and we can keep acting outside the box. one of the last untried things we will try to start providing transit money we will need that people traveling in the area will need. commissioner mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker please. if i called your name, please come on up. >> good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. i'm an epidemiologist with the san francisco department of public health and the program of health,by am here because i wano share with you information about a study led by the department of public health to understand congestion pricing. benefits from reduction in driving during peak periods and planned investments for transit and infrastructure for people walking and biking, building on the experience from 2003. funded by the robert wood

johnson foundation program. we will assess transportation impacts as well as future conditions. and pedestrian safety conditions and our analysis includes the assessment of the economic impact of death and injury related to air pollution and policy impact related to factors like geographic location. the health impact assessment of pricing like this can help to make benefits more transparent, allowing them to be inclusive in the health identifying adverse impacts and we anticipate releasing these findings in the spring of 2011.

understanding this pricing is an issue of interest not only to us but to international stakeholders in public health and sustainable transportation that recognize fundamentally transportation policy is health policy. determining whether these are environments that support or hurt. demonstrating the traffic related air pollution is related to early death. [tone] ok, thanks. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i urge you to please put the notion of congestion pricing at rest. it is bad for san francisco. bottom line is that it is a tax. a few years ago proposition e was on the ballot providing a

tax on cars. the people of san francisco do not want more taxes on cars. the measure lost 68%. san francisco was not london or stockholm or a city with 10 million people or a huge infrastructure. it does not have a congestion problem. this is solving a problem that does not really exist. the notion of regional coordination is important. that is the reason that new york's congestion pricing failed. they did not talk to the bronx. this measure has to go to the assembly to get past, ultimately. i agree that more transit is needed, but this is the wrong place to look and the wrong economic climate. go to some of the meetings. i was at the local meetings. people were upset about it. they did not want it. listen to what was already said

when people were asked if they wanted their parking taxes to go up. people resoundingly said no. 68%. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. [reads names] >> good afternoon. i am with at the san francisco bicycle coalition. we have been paying close attention to this study and have been participating. i would like to thank the staff for their excellent work so far. this is a sophisticated idea and i suppose it is not surprising that misapprehensions would arise. but it is simple, this is smart business. there is a very significant private individual value and significant public cost to driving a vehicle in the most

congested streets of our city. the city must assign a fair value to the driving, recover the cost, and invest the revenue in measures that will be balance the streets for all users to support our many policy goals. congestion pricing is an essential tool in how we manage density, an essential element in climate protection, essential to growing a healthy city that is sustainable, prosperous, a city that keeps moving. there will be plenty of time and opportunities for citizens to deliberate on whether or not this tool is employed. for now let's get this question right. carried forward with it does good work for a possible congestion pricing system to keep the city moving. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: next

speaker, please. >> my name is michael and i am a progressive. i am a resident of district four. i have lived my life between the two cities. -- excuse me? >> my fault. [tone] [tone] >> i imagine the $1,500 per year means very little to you, but for the thousands that clout -- crossed the line in the dirt, it means the difference of paying their rent, food for their families, and health care for their children. make no misunderstanding, this is a tax. this proposed tax has little to do with the environmental green and more to do with cash money

green. you have squandered our money before. this time you wanted from the working class of your neighbors. this is a burden placed upon the working class while the more affluent residents are given a pass. this is the lead is an addict most transparent. take it into account, this is also unconstitutional. this city is not an island. it is the heart of the bay area with a responsibility that exceeds its borders. we have a symbiotic relationship. this proposed tax policy is a bad neighbor policy. it will further alienate working-class allies and destroy the clock -- the credibility that this government has left. for the janitors, security guards, elderly parents, and my sister that i will have to take back and forth twice to go visit my newborn nephew, whose only

crime is that they left -- they lack the money to live in the most expensive city in the country, san francisco. reconsider this proposal. shove it. supervisor mirkarimi: i would like to remind everyone that this is about a study, not a proposal. the next speaker. >> for the record, my name is linda magellan. i am the executive director of the union square business district, here to represent our members who are property owners in attendance of the 27 block area around union square. i have also participated for the past several years in the mobility access pricing study business advisory committee. i have had the benefit of several presentations by the staff that are members. she has been very patient with

us. i am here on behalf of members to ask two things of view. one is to ask and receive the file for the feasibility report. the other is not to proceed with studies until more is known about the impact of the proposition. san francisco is not london, not stockholm, as the previous speaker said. we do not suffer the same congestion levels of those cities that inspired them to implement congestion pricing. the streets are not overcrowded or congested, not burdened beyond capacity. the congestion we experience is largely one that comes to us from the bay bridge and leaves us at the bay bridge. san francisco as a world-class favorite destination. we should be creating incentives for people to come here. not establishing barriers to

entry. as one person from the peninsula said, let's not establish a moat around the city. that sentiment expresses our greatest fear. what you will gain in fees, we will lose in revenue. we urge you to treat this as [a regional as [tone -- regional problem. [tone] supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. >> the san francisco republican party has not taken a position on this, frankly because we did not see it coming. i would like to salute the supervisor of her service and for her coach and suggestions on prop 26.

as a supporter of prop 13 i do not believe that 26 would be challenged successfully. closings a major loopholes. when is a fee not a tax? the truth of the matter is that once you put this on, which will eventually have to do, it will be defeated like the gentleman from the parking authority stated. it will be defeated two-one. basically it is a regressive tax. $1,500. say someone who has a salary of $1,400, they are talking about $3,000 at the federal level and what would happen is the middle class tax reduction would be eliminated. we are talking about half of

that. $1,500. additionally, what happens to the people in the district within that special district? let's say that she wanted to go to safeway and over to fill more. would you be charged an extra $3 every time? who gets charged? is that the city residents? anyone that enters san francisco or that some? people from other states? i think that federal law might have something to say about that. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. i will read the remainder of cards that i have. [reads names] those are all of them. if anyone else wants to participate in the middle aisle, please.

>> we direct the staff to move to the next age of environmental review. congestion pricing in london and stockholm has reduced crashes in injuries and lower greenhouse gas emissions, improving public transit service and speed. some of this would support street improvements for pedestrians and cyclists. these are highly desirable outcomes and highly desirable for anyone that walks the streets of san francisco. namely the people of san francisco and visitors from other counties and other places. congestion pricing warrants further study and has the potential to make great

improvements in the quality of life in san francisco. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker. >> i am the executive director of san the tail county. our sheriff will be speaking very shortly. i want to thank your staff for including in the record the letter with my board opposing the third scenario of southern gateway study. your staff has done an excellent job on the study and i would like to clarify a few points. certainly professional support of appropriate congestion pricing in london, as i went there this year, we saw that it could do -- what it was is that it was a high density, high mobility area. it was not the entire area. when you look at the southern

gateway i do not think that in any way it would meet the criteria that you would want to put towards it. we did not oppose the study, but they did ask for elimination of the southern gateway from further consideration. one more troubling thing, totaling the county line it is congestion pricing. without working on it together it is like putting up a roadblock between us. we would ask that you eliminate the southern gateway from further consideration. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker. >> first of all, the sierra club supports congestion pricing. but i would like to try to answer some of the questions brought up by commissioners. the first one is the need for the mta to get on board. you have to do a lot of

studying and they have to see it coming before they can do anything. one of the reasons we support this is that with less congestion, the buses will move more smoothly. with more money they can provide better service. this is what we are trying to do on the first day. the other part is the study of parking. which is very essential. but also not only parking and pricing, but how much should there be? should we expand the limited parking that comes with office buildings downtown? that was a great program and perhaps needs expanding. should there be a parking tax? i am going to ask about stuff like that. if you have worked harder to get it done, it might have passed. these other kinds of things, if

they studied it people might say that paying a fee might be better than the alternatives. i am very pleased that they're looking so far ahead in this level of congestion. they are not just talking about today's ingestion, they are talking about tomorrows congestion. the study would cost us $2.5 billion per year, and if you had another study maybe they could say -- ok, list how it would be less. let me talk about san mateo for one second. [tone] i will finish in a second. more people drove from one side to the other side and said we should study what would happen. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker, please. >> ♪ boulder lot -- borderline.

you just keep on pushing those prices over the border line borderline can just-in-time please try to understand you made it as high as you can all over the city and land and it is just a crowded grand slam borderline and i am going to lose my mind you just keep on pushing those prices over the border line borderline da da out of dimes ♪ supervisor mirkarimi: thank you.

mr. kelly? >> commissioners, i am here on behalf of the fellow merchants association where for the past couple of years we have tried to find a way to support this study and given the way that our feedback has been handled over the years, it has been very hard. there are three reasons this is true. with all due respect, there is a war going on right now that has been for a number of years. businesses moving over the border continue to do so because they try to escape san francisco taxes. this program, dunn sensitively within the context of other measures could be a way of leveling the playing field. or it could make things worse. we have been trying to give that feedback. no response and nothing in the study.

basically we need to have that to make a decision. second, the other two proposals are on 18th street. not only through the middle of my neighborhood, but also the commercial district. i should not have to explain to you how stupid that choice of a border is it that moves forward, and after two years of study it is still there, start planning to our rest me now because i will be climbing that poll regularly if that border sticks. third, the mta has to be in this conversation. everywhere there were specific transit improvements made, one year and half before you put in the congestion pricing program, if the mta is not a serious part of the conversation with specific improvements that we can consider, cta is not serious

about this proposal. supervisor mirkarimi: i want to remind people that if you have not spoken yet on items 13 and 14, please come up the aisle. we will be closing public comment soon. >> hello. in the chair of the city government of san mateo county. the first thing i would like to say is that we acknowledge and agree that congestion is a regional issue. it does not start at the border of san francisco and is not confined to downtown san francisco. if you want to go to the airport around commuter hours, you will see some of our congestion. want to get to silicon valley during those same hours? you will be in congestion. the city county association of governments is the management

agency for the county. we also understand that this is a study. but honestly of felt like solutions were already being crawford before the study was conducted. san mateo county feels singled out on this and we wonder if we understand the underlying causes and current impact, regional patterns and income levels of the people impacted, the timing of the traffic and what leads to the ingestion. a good study will identify alternatives, looking at potential results from each alternative, studying the impact and most importantly, which is where we are not sure it has been done, what are the potential unintended consequences as people try to avoid this. will they go on to streets and neighborhoods not billed for this? we stand ready to work with you on this but we honestly feel that said mateo county has been singled out and this needs to

be a regional approach and solution for the entire area. thank you very much. supervisor mirkarimi: next speaker, please. >> my name is francis [unintelligible] first and foremost, going to the san francisco county transportation authority, you expanded $300,000 for this study. if i am not mistaken, $150,000 from proposition k and another $150,000 from the golden gate bridge system. maybe i am wrong, but i think i am right. having said that, you have heard what mr. hill said. you have given him a hard time. he will initiate legislation.

some of you may not agree with, but you do deserve a dose of medication and i will explain why. again and again in recent years, some of you supervisors and some of you so-called authorities fail to respect the commoner. the ordinary woman, child, and met deserves respect if you cannot give the common respect, then any matter that is in justice, -- in justice, this respect, i will explain why, it has to be taken to court. most of you all understand the adjudication.

you had $300,000. you do not have the empirical data that shows us that you spoke to small businesses. to people all over the place. that was long. [tone] supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. any other public comments? seeing no one, public comment is closed on items 13 and 14. the items before this commission. both items. colleagues, any further comments or questions before our clerk takes a role in 13? supervisor daly: over the last couple of years i have gotten to participate in several discussions on congestion

pricing schemes at the metropolitan transportation commission. obviously all of the counties of the region are represented there. i think that an important decision last year was the decision to make a congestion pricing scheme in terms of the total authority position on the bay bridge was interesting because it was the culmination of about 20 years of discussions. ultimately you can see that there was some disagreement over how much d increment should be in terms of congestion pricing and what to do about carpools. ultimately, it was basically a unanimous decision and it was a controversial idea.

the that the san mateo representatives were leaders in pushing congestion pricing mechanisms. i think that obviously it can seem different when there is not a bridge. but in reality the concept is very similar in terms of a peninsula to the san francisco corridor. i think that with long-term capacity issues, with impending issues of global catastrophe and climate change, the science is to the point where climate change is real. the sea level rise is real. the bay area and across california. global forces are major

contributors to this issue. these are the decisions that we are going to have to make. i think that over the course of the study, clearly the authority in san francisco needs to have lines of communication and dialogue open with neighbors to the south. in many respects we are only following the lead, with this vote, of the regional transportation agency. which has already taken the steps to move towards congestion pricing mechanisms. i mentioned hot wings to kati. paying for the use of the road. paying for that convenience is becoming a reality. those moneys are very much needed for our public transportation system and for our maintenance and the delivery

of infrastructure. so, colleagues, i think that this is an idea that i was ready to vote on 10 years ago. it was probably test do then, and i think we need to make this step now. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor elsbernd: on item 14 i would like to make a motion to eliminate the southern gateway from further analysis. supervisor mirkarimi: seconded by supervisor alioto-pier. do you mind if we take 13 first? very good. madam clerk, please do roll- call on item 13. >> other #13.