ronen can take to the board of supervisors and then say, you know, because of the work that we have done here on lafco we'd like to bring this forward as an item of discussion on the board. that would be helpful. just sort of to have a second step that you could help to prepare a document. >> supervisor fewer: right. and to complement also the work of what cleanpowersf is doing too to work in conjunction with the city partners. thank you. and any other comments or questions for mr. goebel? thank you for this. and this is open up for public comment now. okay. our friends from the public, hi, bruce, come on up. >> speaking under a different organization, public net san francisco coalition and the ash bury neighborhood council. and we welcome mr. goebel to lafco. and we very welcome him and we

had the opportunity to speak on a few items. i want to speak about the fiber, municipal fiber. as you know this is kind of been now almost dead right now. and so i would urge you to continue this. this is something that our group has been working on for 12 years since the earth link wifi debacle. and so one of the main things that's important to make this move forward is the dig once ordinance. that ordinance was introduced to be a mandate and at the 11th hour it was turned into something voluntary. in order to be able to get more correspond wit and more empty pipe in the ground, dedicated for fiber or dedicated for anything else, it could be for electric if we wanted to. that was suggested by the then supervisor zambiano and daly at the time, that "dig once" is

really important. anytime that the city digs up or any contractor digs up the ground as we have seen with the sewer renovation projects, we could have had fiber in so many neighborhoods. this isn't just about the underserved neighborhoods because if for some reason something happens at the board of supervisors and that doesn't happen, then we don't have anything. so we have to start at the top. we have to start with the big huge project. this is a utility, like any other utility that we have to deal with. and it is going to be expensive. but the longer we wait the more expensive it gets. this is something that we feel, everybody feels that we absolutely need. this is the way of our world now. so i would urge you to expand the subjective. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, bruce. >> all right, i'm with public net and with san francisco clean

energy advocates and californians for energy choice. first to reiterate what bruce said. and i would even go farther in saying that now the public broadband is not happening from the mayor's office. and the fact that this -- that lafco took the lead on this 12 years ago and it has been leading on it ever since. this is now in your court. lafco can take this on and make it happen and make it a real public broadband system that's good. so the work plan is really exciting. it's good to see a good proactive executive officer in here that's planning to help you to make lafco to put lafco back on the map and make it a driver of city policy again. that's excellent. and i want to give a thumbs up to the request about inclusion and intersectionallity. i think that even if that costs us some money that is the focus

of everything that we're working on right now, sectionallity. so we need bryan to get that training. on cleanpowersf there's two things that we need you as a commission to do on cleanpowersf. remember that the bill that created the choice put the board of supervisors in charge as the body in charge of cleanpowersf. so though it's an enterprise agency the board is in charge and can pass ordinances and has done so. we need you to get the board of supervisors, not sfpuc, to do a sydney, australia, style buildout plan for clean energy. and the other thing that we need you to do is that on these bills that we have been fighting in sacrament, cal c.c.a. has not been good, they've been neutral in support of ab813. and we need lafco and the board of supervisors to put pressure on and to direct the sfpuc as its membership of cal c.c.a. to oppose these.

>> supervisor fewer: seeing none, public comment is now closed. so, commissioners, can we have a motion to adopt the work plan of our executive officer? >> so moved. >> supervisor fewer: okay. >> seconded. >> supervisor fewer: great. without objection we can take that action. thank you. and madam clerk, call item number 7. >> item number 7 is the authorization for executive officer to conduct a study on emerging mobility services and the effect on labor partnering with the san francisco county transportation authority. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. so, mr. goebel, i thank you. >> thank you, madam chair and i presented in my work plan, this item would authorize me to begin the study as i mentioned and mr. warren logan, the senior planner at the transportation authority is here as well in case you have questions. i know that you wanted to add taxi services to this. >> through the chair, just to

clarify, there's a specific goal i have in mind so it's not just taxi services in general. i want to figure out how to address the -- the workers, the tax taxi drivers, that purchased medallions right before they declined dramatically in value and are now in a crisis in their lives and with their families. >> supervisor fewer: i think that how it might relate to this is how this emerging mobility labor force -- just the whole company sort of what they're doing -- is really affecting the labor force here in san francisco in particular those people that are also providing these kind of transportation services. how is it affecting these taxi drivers? i mean, we know sort of

anecdotally that they come to our board meeting every tuesday and they lament how they are just barely making it and they can't make it. on top of that they have bought these medallionses for $250,000 for the m.t.a. and so not only -- they said at the time that they thought that it might have been good to buy it because there was a taxi business that was very viable here in san francisco. so i think that how this relates is how these emerging technologies have actually affected our own workforce here. a workforce that actually reflects the values of san franciscoians unionizing. and to go to commissioner singh's comment also how it's affecting the labor force of public transportation. so our drivers, those -- that we had actually a stable workforce here before these emerging technologies came in.

so i think that it is a partnership about -- also talking about the scooters and about all of these emerging mobilities and how it's really affected the labor force that it has displaced in a way. with maybe to back up with some data. is that making it clear, commissioner ronen, that we can tackle the next issue about? >> supervisor ronen: i think that you articulated that perfectly and the only thing that i would add is that in the overall analysis if you could start to take a look at possible solutions to the impact on that workforce, that would be fantastic. >> i have been reading, for example, that uber in new york city was required to pay a hardship fee to taxi drivers in that city. so one of the things that we'll do is examine best practices in other cities. before i continue though i want to invite mr. logan from the transportation authority.

>> supervisor fewer: hi, mr. logan. >> to share what their vision was for this particular research. >> supervisor fewer: sure. >> hi, commissioners. my name is warren logan. i'm a senior transportation planner at the san francisco county of transportation authority. soon enough our separate commission which is also the board of supervisors, will be hearing our final report, excuse me -- our final report for emerging mobility evaluation and i'm excited to present that to you soon. our vision is to partner with bryan and we're very excited to hear the enthusiasm for understanding the gaps around labor. primarily our focus was on how these different services were impacting congestion. so we recognize, however, that during our initial scope of our guiding principles for emerging mobility, that several of the commissioners encouraged us to include labor. and so, obviously, we're super enthusiastic to partner with you on this and i want to herald this effort. but i hear you loud and clear not only understanding how this

is impacting the folks in that gig economy, but also how they're impacting other labor forces in the city. my understanding though is that to your point, commissioner ronen, the sfu is documenting the impact for taxi drivers so i'm happy to encourage them to provide more information about that study. i don't know when it's planning to be reported out but i'll connect about that. >> supervisor ronen: that is great but i don't see solutions and action and that's -- >> supervisor fewer: absolutely. >> supervisor ronen: that's the piece that i'm asking mr. goebel to focus on. >> supervisor fewer: and during the budget committee i would say that the airport is saying now that there's 800,000 single rides, i mean, to the airport on a monthly basis. therefore, increasing the workforce that pulls the police department services, and pulls to the airport now because of

the added enforcement that is needed. so we're looking at it on a lot of different perspectives on real true costs of these gig economies in san francisco. thank you very much. any other questions for mr. logan, commissioner pollock. >> vice chair pollock: just a quick question. when you look at the labor piece specifically, is it a focus at all that we look at labor practices of companies that receive either contractual or public land designations, like i'm thinking of curbs or right-of-way in turns of the use of the roadways. i know that the city and the county has set up when you sign a contract with the city that you have to have certain labor practices. you have to have certain, you know, benefits for employees and that sort of thing. i don't know if partnering for

curb space or, you know, bike racks and that sort of thing is also a contractual obligation in terms of labor practices? is that a sort of gap that's also been identified? i don't understand the labor sort of piece in terms of contracting for those things. >> that's a great question. i think that one of the mechimisms that we have in the city to sort of push our goals and agenda for good labor practices is, in fact, through the permitting system that operates through the public works department. and so one of the things that i have been doing with our team is to work out how to harmonize the different permits that we operate here in the city, for standing scooters and electric mobeds and bike sharing etc. and you will see this coming up with the standing scooters the way that we're pushing our labor practices and our 10 vetting principles for emerging mobility. they're excited.

so our different permitting systems. i'll get ahead of this too is that we have been working with the m.t.a. again to harmonize all of those structures to address the gaps that we're identifying. so we'll see it through the new permits and circling back to the old as well. does that answer your question? >> vice chair pollock: i think that it does. so you're saying that it's a permitting process rather than a contracting process? >> that's my understanding is that would be the contract with this company. so if they have any business with the city that's one way to enforce it. and, on the other hand if we wanted to conduct a pilot with any one of these companies that doesn't necessarily have a permit with us and that's another way to, you know, increase that viability there. so an example in our research and in our payment section would say, you know, let's seek out partnerships with companies that are good actors in these other ways. so if we did a pilot in the bayview which is something that we managed a while ago, can we not find a partner that has good labor practices and has union employees, for example. that could be a contingency that

we add into those partnership requirements. >> supervisor fewer: i think this is something that actually mr. goebel can actually present on next time. yeah, actually, because i think -- yeah. >> vice chair pollock: thank you so much, that answers my question. >> supervisor fewer: so the questions are open for public comment. any members of the public, please come forward and you have two minutes. >> hello, brenda lynch and i wasn't here for this but i would like to respectfully suggest that lafco include not only sorely needed data analysis and recommendations for the board of supervisors, but also suggestions for positions that both the city attorney and the board can take to the city of san francisco's position at the state p.u.c. and other state agencies. as we know the state p.u.c. has circumscribed the city's ability to really deal with this problem, but there will be a new

change and transitions at the. u.c. so perhaps with good data analysis and actions by this board and the recommendations, for instance, what the city's attorney should be at the state p.u.c. and other health and other agencies you could get a broader impact within the next year. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, thank you for joining us. yes, mr. brooks. >> yes, hello again, eric brooks. this time speaking on behalf of our city of san francisco and the san francisco green party. first, i would reiterate everything that miss lynch just said, and getting our input on the state level is crucial. we can't just let the cpuc doing thdoits own thing on this and we have to push the way that sfpuc pushes them on clean energy. this is one of the things that i work on. and i have been meeting with taxi drivers. and there are a lot of things that we might be able to do that should be included in this

study. one of the problems that we face is out-of-town drivers. well, i believe that you may be able to put a fee out to-of-town drivers to make it so expensive for them to do that that they stop coming in. because that's one of the main problems. and another problem is the situation of uber being kind of the middle person or the middle entity on this, and collecting profits for now good reason. one thing that's new that should be included in this study is electronic currencies. we're moving away from credit cards and cash to electronic currencies on phones and things like that. and some of the new electronic currencies that are emerging could literally be created as local currency in san francisco for transportation. and there's something called a smart contract that can be built in through computer code and into these currencies so that you could do things like require the drivers to be local, require

them to get paid a certain amount of money. things like that. and so that it would favor the taxi drivers. and another thing that the city should definitely look at and i don't know why we haven't done this yet is to make all of the drivers, city employees with city benefits, so that they fall under the city. and that's another way to get them out from under these rapacious companies like uber and lyft. and with respect if the m.t.a. was going to... >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, mr. brooks. mr. wolf? >> thank you, bruce wolf speaking for myself just on this particular issue and i think that the problem that started with all of this was that uber and lyft and the others went to the state. i think that it would be good if maybe you think about drafting some legislation to push at the state level to bring it back to local control.

so i would urge you to do that. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. and any other people of the public that would like to see some public comment is now closed. i believe that we don't need to take an action on this item. is that correct, mr. clerk? >> i defer to miss stricter on this. >> yes, i understand that the executive officer is looking for direction to proceed with the study and so i think that a motion to allow him to proceed would be appropriate. >> supervisor fewer: all right. is there a motion to authorization our executive officer to do this study on emerging services and partnering with the transportation authority. so moved. great. seconded by commissioner ronen and we can take that without objection. thank you, that motion is passed. thank you. madam clerk, please read item number 8. >> item number 8 is an update on the state legislation and the

california assembly bill 813. >> supervisor fewer: i know this is very complicated and so as simply as possible, thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. the item that i'd like to call your attention to is assembly bill 813 by chris holden. i wanted to prepare a staff memo for you on this but, frankly, it is a complex issue and a complex piece of legislation. but i'll do my best to describe it to you in a nutshell. the legislation by definition would begin the process of creating a western regional transmission system and it's not the first time that it was proposed. they tried to get it passed in the 11th hour in san francisco and it's been on the radar for the past several years. on its face regionalization sounds like a good idea and supporters view it as a great way to expand renewal energy

across the west. for example, instead of drawing energy from our fossil fuel plants when california is at its peak use, we could, say, tap into wind energy from other states. california could sell off instead of turning off solar farms when we have more supply than demand. and it would be a great way supporters argue to help california to meet its climate and clean energy goals. however, opponents of the bill, and the list is long, have pointed out a number of risks. many see it as a threat to consumers because there's little protection from rate increases. a threat to solar power jobs and disadvantaged communities. a threat to c.c.a. programs because it could increase the transz missiotransmission costst to our climate and energy goals because it could open the door to more coal energy in

california increasing greenhouse gas emissions. and another big worry about this legislation is that it would take away direct oversight of our grid from california and instead transfer it to a committee where other western states would have the biggest say and which would be directly controlled by the federal energy regulatory commission under the trump administration. our current governance structure is under the california independent system operator which has a board appointed by the governor with confirmation by the state senate. after the energy crisis in the 90s, california had to actually fight in court to retain the power that it has now over california's electricity grid. firc has jurisdiction, most definitely, but if this bill passes there is a threat that caiso, the independent system operator, could lose what control it has. a number of cities are opposed to this, including west

hollywood. they've expressed concern that the legislation would eliminate the ability of cities to maintain governance and procurement decisions related to c.c.a. programs and the city of west hollywood is on record against it. commissioners, the opponents of this legislation i think make very compelling arguments and nothing that i have seen from the supporters have convinced me otherwise. based on my review i'm recommending that sf lafco direct me as the executive officer to write a letter to the legislature opposing a.b.813. >> supervisor fewer: any questions for mr. goebel. yes, commissioner pollock. >> vice chair pollock: i just thank you so much for the concise description of the legislation because i know that it is quite complicated. i will be in support of this letter opposing a.b.813.

i would be interested in having -- having you also prepare a memo from lafco to the board of supervisors to see if that is a position that the city and county would like to take as well. and then to report back to lafco any feedback that you received from the representatives of san francisco's state legislature. so people representing the city residents to report back to us what, if any, action they took on this legislation. >> i'd be happy to, commissioner. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. yes, commissioner singh. >> supervisor singh: i think that cynthia stole my idea, now we're even. no, i'm wondering if there's any action on this? >> i don't think that there's been an official position on it. i have been in touch with their offices and i'm not aware they have taken a position on it yet.

and i have also been in touch with the officer of the state senator scott wiener but so far i'm not aware they have taken an official position. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any other comments or questions? seeing none, open it up for public comment. any members of the public wish to speak on this? mr. brooks, come on up. >> eric brooks, san francisco clean energy advocates and californians for energy choice. so i just want to thank the executive officer for that excellent report. it really hits the nail on the head. i don't think that you need many more reasons to oppose this legislation but i will bring up one other one. and this is much like pg&e that makes its money off of building a lot of unnecessary infrastructure and transmission lines and then charging customers for that stuff. brookshire hathaway that would be controlling this grid makes its money exactly the same way.

so this is not just about coal or electricity that they sell, this is about giving a cash cow to warren buffet so that he can make money building powerlines that are unnecessary and cause forest fires. and so that's another reason to oppose this. and we might want to include that kind of thing in the letter. the main thing that we need you to expand on is to not just communicate to the board of supervisors, but communicate to the sfpuc. on a very narrow seven, yes, five abstention vote, this legislation that would devastate community choice clearly. i can't go into all of the shenanigans why i think that happened but it's not an appropriate result. one of the commissioners from one of the community choice programs has said that they're not sure that they made the right vote when they voted "yes" and they want this reconsidered.

so the members of cal c.c.a. are crucial to this and the sfpuc has been neutral and not pushing. we need you to ask them to push for a "no" vote on this bill and on sfb27. and one note with regard to wiener, he has the same concerns that have been announced by some of the opponents but he did vote "yes yet just to move it forward and not necessarily because he supports it. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much, miss lynch. >> thank you for considering this. this is a key and critical change in california's energy policy. basically it's going to repeal two important energy crisis protections that we got in in 2001. one was that california appoints the board of directors that runs the grid and our electricity markets. and two was that it's a california public benefits corporation. both of those key protections will be repealed almost immediately. now the proponents say that it

doesn't matter, we're under federal law and we'll be under federal law tomorrow. the difference is who enforces and interprets that federal law. and if we didn't think that it mattered who did that we wouldn't care that ryan zenke with the interior and scott pruitt is at e.p.a. because all they're doing is enforcing and interpreting federal law. and this would cede our power to the western states. think about who they are. they're coal states. they are economying dependent on not only using coal but producing coal. the only state that is not a coal state is washington. now we know that the trump administration is taking extraordinary measures to subsidize coal both at the ferc and at the courts and now with their emergency powers. california is almost coal free and we use 4% year and we'll be coal-free in 2025. right now is a critical transition point for energy in california and really in the country. because of improved technologies

it's actually possible to be 100% renewable soon. so what we would do instead is to hitch our wagon to huge regional fossil-based infrastructure projects. the ratepayers can't pay for a local energy democracy with clean power and also huge fossil-based energy projects. there's not enough pennies on the dollar. it's a choice. and the choice is ours. and you hopefully will add your voice to the sierra club and the environmental california environmental association, all of labor, because 110,000 green jobs will drain from california because if they can they'll build it in the right-to-work states that have cheaper land, and renewable power. but right now they have to build it in california because we're a single state i.s.o. and i'm happy to answer questions and i'm sadly intimately familiar with the details of this bill. >> supervisor fewer: commissioner pollock. >> vice chair pollock: thank you very much. i would just -- i think that i don't have any questions for you but i would just say that in

directing staff on this letter that you work with miss lynch and other advocates to make a complete list of who should be c.c.ed on the letter so that is out there. and just work then perhaps in making this more public letter that we perhaps could, you could work with the chair to perhaps publish our letter as an op-ed. >> supervisor fewer: let's close public comment on this. public comment is now closed. i would like to also suggest to direct our executive officer to prepare a resolution before the board once we take a vote on this. and noting -- right, yeah. noting our motion to either oppose or to support, okay. so is there a motion on the table now to either oppose or support ab813.

yes. is there a motion to support or oppose? >> move to oppose. >> supervisor fewer: seconded by commissioner ronen. and we can take that without objection. now i think that we should direct our executive officer to prepare a resolution to be put forth to the san francisco board of supervisors for adoption. thank you very much. and madam clerk, please call item number 9. >> item number 9 -- is the executive officer's report. >> supervisor fewer: is there anything that you would like to present? >> just briefly, because this item was continued at our last meeting. i just wanted to thank everyone here with city hall who has been so helpful in my coming onboard as the executive officer, and the staff of the board of the clerk of supervisors has just

been amazing. so i'd like to thank angela calvillo and wilson ing, and chelsea boyvard and your office for just rolling out the carpet for me here. it's been an amazing time and i'm super excited to get started on the work plan. and i've had a chance to meet with many of the advocates who have had engagement with lafco now and over the years. but i look forward to sitting down with those advocates who haven't been involved in lafco and reaching out to them so that we can have even more members of the public show up here to engage with this body. >> supervisor fewer: this is great. thank you very much. i think that concerning the city hall staff i think that you have met with some of the best and so i think that it's great. i also want to give a shout out to chelsea in my office who has been carrying if work for the last year or so. and i'm delighted that you're onboard. any questions for the executive officer?

seeing none, public comment? is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, call item 10. >> item number 10 is public comment. >> supervisor fewer: any members of the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, please call item number 11. >> item number 11, future agenda items. >> supervisor fewer: any future agenda items, commissioners? seeing none this opens up for public comment? any members of the public -- mr. brooks. >> one last time, eric brooks, san francisco clean energy advocates, californians for energy choice, our city and the green party. and so just to get back to the key items. so you heard from former commissioner lynch and myself and many others through email that we are getting ready, if we don't stop ab813, to privatize the electricity grid. so the bill that i mentioned earlier in the hearing needs to be scheduled for the next month

to stop that and that is sf217. so the grid could be privatized which would decimate the community choice. and the second bill sf217 will prioritize the energy itself. so no longer it would be community programs. so it's vital that on the, in agenda you have sp217. so get your executive officer to ajendize that and i'll communicate to that effect too. and i have sent emails to y'all about that. and one quick note on -- on public broadband is that -- that we do need to agendaize that hopefully at the next meeting because we have an opportunity to get in on this and to take the lead on it. so i would hope that would be on the radar and we would be discussing that too.

so thanks. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, mr. brooks. any other members of the public? seeing none, public comment is now closed. we take note of the presentation on sb237 for our next agenda item. commissioners any other comments? seeing none. madam clerk, any other business for us today? >> that concludes our business for today. >> supervisor fewer: our meeting is adjourned. thank you very much. .

>> hi. welcome to san francisco. stay safe and exploring how you can stay in your home safely after an earthquake. let's look at common earthquake myths. >> we are here at the urban center on mission street in san francisco. we have 3 guest today. we have david constructional engineer and bill harvey. i want to talk about urban myths. what do you think about earthquakes, can you tell if they are coming in advance? >> he's sleeping during those earthquakes? >> have you noticed him take any special? >> no. he sleeps right through them. there is no truth that

i'm aware of with harvey that dogs are aware of an impending earthquake. >> you hear the myth all the time. suppose the dog helps you get up, is it going to help you do something >> i hear they are aware of small vibrations. but yes, i read extensively that dogs cannot realize earthquakes. >> today is a spectacular day in san francisco and sometimes people would say this is earthquake weather. is this earthquake weather? >> no. not that i have heard of. no such thing. >> there is no such thing. >> we are talking about the weather in a daily or weekly cycle. there is no relationship. i have heard it's hot or cold weather or rain.

i'm not sure which is the myth. >> how about time of day? >> yes. it happens when it's least convenient. when it happens people say we were lucky and when they don't. it's terrible timing. it's never a good time for an earthquake. >> but we are going to have one. >> how about the ground swallowing people into the ground? >> like the earth that collapsed? it's not like the tv shows. >> the earth does move and it bumps up and you get a ground fracture but it's not something that opens up and sucks you up

into haddes. >> it's not going anywhere. we are going to have a lot of damage, but this myth that california is going to the ocean is not real. >> southern california is moving north. it's coming up from the south to the north. >> you would have to invest the million year cycle, not weeks or years. maybe millions of years from now, part of los angeles will be in the bay area. >> for better or worse. >> yes. >> this is a tough question. >> those other ones weren't tough. >> this is a really easy challenge. are the smaller ones

less stress? >> yes. the amount released in small earthquakes is that they are so small in you need many of those. >> i think would you probably have to have maybe hundreds of magnitude earthquakes of 4.7. >> so small earthquakes are not making our lives better in the future? >> not anyway that you can count on. >> i have heard that buildings in san francisco are on rollers and isolated? >> it's not true. it's a conventional foundation like almost all the circumstances buildings in san francisco. >> the trans-america was built way before. it's a pretty

conventional foundation design. >> i have heard about this thing called the triangle of life and up you are supposed to go to the edge of your bed to save yourself. is there anything of value to that ? >> yes, if you are in your room. you should drop, cover and hold onto something. if you are in school, same thing, kitchen same thing. if you happen to be in your bed, and you rollover your bed, it's not a bad place to be. >> the reality is when we have a major earthquake the ground shaking so pronounced that you are not going to be able to get up and go anywhere. you are pretty much staying where you are when that earthquake hits. you are not going to be able to stand up and run with gravity. >> you want to get under the door frame but you are not

moving to great distances. >> where can i buy a richter scale? >> mr. richter is selling it. we are going to put a plug in for cold hardware. they are not available. it's a rather complex. >> in fact we don't even use the richter scale anymore. we use a moment magnitude. the richter scale was early technology. >> probably a myth that i hear most often is my building is just fine in the loma prieta earthquake so everything is fine. is that true ? >> loma prieta was different. the ground acceleration here was quite moderate and the duration was moderate. so anyone that believes they

survived a big earthquake and their building has been tested is sadly mistaken. >> we are planning for the bigger earthquake closer to san francisco and a fault totally independent. >> much stronger than the loma prieta earthquake. >> so people who were here in '89 they should say 3 times as strong and twice as long and that will give them more of an occasion of the earthquake we would have. 10 percent isn't really the threshold of damage. when you triple it you cross that line. it's much more damage in earthquake. >> i want to thank you, harvey, thanks pat for

>> supervisor kim: good morning. thank you for your patience as we waited to get on line. welcome to the treasure island mobility management agency. alberto quintanilla is our clerk. i want to acknowledge sfgov tv for broadcasting the meeting. mr. clerk, can you please call the roll? [roll call]

>> clerk: we have a quorum. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. i will begin with the chair's report today. and i just want to highlight recently as we test out different technologies on treasure island that the metropolitan transportation commission, which i also sit on, effort to update the clipper transit fare payment system. clipper has made great strides in integrating bay area operator transit fares to a single fare card but the system is decades old and in need of renewal and enhancement. clipper 2.0 is a critical opportunity to achieve excellent customer service experience, bring technology to transportation payment and improve administrative effiency for operators and agencies including timma. as we move forward with the next generation of clipper, we need to ensure that clipper 2.0 will

be nimble and advance forward. new york city, who is going through a similar process, has chosen to do away with paper tickets altogether and introducing a mobile option for phones as well. los angeles is piloting a platform that allows passengers to pay transit and toll with a single account. we want a system that is able to integrate with other transportation services. i want to urge us to help ensure clipper incorporates the innovative ideas and ensures seamless transitions between multiple modes of transportation. i look forward to working with my colleagues here at mtc to look at clipper 2.0 and making transit more convenience and affordable for current and future residents alike. i want to -- i apologize, mr. clerk. could you call items 2 and 3. >> clerk: item 2, chair's report, information item. item 3, executive director

report, information item. >> supervisor kim: i would like to bring up our deputy director to present. >> good morning, eric cordoba, area director capital project. happy to deliver the executive director's report. let's start with the good news, regional measure 3 has been approved. that's good news for timma, especially when it comes to a potential $300 million ready and available for ferry, transportation, capital projects across the region, including treasure island. we expect funding will be available in early 2019 and we look forward to working with mtc and the water emergency transportation authority on accessing this prague rachlt let's move on to the regional mobility as service opportunities. we've had discussions and participating with mtc and the bay area transit agencies related to the clipper fare payment system that you just

mentioned. the clipper -- there's a clipper executive board that oversees the system's next generation upgrade known as c2. the clipper executive board discusses the role of the clipper system in supporting mobility as a service or moss. you will hear a lot of that term here over the next couple of years. month is an alternative to vehicle ownership where people can access shared mobility, with trip planning, payment and navigation. timma staff will participate in follow-up discussions in that regard. we provided a letter of support just recently to the contra costa transportation authority for an application for federal transportation management, technologies, grant funds. the grant award would support the region alamos platform with initial deployment in contra costa. let's move on to water transportation, which is a major

potential benefit here for the island. and that we as staff are starting it focus on. at its march 1, 2018, meeting, we authorized staff to proceed with an exploratory study of smaller vessel explorations. they would look at the cleaner vessels delivered relatively quickly for initial service for locations such as treasure island. from our perspective, treasure island is probably one of the optimum locations to have a pilot in that regard. if you have had the opportunity to move back and forth between treasure island and the ferry building, it's only about a 10- to 12-minute run, so we think there's a lot of opportunity here. the study will be overseen by a committee of the board comprised of directors.

we're working actively with a scope of work that includes treasure island as a case study for smaller vessel service and will participate on the technical staff advisory committee. let's move on to federal highway administration. national congestion pricing conference. there's a spotlight on treasure island. fhwa invited staff to present at the pricing conference at the u.s. department of transportation in washington, d.c. there was on may 22 and 23. the conference covered a range of pricing strategies, for example, managed lanes, computer incentives and parking, pricing. principal planner rachel hyatt presented on overhaul of housing, pricing, travel demand management. the conference host has provided funding for timma policy analysis in the 2013-2016 time

frame. moving on to local issues, we're right now actually planning a tour of the island for the commissioners. we had hoped to do it this week. the weather looked like it was going to cooperate, but we'll go ahead and do it a different day. so we'll work with your schedules, to do that, commissioner ronen, as requested. next item, advanced transportation and technology deployment. once again, the grant as reported, sfmta and sfcta have been awarded $10.99 million. of that total, $5 million is being utilized by timma and will support the toll system design and implementation. $300,000 will support the piloting of an autonomous circulator shuttle on the island. at its june 29, timma meeting, we provided an update on grant award and are ready to move forward with utilization of of

funds and are excited to that opportunity. related to that, staff will speak at the upcoming automated vehicle symposium scheduled for july 9-12. the annual symposium is organized by the national transportation research board and so hes yugs for unmanned vehicle systems international. on the project delivery front, as it relates to construction here, there are numerous construction projects that are just starting right now on yerba buena island. let's talk first about what was recently completed. as you all know, the efforts that we led the i-80 westbound on and off ramps is complete. also completed vista point. we're working to make the vista point facility permanent. so working with mtc in that regard and also with the u.s. coast guard. we're really excited about that opportunity. future projects include mccalla

road widening. and moving on to the next phase of work, the i-80 south gate road project, which we hope to bring to construction in spring, 2019, which transportation authority will lead. and, finally, to complete the roadway network, the west side bridges, retrofit of seismically 7 deficient bridges on the western slope of the island. we want to brung that to construction in 2020 time frame with the goal of having all of the major roadway infrastructure completed by the summer of 2021, including the toling systems as well as enhanced transit, a.c. transit, and in particular initial ferry service. so that's the goal. a lot ahead of us over the next three years. and i'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

>> supervisor kim: all right. at this time, see nog questions for mr. cordoba, we'll open up for public comment on items 2 and 3. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. mr. clerk, can you please call item 4. >> clerk: approve the minutes of the january 23, 2018, meeting. this is an action meeting. >> supervisor kim: do we have a motion? a motion from sheehy and seconded by fewer. at this time, open up for public comment on item 4. seeing no public comment on item 4, public comment is closed. can we take a roll call, please, on item 4? [roll call]

>> clerk: we have approval. >> supervisor kim: thank you. would you please call items 5 and 6 together? >> clerk: item 5, amend adopted fiscal year 2017/18 to decrease revenues annex pend tours by $2.1 million, action item. item 6, adopt the proposed fiscal year 2018/19 annual budget and work program. this is an action item. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i want to bring up cynthia fong, deputy finance administration to present on the adopted proposed budget amendments. that's what's in my agenda. if it's not you, i can call up somebody else. >> cynthia fong, deputy director finance administration. both items were in past timma meetings. if it's the desire it have a full presentation, staff is more than happy to, otherwise, i can take any questions that you have

on this item. >> supervisor kim: seeing no questions, we have the annual budget and work program action time. and eric cordoba is available to answer any questions that committee members might have on this item. >> if there are any questions, eric and i are here to answer them. >> supervisor kim: all right. seeing no questions. at this time, open up for public comment on items 5 and 6. see nog public comment, public item is closed. can we take 5 and 6, same house, same call? we do that without opposition. mr. clerk, can you please call item 7. >> clerk: authorize executive director to accept on the treasure island mobility management agency's behalf all interests real property action. >> supervisor kim: any questions? we'll open it up for public comment? seeing no public comment, close

public comment. can we take this same house, same call? without opposition. can you please call 8 and 9. >> clerk: item 8, introduction of new items. item 9, public comment. >> supervisor kim: any new items? seeing none, we'll open it up for public comment for 8 and general public comment. seeing no public comment, we'll close for 8 and 9. mr. clerk, are there any other items before this committee? >> clerk: item 10, adjournment. >> supervisor kim: meeting is adjourned.

>> good morning. thank you. all right, ladies and gentlemen. are you fired up? today's the day we talk about budget and we are almost there, yes. yes! let's get excited. let's get excited because we are going to be done by this evening. that is a, my commitment to you, i want you guys to make that commitment to me, we are going to do this together. so, we are going to move forward. thank you for b