situation allow the buses between the transit operator and the common carriers including the private school so it doesnt i mean right now it defaults to the transit operator to provide the authority and this provides the low and behold authorities to prevent the shuttle to allow shuttles to do the same thing i mean its affirming the local authority to do that. Which we current already have. We currently already have its a little bit confusing. Okay. Were talking about any curbside not just to curb stops. Curb spaces im not sure one moment please sorry commissioners ill hand out the builds so you can look at them one of the reasons we recommended the watch level it is not clear it is an extremely short bill so ab 61 here we go. But youre saying if under the existing legislative structure localities can set up agreements like the shuttle did i know the bill doesnt explain im asking what the current what the Current Situation is what a United States Current Situation. The m t does have the authority. Its not clear what this legislation is needed for and i think that could be fair. Thanks. Supervisor campos please. Thank you just a quick question for staff my understanding is that what this bill does and this is unique is that in addition to being redundant because the local jurisdictions have that authority as evidenced we did that without legislation in sacramento but what it does do it it makes it clear it sort of creates a certain status for the shuttles and specifically provides to them and accords them the same treatment as school buses which to me goes beyond the local Authority Local control if what youre saying is you want local control we have that this is why this industry is pushing this so much who want to elevate the status of buses to school buses you may building that but i believe we should be very clear were talking about two type of types of services here here. Supervisor wiener. Thank you, maam vice chair so i think it is important to be clear about the current state of the law theres the one about whether state law allows for example mta or other transit operators to enter into the agreements with a private employer the mta says it has that authority and as you recall when we handled the ceqa appeal when we heard the ceqa appeal on the Pilot Program the opts modest the argument that mta was ironics wrong and we dont have the authority to enter into that with shuttle drivers there were members of the board of supervisors that expressed agreement it was illegal to enter into that ive not spoken to the author of this legislation i cant speak for him in terms of his motivation, in fact, theres a law pevend that is illegal for the mta underline state law to enter into state law with the s
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.