far healthier outcome for the communities, less costly and more efficient. smart government. instead we got the banks who have a lot of dollars. they kept their bonuses and brought back their stocks and starved, villages, towns, citizens, homelessness as part of the syndrome. where do we find dignity homes? who can support them? sba 27, the resolution, statewide coverage of california's remedy it for denser housing. it should be shipped out of the state completely. i wouldn't mind bringing, signing a recall. the wrong direction completely. we need to take responsibility in our own neighborhood and our own communities.

>> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> this is some of the... >> clerk: can you speak directly into the microphone? >> okay. i need to pick up this image if you place it over here. >> clerk: if you place it under the projector, we should be able to pick it up. >> okay. >> clerk: i will start your time. >> this is just some of the, this is what some of the housing looks like for six as a construction worker's, temporary construction workers and temporary housing in oslo, norway. they can house 6,000 constructor

-- construction workers. we should be able to house 6,000 or 7,000 homeless individuals just as easily. but i wanted to talk on the food service contract. the food service contract includes bottled water, card milk that is calorie dense, and inmates are physiologically incapable of digesting it and jails do not provide water fountains given that san francisco has a high rate of tuberculosis relative to the rest of the nation. so, yeah, it would seem obvious that they would do that, provide water as an option but i am not sure that they actually do. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sorry. next speaker, please. >> thank you madame clerk. president breed, ladies and gentlemen of the board, i am an

involuntary psychiatric outpatient in this city and have been for ten years. more than ten years. i am getting tired of the hypocrisy. i heard about of course the man who was tortured at the airport. we have all heard about that. i don't want to minimize anybody else's suffering and i am to become homeless and less than four years, by the way. but i have been tortured for more than ten years. i have been treated with sodium cyanide and nonlethal doses. i have been treating with asthma inducing substances. i've been reduced to lying on the floor of my rent-controlled unit, gasping for breath for hours because of my political activity. supposedly protected by the constitution. and you are funding this.

you are paying over a million dollars a week to citywide case management community focus. to do this to me! and i have had enough! madame clerk. >> clerk: thank you, sir, keep your comments formal. next speaker, please. next speaker, please? >> just wondering if we have a coram. >> clerk: reducer, i am beginning your time now. >> thank you. i guess i am wondering what y'all are going to do about solutions? i think somebody needs to call for a hearing as to what is the city going to do regarding a solution? i think we can start by putting more toilets in our communities.

>> hello, hey, everybody, how is it going. they were talking to somebody else. >> clerk: this is your time, sorry. >> all right but i am just, maybe we could bring more toilets into the community. more sanitation like leaning into the community. we need more solutions. i am asking that y'all actually do something to get to some solutions to deal with some of the problems in our community. it seems like a very violation that the city voted for as the sweeps and no housing. so, the lawsuits are coming, especially when they come from me. i have already filed and i'm hoping you know. but, i guess i am just wonderi

wondering, the sweeps, the lawsuits, it just seems like there's no protections for the homeless when they go to these service providers and get abused. the committee, the local homeless coordinating board, they aren't doing enough i mean it is overwhelmed by service providers. i mean we go to these areas and we get abused and it seems like, you know, this body and everybody else is apathetic. and when do we get to the compassionate san francisco that is in the manuals and in the advertisements for the people? >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. are there any other members of the public would like to address the board? please line up to your right. >> do we have 20 minutes or three? >> clerk: you have two minutes and if the lady next to you would like to speak she has two

minutes as well. >> you can speak. >> we are here because we run a homeless dinner and have done for 15 years in chinatown, north beach and in the financial district. we know the budget is coming up soon and that all of you will make those important decisions on how to spend our city's resources. we are here to recommend highly that those resources be spent on the short term rental office and on any enforcement unit, for instance within the city attorney's office second closer look at the by outlaw that you yourselves passed in 2015 and was put into effect of march of that year. here is what is going on for us to see about 100 people a month. some of them the same and some of them different people from those three areas of the city that i mentioned earlier. many people are being bought o out, "if we looked at the federal fair housin housing lawd the requirement that people be accommodated, those people would not be able to be evicted. they have sometimes mental disabilities, sometimes alcoholism, other problems, but

right here in the city, we are talking about spreading or giving more latitude to the conservancy loss, but what we are effectively doing by allowing these people to be pushed out onto the street, as we are on conservin and conservy people who are already inside and deserve our help, to serve our assistance. they can be given that help, if with the city's attorney's office and with the short-term rental office in other ways of enforcing the laws that we have, making sure these people are not being pushed out. we know of a couple in north beach who, in 2016, at they are in their seventies, were pushed out because they were quote a nuisance. they were then bought out. even though it was 2016, it is still not registered, legally as required by law. they are not registered as having ever been bought out, why? because the owner, who we know of, has avoided the law. so again, it seems there is no easy enforcement mechanism to help find out where are those buyouts being done illegally and

pushing people out who deserve to be inside? thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. madame president? >> supervisor breed: thank you either any other members of the public would like to provide public comment at this time? public comment is now closed. madame clerk, please read the items for adoption without reference to committee. >> clerk: i teams 18 through 22 are being considered for adoption of that committee reference. we will call the vote now. [roll call] >> supervisor cohen: i just want to speak to you about item 18. >> supervisor breed: supervisor fewer? [roll call] >> supervisor breed: no other concerns of the remaining items. madame clerk, please call the role. [roll call]

>> supervisor breed: those items are adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item number 18 [roll call] >> supervisor breed: supervisor tank we. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. i know there are concerns. i do want to make sure that colleagues have also seen the letter that came from the animal legal defence fund which has been very supportive of sb 1024

and i wanted to make sure we are all away -- all aware of some of the corrections that they wanted to address. one of them is that there was a concern that it would significantly increase fines associated with the various cruelty offences. and to be a lgf wanted to point out that it does allow for a find to go up to $2,000 versus $1,000. however, it would still be up to the discretion of the court in terms of imposing whatever level of the. the idea behind the increase was to allow for more funding to actually enforce sb 1024 if it were to pass. secondly, there was a concern that fb 1024 imposes a mandatory mental health treatment and that the treatment provider could have the power to send someone to jail for failing to comply with the treatments. i wanted to clarify that sb 1024 actually imposes mandatory mental health evaluations, not

treatment. for only at specific types of crimes. and those are the crimes that are most associated with underlying behavioural disorders. and when i first introduced this particular resolution talk i noted there was a study that found that and 90 % of the cases where there was an on-campus shooting, that the person who committed the crime had a history of animal cruelty and abuse. so those are the two main points we wanted to point out. again, this was a resolution to support sb 1024. i know colleagues have concerns. like a it is fine if you are not in support of this but i wanted to at least set the record straight for those two main points. >> supervisor breed: thank you supervisor. >> supervisor fewer: i agree animal abuse is a serious issue and this is a well-intentioned effort to provide mental health treatment for the perpetrators of animal abuse. but i would not be able to support this resolution in support of sb 1024 because i am concerned about the implications it would happen -- have on the

criminal justice system. this bill would allow an increase in fines in the criminal justice system which are already to be too high and devastating to low income communities. this would also give mental health care providers the power to decide if someone should go to jail for not complying with this mental health evaluation requirements. judges can already require -... and they have authority to revoke someone's parole if they do not comply. i'm concerned about handling just handing this authority over to a mental health care provider especially when we do not allow this for any other criminal offenders including child abuse and domestic violence. those are the reasons. i must devote no. >> supervisor breed: thank yo you. supervisor cohen? >> supervisor cohen: i will not support this item today. i remain concerned about the broad language in senate bill 1024. it contradicts the legislation the president to breed and i introduced and sponsored

amending the ministries of codeo abolish criminal justice fines and fees. senate bill 1024 where to add access fees including $2,000 fine into many offences. this 2,000-dollar fine is higher than the existing $1,000 fine for animal mistreatment. in response to the letter sent by a lgf, which supervisor tang referenced like the key thing is fines and fees are different. it is fine fine is in the judge's discretion,, but the fees are mandatory. the difference between these two are quite frankly worlds apart. and the fee and california is added on top of the fine. if the judge says define as $1,000, fees are automatically assessed that increase it to four times the level.

four times greater than $1,000. i am uncomfortable supporting this bill. i'm uncomfortable supporting the bill that finds and adds fines to people navigating the criminal justice system and i just wanted to go on the record because i object is something that could potentially send more people to jail by compounding their dad to the court system. and so with that, i hope you will join me in voting know against this measure. thank you. >> supervisor breed: thank you. seeing no other names on the roster, madame clerk, on the item, please call the role. [roll call] >> supervisor breed: if you want to talk, you have to put your name on the roster spee so -- >> supervisor peskin:, that is tantamount to having been sent to committee. >> supervisor breed: second appearance, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: my back. >> supervisor breed: thank

you. i see no other names on the roster. madame clerk, please call the role. [roll call] >> supervisor breed: so the resolution fails. madame clerk, please read the in memoriam. >> clerk: yes the meeting will be adjourned in memory of the

following beloved individuals. on behalf of supervisor trent four, on behalf of supervisor peskin, and mr lee radner. >> supervisor breed: colleagues cactus brings us to the end of our agenda. madame clerk, is there any other business before us today? >> clerk: that concludes our business for today. >> supervisor breed: we are adjourned. thank you, everyone. [♪]

good morning, welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority for today's meeting of may 8, 2018. our clerk, could you please call the roll. >> roll call, breed present. cohen absent. fewer present. kim present. peskin present. ronen present. safai present. sheehy absent. stefani present. tang absent. yee absent. we have quorum. >> next item please. this is information item. >> good morning.

>> good morning, i'm john larson, chair of the citizens advisory committee and i'll be presenting the report of the april 25, citizens advisory committee meeting. begin with item 5, the cac recommended adopting a motion of support for lifeline transportation programs as recommended. there was interesting in knowing if the bus routes could or should be shortened as sfmta replied the frequency of service on some routes was dependent on funding, that they were east-west and that north-south was lacking. the caa recommended approval as presented. members had a number of

questions about the relocation, demand management program, including the branding effort. how it would be evaluated. the cac as more assured after the condition of the funds were on evaluation methodology in the phase one research portion. the cac was strongly supportive of the vision zero ramp intersection study item 7 on the agenda. the cac remains committed seeing vision zero as a priority in san francisco, given the density in the city and the growing transportation modes and conflicts on the city's roads. one longtime member of the cac, district 8 member, said he traveled across the country by bicycle and the condition at the

freeway ramp intersection south of market are some of the scariest encountered anywhere. he looked forward to the implementation of the improvements. lastly, the item 9 on agenda, generated a great deal of discussion. members reiterated their displeasure about the lack of data-sharing by ride hailing companies and the puc. a question was asked about the ability of the san francisco puc to pursue local permit or impact fees and the sudden proliferation of scooters on the goals. the main thrust of the conversation reinforced concerns about equities with regard to newer modes like bike share. there were only eight bike share docks in the entire excelsior for example. the district 10 monitoring bikes say there were only eight bikes available in the area of the

city, even though the permit required 20% of the bicycles to be in communities of concern. he inquired about this issue and had not received a response. the cac looks forward to monitoring the outcomes and the recommendations in the report. that concludes my report, thank you. >> thank you, mr. larsson, any questions for him? seeing none, any public comment on this item? seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. next item. >> item 3, approve the minutes of the april 24, 2018 meeting, this is action item. >> supervisor peskin: any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. motion to approve the minutes. on that item, roll call, please. >> on item 3, breed aye.

fewer aye. kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai aye. stefani aye. we have approval. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, next item. >> i'm sorry, item 4, state and federal legislation update, this is action item. >> supervisor peskin: mr. watts? >> happy to be here today, sorry i missed last month. things are moving and pro-bresing rapidly -- progressing rapidly as most of the bills are sitting in or going to file on appropriations which will be dealt with at the end of the month. for today, ta staff has recommended four items that require action. two are bills which would require support and one recommending a propose and in addition, there is proposition i would cover first, that recommending support.

proposition 69 was as part of the sb 1 package is on the june ballot. and the staff is recommending support of those three essential things. first, it protects the increased increment on the sales tax that is dedicated to transit. secondly, the transportation improvement fund will be treated like article 19. in other words, they'll be prohibited for being used for purposes other than what is in article 19. the measure would relieve the new revenues from the state appropriations limit, similar to what happened in 1990 when sca 1 was approved by the voters. so that would be a summary of the proposition for you to consider. the bills for support, recommendations are two. there is mr. holden's a b2304.

in prior years, he has tried to provide reduced transit passes for typically school-aged rider. and one time was vetoed. the second bill was held back. so now he's taken a new approach, asking the university of california to prepare a report, analytical report, to look at the state of the art of reduced fare passes, do they work, how do they work? what is the best samples throughout the world where they may be employed? the -- yeah, i'm sorry. i just jumped ahead. january 22020 would be the due date for the report. the second bill for your consideration that is recommended for support is a

b2363 by freedman. this would require the transportation secretary to convene a vision zero task force and the task force participants as is written today would include representatives from the highway patrol. local government, bike safety, road safety and labor organizations, as well as the university of california. the bill would require a report by may of 2019. so if there are some actions that could be followed up on, they'd be able to do it in time for the next year, the 19-20 budget. and finally, the bill for your consideration adopt opposed position is a b2989 which deals with standing electric scooters. staff has taken a view of this similar with the mta did concern that these pose a hazard to

pedestrians when they're operated on the sidewalks and they do block occasional pedestrians' right of way. >> supervisor peskin: what is the board of supervisors has unanimously voted to oppose 2989. >> thank you. that would conclude my report. i'm available for questions. >> supervisor peskin: can you tell us the status of 2989 and what happened in committee? >> yes. >> supervisor peskin: that republican sponsored bill. >> 2989. >> supervisor peskin: flora. >> oh. >> supervisor peskin: the one we just talked about. >> give me a second. i'm confusing two different bills. >> supervisor peskin: that was the one to include the scooters on sidewalks. >> i believe it passed handily out of transportation and it's pending in appropriations.

>> supervisor peskin: do your magic. thank you. any questions for mr. watts? seeing none, is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner yee. >> supervisor yee: i'm supporting the opposed position. i'm just curious is mta here? something from mta? >> supervisor peskin: dylan is here. >> supervisor yee: so, is mta taking any position on this? >> through the chair, to the commissioner, i know that we are working -- we are working with the mayor's office and the state legislative committee. we have concerns on the bill as well. and we've also been working directly with chair peskin in

his capacity as supervisor: >> supervisor yee: ok. i'm hoping that you'll -- mta will take quicker movement in opposing this. this certainly, even though it gives local control, it certainly doesn't match our goals of vision zero. and i'm seeing -- i mean everybody is focussing these scooters on the sidewalks, they're traveling pretty fast as they are now. i'm urging that mta quickly adopt opposition stance on ab 2989. >> thank you, point well taken. i'll convey that to folks back at 1 south ns. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: commissioner yee i will communicate with the city lobbyist so they don't allow a repeat of what happened in the

assembly of transportation committee and mr. watts will work the floor and the senate side. seeing nor further comment. next item. >> we need to take a vote. >> supervisor peskin: right, on the motion to support prop 69 assembly bills 2304, 2363 and oppose 2989, is there a motion? moved by commissioner yee? seconded by commissioner fewer. roll call. >> breed aye. fewer aye. kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai aye. stefani aye. tang aye. yee aye. we have first approval. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, next item. >> item 5 approve san francisco's lifeline transportation program cycle 5

program of projects. this is action item. >> supervisor peskin: ms. smith? >> i'm a senior transportation planner at the transportation authority, today i'm excited to present the lifeline transportation program cycle 5 recommendations and share the creative ways we're recommending the projects. so lifeline, is a regional program that is administered by the transportation commission. it has about $22 million available this cycle. san francisco has about 12% of the low-income population, so we receive $2.6 million a cycle. the goal of the program is to improve mobility for residents, and focus on communities of concern and projects that come from a community based planning process. all agencies are eligible to apply. 20% local match is required. you'll see attachment 1 to the

memo in the packet. so ltp is the only funding source that the transportation authority awards that can be used for operating projects. so a few eligible project types include enhanced transit service, including late night, weekend and shuttle service. most of the criteria are mandated by ncc but we did add criteria specific to san francisco which is attached to the memo. ltp is the only funding source that can be used for operating projects, so we made that a priority this cycle. we received five applications as shown in this table with a total of $4.8 million available. we screen for eligibility and then convened a panel of four members to evaluate the project

according to the prioritization criteria in attachment 2. i'll go into more detail about the project recommended for funding, with you the two -- but the two not recommended for funding, they did score lower because they didn't directly provide transit service which was the highest priority this cycle. you can find details on the evaluation scores and attachment to the memo. with that, i am happy to announce our lifeline recommendations. we are recommending the late night transit service for the full $2.6 million available this cycle. given the high scores of the two sfmta projects and the senior and disabled communities, we identified it through the para transit category and funds from a prior grant to fully fund those projects as well.

so a little about the projects. the late night transit service project would be a two-year project, including new late night service extending to ll to fisherman's wharf. we are recommending fully funding the project, which means no additional funds would be available for other projects. our project recommendations. you note that the project shown in orange does operate within numerous communities of concern. and the other two projects have city-wide benefits. for the enhanced service and recreational shuttle service, it provides three years of sfmta service in san francisco, including service to grocery stores, and service to social and recreational events.

the baseline presentation will be heard later in the agenda, we did work with sfmta to fully fund this project and the ramp program. for the wheelchair accessible program, this would be a three-year pilot increasing availability of wheelchair access in the city. it would require a minimum of 20 para transit trips per month. this is our list that requires us to adopt this contingency list in case any additional funds become available from state revenue or grants. if that does happen, we would return them to the para transit category. with that, i can take any questions. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, ms. smith. commissioner cohen?

>> supervisor cohen: i'm trying to understand if there is a coordinated team of people working on future technology? i think that commissioner peskin, you actually recently introduced and we all supported regulation of scooters and so also today in item 4, we opposed its only bill 2989 by assembly member flora. my question to the ta and ta staff is what are we doing that is proactive as opposed to reacting to existing -- to the technology that are manifesting on the streets? are we paying attention or thinking about the technology that is not yett created? i want to be focused on upstream approach as opposed to being reaction. >> i believe the commissioner will be happy -- we're happy to

answer that question under number 9 on the emerging mobility topic. this is a lifeline item. >> i'm sorry, what did you say? >> we're on item 5, lifeline grant, but we're taking many proactive steps to respond to the emerging mobility services on the streets, but that is item 9. >> supervisor cohen: ok, thank you. >> supervisor safai: i want to say a few words. i appreciate the presentation. really think that the service to fishermen's wharf as well as the late-night service is really in need and long overdue, so we appreciate the push for funding. we have a significant number of workers that work in the hotel industry, the service industry as well as the janitorial industry in downtown in that area. and so having this additional late-night service when they're getting out in the wee hours of the night, in the ability to get on public transportation is something we heard in the industry for years when i worked there.

so we're really appreciative as well as the inaccessibility or need to drive your car from one end of the town to the other to get to fishermen's wharf in that area and to access your job. this is a really important service. we appreciate you all taking this step and we hope that the funding comes through. it is allocated and then will be utilized in this way, so we appreciate that. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, commissioner. commission yee? >> supervisor yee: i appreciate this whole thing, in particular the para transit piece. i have a little concern if we're expanding services using para transit vans, and then we have in the budget committee presentation where i forget who came up to talk about it, but they're saying the vans for the

para transit, they're falling apart. and at some point we need to buy -- replace them with new ones and so the combination of that issue and trying to expand services with existing dams doesn't seem to make any logical sense. is there any response to that? are there any attempts for ta to support maybe the purchase of additional vans? >> hi. amber crabbe with the transportation authority. this specific fund source was really refocused on the operations of the service and so we didn't really look at the mechanisms of which vehicles would be used, but i believe

from sfmta, tim can maybe talk a little bit as to the vehicles that would be used in the service. >> supervisor peskin: tim? >> good morning, commissioners, sfmta, so the question was regarding the vans for the ramp taxi subsidies? is that the question? >> supervisor yee: i guess there is conflicting issues here i think. today, we heard that we wanted to expand the services using para transit, i'm supportive of that, on the other hand during the budget committee what i heard was that the city needs to invest in the para transit vans themselves because they're old and they need replacement so if you don't do that and you're trying to extend the services,

using sort of beat-up vans, just some -- there is no logic between the two issues. >> so i guess i'll address the question in a few ways. for the taxi subsidy use, it's either for replacing existing vans that have ended their useful life or expanding current taxis that want to get these ramps installed in their -- that want to get new ramps installed. that's the first thing. >> supervisor yee: i'm sorry, unless i looked at it wrong, we were talking about the para transit vans. >> so for the second project, the shop around shuttle and the van gogh shuttle, it's not to expand it per se, it's to maintain the existing fleet. so the shuttles are an existing service we provide and are operated we're going in for grant funding because of the

constriction, we may need to discontinue this depending on funding. i don't believe we're expanding these, it's to maintain the existing fleet. in regards to the para transit fleet in general, we have existing grants, there is a grant out there that procure existing vans, so it's something we're looking at. >> supervisor yee: i'm sorry. maybe i'm not getting it. let me go back and ask for the piece of this, i thought we were increasing the hours of service. >> maybe i can have ms. lefort jump in. >> yeah, we'll work with sfmta over the next few months as we're updating the prioritization programs for probably k because replacing para transit vans is eligible for prop k and we have funded

that out of the muni vehicles category in the past. we have done incremental replacement of the vans as they reach the end of their useful lives and they're past their usiveful lives. i can get back to you in the next if you months on that. >> supervisor yee: i appreciate the answer. >> supervisor ronen: i just had a question about the subsidies for taxi drivers to -- i guess, is it to purchase or subsidize fares and disability accessible vehicles? >> hi. so it is to vehicles, the way it works, we'll provide a subsidy every month about $300 as long as the people -- the taxi drivers who install their taxi maintain certain criteria in terms of number of pickups.

so the subsidy for $300 to subsidize the costs to purchase these ramp taxi vehicles. >> supervisor ronen: and have the taxi drivers themselves been consulted? do they feel it will be helpful to them in providing the service and also being competitive in the market? they're suffering so much and they come and speak every board meeting at public comments and i know supervisor fewer and i are really interested in seeing how to help them. have they have given input on this? >> i'm not the project manager, so it's hard to speak about outreach. i'll have the project manager e-mail you details about outreach. in terms of the ramps, they're few and far between in the city. they're not required to have the ramps installed, so the more we have available the better it is for accessible needs people out there, but i'll have the pms

follow up with you. >> supervisor ronen: i would love a follow-up because i believe this is a promising way to fulfill two serious needs in our city, accessible transit for people with disabilities but also a niche for taxi drivers. but i'm not sure $300 a month is going to do it. so i would love to see a solution that gets to the problem. please stand by.

definitely give you updates as part of the project progresses. >> to fill the gap or does it provide compensation above and beyond that gap? >> right now it's designed to fill the gap, yes. >> supervisor: hmm, so i don't know if it meets that secondary goal of allowing an industry that's been decimated to play a

role and be economically sufficient for the drivers themselves. so i would love to look at that further. >> i can follow up with m.t.a. staffing with more information on how they arrived t a those numbers, and what kind of outreach they did to the taxi community. >> supervisor: so kay, because it is a -- okay, because it is a real opportunity, and if ewe're o going to pilot something, we should pilot something that can actually work. and it sounds like we might be almost there but not completely, so i would love to look at this more. thanks. >> thank you, commissioner ronen. commissioner yee? >> thank you. i am just wondering or not, it's one thing for it to be available, but it is another thing to let users know that it is available. will there be a marketing plan to let people that might need

this type of transit know it is available? otherwise you might have these taxis that aren't capable, but no one knows about it. >> yes, the team does do outreach to the community to promote these kinds of things. and i am not sure what the specifics are existing related to this. >> i apologize. that m.t.a. staff who works directly on this weren't able to be here today. so this is -- it's basically building on an existing program. it does exist right now and this is supposed to grow and hoping to grow the fleet by another 10 to 15 vehicles being available throughout the city. and part of the outreach that they will be doing because it is lifeline funding will be doing specific outreach focused on concerns as well in particular to make sure that those community members have access to information about the service.

>> how do you normally go about letting people know? >> i think that's something the paratransit either if you can answer or we can get -- >> a yeah, the project manager cans reach out to you with more detail about the outreach. >> i just want to say it would be helpful in the future if the appropriate staff were here for these hearings, because otherwise they become kind of meaningless. for what that is worth. which then i will put in subject to public comment in your hands, colleagues, which is rather than offline p.m.s getting back to you after you have voted for it, if you would like to continue this item, with exdo so and have the appropriate staff answer those questions in front of all of us and the public. so with that, if there are no more questions, is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, what is your

will? would you like to continue this it item? it doesn't sound like we really have any questions with regard to the late night service, so my suggestion would be that we allocate that portion, and then continue the balance. is that acceptable? is there a motion to that effect? commissioner ronen and seconded by commissioner safai. and we have a different house roll call please. >> on the amendment of item five. -- >> actually, we can take the amendment without objection. and as amended, right? no objection to the amendment? can we take that without objection? on the item as amended, do you want to say something? >> yes, the action before you is just to approve the funding for the late night shuttle. the other two -- the late night

service if shuttle and taxis will be addressed through the paratransit and prop k later. >> all right. so in that case we don't have to amend anything. right? so we will just vote on the item as is and deal with the 750 in the prop k category. on the item as not amended, a roll call please. >> on item 5, commissioner breed? aye. >> commissioner cohen? >> aye. >> a commissioner fewer? aye. >> commissioner ronen. >> aye. >> a commissioner safa? >> aye. >> a commissioner sheehy? >> commissioner stefani? >> commissioner tang. >> aye. >> a commissioner yee? >> aye. the item meets approval. >> a next item please. >> item 6, al gait doctor 2.5 million in prop k sales tax

funds and $650,000 in prop aa vehicle registration fee funds for four requests with conditions. this is an action item. >> good morning. this will upgrade signals 15 locations around the city and yup grades by location includes controller, larger headses, pedestrian and countdown indicator, curb ramps and other improvements. this request is for additional funds to cover high eer than anticipated construction cost and the lowest bid came in 17% higher than the time of the previous prop k allegation in july of 2017. funds would come from delayed projects, projects completed under budget, and an overprogrammed placeholder for the end program. we will work with sfmta to back fill the funds for the delayed projects to insure they have funding in place when they need to move forward. similarly, signals upgrade will include funding for signal visibility equipment such as new

master arms and signal heads as well as pedestrian safety improvements and audible pedestrian signals. the improvements vary by location and are listed in the enclosure. again, because of the construction bid environment, it will be necessary to reprogram some prop k funds from other projects in order to meet the expected cost of this work, and we will also work with sfmta to backfill those funds to make sure the projects will be able to move forward when they need the funds. next the transportation demand management program would hire a consultant to develop a consistent brand identity for t.d.m. programs provided by various san francisco agencies including a program name, logo, as well as graphics and usage standards. the project was recommended from the interagency p.d.m. strategy and t.e.m. partner agencies such as the sfmta, sf environment, and would provide feedback on

the brand throughout the development. and it would be similar to the vision zero branding example that is included in your packet. and we are also want to note that the schedule appears kind of long for this project, so we will work with sfmta to see if we can shorten it down. finally, business relocation transportation demand management would identify businesses that have newly relocated to san francisco and encourage the employees not to drive to work. this would be provided around transportation planning services. and phase one is background research and development and implementation of an evaluation plan. phase two would be initial implementation and evaluation of the strategy. phase three would be implementation of the revised strategy based on the evaluation of phase two. one note, our recommendation is that sfmta may not incur expenses for phases two and

three with the viable implementation plan and funds for the phases. with that, i can take any questions. >> this is not really an erequest, but i just have to tell you, i just have a lot of trouble spending $154,000 on a branding campaign. i mean, i say that because we have very talented people in these agencies who are on staff who can work with one another. we have graphics resources. we have all kind of resources in this 30,000 plus person government that this is one of the things where when you are a member of the public or for that matter a member of this body and just think, that is what my government is spending money on? it doesn't work for me. commissioner breed? >> commissioner breed: my

understanding is the branding would take two and a half years. is that accurate and how can we get it done sooner to make it more effective? >> do you mind if i invite sfmta, too? sarah christianson. >> good morning. john knox, the program manager for the sfmta. so essentially for the entire funding, yes, two and a half years. the first six months is the r.p. work to get a consultant in for contracting. the assumption is it will take somewhere between 12 and 18 months to do the research, so beyond just developing a name and sort of graphic design, we are planning on doing focus groups and engaging stakeholders to figure out a way -- and we use the word transportation demand management, it is not a very good name. we need to find a way to talk about our work in a way that engages the communities that we are trying to engage whether

that be employers or residents. and it is our intention to work hard and very diligently to get that work done quicker than the year and a 10 months that we have outlined if for that work, but we didn't want to overpromise we would be done in 12 months and come back for an extension. >> thank you. another question i have is how are we going to prioritize small businesses that are eligible to participate? >> again, that is through the relocation program more and a future program we hope to come back for funding in the future. i would say all the experiences as a city and county is the business outreach is not incredibly success, so one of the reasons we work with staff to come up with a structure to make sure we get the right outreach and the right people is we want to spend the time talking to small businesses and large businesses about how better to communicate with them

and how to bring them into the program so that they have a program they feel they can engage with. our experience is the smaller businesses are often so busy they don't really even want to spend the time engaging with any of the services that we have provided in the past. >> which is why i am hopeful we will do something to make it easier for them to participate. >> that is 100% of the goal of phase one. >> commissioner breed: thank you. >> seeing no other questions from commissioners. is there something you want to add? are there any members of the public who would like to testify on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner yee? >> commissioner breed might have asked this already, but -- when do we need our branding for t.d.m. and why does it cost so much? i am not understanding -- i mean, i get we're trying to give

vision zero through branding and so forth, but can you explain really why they need branding and why it is costing so much? >> absolutely. thank you. so about four years ago working with our partners and the department of environment and planning department, we did outreach to cities and academics of and one of the key things that came out of the research is we need to have a unified program that speaks to people as one voice, so from the user's side, they are interacting with the city's transportation demand management program, not with the t.a. and doing transportation demand management and the m.t.a. and a well-designed and developed brand where we'll develop the way in which the

program goes forward. it is it is to insure that what they see is the city and county working together to provide services to help people get around. that was the number one project that came out of the initial t.d.m. strategy and was also one of the top early ideas for the t.d.m. plan. in terms of the cost, it is staff time to manage the contract, to and to engage multi-city agency effort. we have a lot of agencies that touch and offer t.d.m. that a lot of coordination that goes there. and this is about $60,000 who and to increase the power of our outreach. >>