questions. >> chair a. peskin: okay, i think we have a number of speakers for item 7. bishop jackson and leor gartner. and if there are other individuals who would like to speak on this item, please line up. good morning, bishop. >> good morning, chairman peskin, honorable supervisor malia cohen, board supervisors and commissioners. in time past when i have come into these chambers, being from bayview hunters point, i have come with not such pleasant news because i was talking about the environmental issues over at the shipyard. however, this morning, i am very happy and kind of excited, matter of fact, if i didn't have rheumatism and arthritis i would probably do a little bit of dancing in here.

our church was one of the sites that has been designated to get the electric vehicle charging. so for us that represents something of an anomaly because there is a heavy concentration of these chargers in the downtown area along the way. we are in district 10 in the south bay sector. which, i think we are about a mile standing alone in this radius. our church and there will be other houses of faith, but our church in particular will be open to the community. it's going to be, of course, it will be on private property but [bell] our gates will be open and people who have electric vehicles can come on site and charge.

we are excited about this and ask you approve it and are looking forward to doing more. thank you for your time. >> chair a. peskin: thank you, bishop jackson. next speaker, please. >> good morning. leona gartner with interfaith power and light. thank you so much for having me and considering this proposal, which will allow us to offer ten congregations to install ten chargers. we work with congregations across san francisco addressing all demographics and there's a lack of equitable charging in san francisco, so we are honored to work with the congregations to address this. as we know, people go to their houses of worship to charge their souls, why not give this opportunity to charge their vehicles as well. thank you very much.

>> chair a. peskin: thank you. seeing no other members of the public for item number 7, we will close public comment. and is there a motion to approve this item made by commissioner yee? seconded by commissioner brown. and on that item, we have a different house. roll call, please. >> clerk: on item 7. commissioner brown aye. commissioner cohen aye. commissioner fewer aye. commissioner kim absent. commissioner mandelman aye. commissioner peskin aye. commissioner ronen aye. commissioner safai aye. commissioner stefani aye. commissioner tang aye. commissioner yee aye. this item is first approved. >> chair a. peskin: all right. next item, please. >> clerk: item 8, award an 18

month professional services contract with golden state bridge/obayashi joint venture in an amount not to exceed $675,000 for construction manager general contractor preconstruction services for the yerba buena island west side bridges seismic retrofit project. this is an action item. >> chair a. peskin: mr. cordoba. >> happy to present item 8 on the ybi west side bridges seismic retrofit project. i want to give a refresher course on the project itself. it sits on the western slope of yerba buena island. there are five bridges -- actually a total of eight bridges there all seismically

deficient. there's some urgency involved. cost approximately $55 million right now. it's funded primarily with federal highway bridge program seismic retrofit funds, as well as proposition 1-b seismic retrofit funds with some local match. we are at an environmental completion phase. we performed approximately 30% of the preliminary engineering. our intent is to start construction in about 16 months from now. very unique features on the project. there's some landslides in the area. steep terrain. limited access above the bay, etc.. i gave a presentation back earlier this year related to the challenges here and i appreciate the approval that you gave me to go ahead and move forward with the evaluation for a c.m.g.c. contract. we went ahead now and issued an r.f.q. in july of 2018.

happy to announce we had six basically proposers who submitted for the project so there's a lot of interest here and they are listed on the screen. we went ahead and assembled an evaluation committee made up of members from the transportation authority, as well as tita. the u.s. coastguard who has homeland security interest, the contra costa and caltrain. caltrans participated as observers. the key evaluation criteria frankly, was firm experience, past performance, the ability to understand what needed to be done here. also, we did our independent cal osha record checks for the construction contractors. based on evaluation criteria i just indicated we basically recommend a contract award to

obayashi. they had the highest qualified project manager, the most relevant yb.i. retrofit seismic experience on the island and an excellent record of minimizing claims and delays. we want to work with contractors who want to work with us to get things done to proceed in a collaborative fashion. they have a very strong project understanding and a solid safety record. i do want to mention golden state bridge will be the managing partner on the project. they completed our westbound on and offramp project and came in on time and on budget. i think that track record speaks for itself. obayashi provides planning expertise, but all personnel in terms of managing the project and ensuring safety will be run through the general partner. so our recommendation is to award a recommendation of an

18-month professional services contract to the g.s.b./obayashi joint venture in an amount not to exceed $675,000 and authorize contract terms and conditions. one of the terms and conditions that's key i want to remind the board of, is in essence, what we will do is have our designer and our team work with the contractor and we will work through a process to finalize the design. and to look at all aspects of construction to consider what's called an open bidding environment. where we have the contractor bid it openly. the goal being approximately by april of 2020 is to bring to you basically a recommendation for a contract award to this joint venture. if for some reason we can't meet an agreement on price we will put it out for advertisement for construction.

so that finalizes the first, i would call it the first half of this item. the second half of the item now, since we are at 30% completion from preliminary engineering and design, to award, the time is right, to award in essence the final plan specs for the project. working in conjunction with our construction contractor and our support team. the designer of record to date and the entity that's helped us get through all of the preliminary engineering and environmental approvals is w.m.h. corporation. they have a team of themselves leading their efforts with five dbe's. they have a goal of 12%. they actually met that goal and continue to do so. so our second recommendation is to increase their contract by $4 million to a total of $15.3 million to complete the design for this project.

that concludes my presentation and i'm anxiously awaiting any questions. >> chair a. peskin: any public comment? same house same call. now the item we have been waiting for. item 9. >> clerk: update on the effects of transportation network companies on roadway congestion and reliability. this is an information item. >> chair a. peskin: mr. castlione, you have been working hard crunching data. >> yes, indeed. but as part of a team.

thank you, chair peskin, thank you, commissioners, for giving us an opportunity to talk to about the report we released this morning, the latest in the series of t.n.c. reports, t.n.c.'s in congestion. i want to acknowledge the team, dr. greger hart from university of kentucky was from university of kentucky team, along with dr. may chen, roy and muchi. this was a collaborative effort and san francisco transportation authority staff actively participated in all aspects of it, and i want to acknowledge drew cooper who lead the tnc data preparation and basana who lead the development of visualization of the data and performed quality control. background, last summer we brought to you our tnc's today report. that was motivated by the idea that a lot of people in the

past year, couple years said seems as though there's a lot of tnc's out there. but we don't really know how many and while data is reported that data is not shared with any other agencies. so we established a research collaboration with computer scientists who scraped lyft and uber. what the report found there are a lot of tnc trips happening in san francisco. most of these trips were happening in the most congested parts of the city and many of these trips were happening at the most congested times of day. however, there were a bunch of questions that this body and others had about what does this mean. and perhaps the most frequently asked are tnc's affecting congestion. and this report seeks to answer that question.

if we could maybe move to the next slide. what you see on the right-hand side are some maps of how congestion has changed in san francisco, between 2009-2017. as part of our charge or your charge for the san francisco county, we do every other year monitoring of roadway congestion and you could see between the map at the upper right and map on the lower right, the congestion has actually gotten much worse during this interval as evidenced by lots more red and orange on the map and it's been particularly concentrated in the northeast quadrant. so what we saw to do was to say how much do tnc's affect roadway congestion. and i want to give you first a very brief overview of what the report contents are. take you through a little bit

of the data and methods and give you the top line findings. first of all how do we measure congestion, because it means different things to different people. for some it may be how much time they spend, delayed. others interested in vehicle miles of travel for congestion, that's what we use to look at impact of land use and transportation projects. for someone else it might be changes in average speeds. in fact, that's what drives our congestion monitoring of the roadway network is how speeds have declined. but congestion is a complicated thing and arises from different factors. certainly tnc's could be contributed but also increases in population, increases in employment, changes to the network and other factors as well. one thing that we feel is really important is we bring data in rigorous methods to try to answer this question, people

have a lot of hypotheses but it's important to have data to help inform any decision making. then finally the report brings high-level summaries of the contributions of the different factors we will look at to changes in congestion. so how could tnc's affect congestion. there's a lot of theoris. it could be through increased vehicle occupancy. for example, as people share rides, somebody who might have been driving in a vehicle by themselves is now paired up with somebody else and that may reduce the total number of vehicles on the road. similarly tnc's could support transit by providing what we transportation nerds refer to as first and last mile access so people can get to transit stations and thereby induce increase in transit.

some hypothesize think tnc's might cause some to not have a car at all or get rid of their car. use more transit or more biking or walking trips. on the other hand tnc's might also increase congestion. it could happen dead head miles or out of service miles when tnc's aren't carrying any passengers account for 30% of the miles they travel on city streets. they might also by increasing a mode shift away from transit and biking and walking and into vehicles. so if somebody had been driving previously and decide to take a tnc trip instead, that's kind of a wash. it was a vehicle trip one way or the other but if they were taking transit or biking and walking and instead take tnc that adds a vehicle to the network and increases congestion. and may increase through pick up and drop off activity.

as people get in and out of vehicles we see often that may be happening in a traffic flow lane. not only is there a delay associated with that vehicle but the vehicles that queue up behind it. that's the other way they may contribute to congestion. but as a said a moment ago, tnc's are hardly the only thing on the street and there's been changes to the supply, the network, as well as to the demand. between 2010 and 2016, the period we looked at, there were changes to transit services, changes to the roadway networks, as we say reallocated right of way to red carpet lanes or bike lanes, increases in capacity like the presidio parkway and construction being completed. so those could all be affecting things. we also look at the amount of population that's increased in san francisco. about 70,000 people became new san francisco residents between 2010-2016 and there was a

staggering increase of about 150,000 new jobs during that short six-year period, all of that activity will increase congestion. as people make trips to fulfill their daily needs as they go to work and so on. of course there are other factors too. we have seen changes in delivery service market. we have seen changes in visitor travel, that has increased, so there are other factors as well. one thing we think though, as i mentioned earlier which is important, any analysis, be really data driven. there have been many, many theories or hypotheses. we don't want based on fear or fantasies but real facts. so that's something we have brought to this analysis. i would like to talk about three key data items we use. first and foremost is how do we

measure congestion. that's based on hinrich's data set. it's available for two points in time, and many points in time, in fact. that's why it was useful for us. we could look at changes between 2010 and 2016. it's also extremely good coverage here in san francisco. it's a little bit difficult to read on the map on screen. but there's about 1400 what we call traffic messaging channels, or tmc's in the city. about a third of a mile long, between 3-6 blocks. and while it might not be clear they cover almost every major arterial, minor and the freeway network, so it's extensive across the entire city and on this we get information on changes in speeds. the tmc data came from the same data set we used for the report.

it includes information both on the in service and out of service volumes on san francisco roadways from tnc's and information on where pick ups and drop offs are happening. finally, in order to capture the effects of this increased population and employment we use our sf champ model which takes input, information where people have moved between, new residents between 2010-2016, where those jobs have located between 2010-2016, and then allows us to actually look at how the travel patterns have changed due to population and employment increase. so to cut to some of the top line findings. using the three measures i described earlier, vehicle hours of delay, vehicle miles traveled and average speeds, what we find is tnc's account for about half of the increase in each of these congestion measures. about half of the increased hours of delay we estimate is

attributable to tnc's. half vehicle miles traveled, and half decline in speed is attributable to tnc's. population and employment growth each account for a quarter each, it depends citywide and based on the metric and changes to the network's account for a small share of the change in congestion, 1-4% depending on how you look at it. but the effects aren't equally distributed in time or space across the city. so the slide you are looking at now looks at summary of changes by time period, so we use five time periods, note they aren't of all equal length, the early a.m., p.m., but the midday and evening are longer, six and a half and eight and a half hours respectively. what we find, there's more of an increase in the a.m. than the p.m. peek. greatest increases in delay occur midday not the evening.

those are longer time periods. tnc's account for 45% increase in congestion. in the evening period they account for almost 70%. this pattern is also apparent when we look at changes in speeds. so on this chart you see declines in speeds by time period. and it's again, between 45-50% of the declines in speed during most of the day, we estimate are attributable to tnc's but in the evening, i should note overall citywide there's been a three mile per hour decrease in speed across the day, you see that roughly represented across the day. in the evening, precipitous drop over 4 miles an hour, we estimate 75% is attributable to tnc's. the differences become more stark when we look at it by geography. this chart shows summaries by supervisorial district. there are stark differences how

congestion has changed across the different supervisorial district as well as what's driving that change. clearly district 6, south of market, mission bay and treasure island has experienced the greatest delay, there's about 40,000 hour increase in delay. on a typical week day. over 12,000 of those hours were accruing on streets south of market. with tnc's accounting for about 45%. however, you could also see employment

we see a much larger increase in the vmt. here tnc's account for a significantly smaller share of impacts in this district. finally, in the interest of trying to allow the public and

this body engage just as with the tnc's today report we created interactive data visualization. it allows folks to explore all of the information, all the way down to the individual links that is underlying all of summaries you have seen here. this report represents the second in a series of reports on tnc's. in the future we will be bringing to this body looks at the impacts of tnc's on transit ridership and also equity and we are also working and collaborating with the sfmta who have their own set of research looking at their own issue such as tnc's and disabled access and tnc's and safety. thank you. >> chair a. peskin: thank you, joe. before we go to commissioner ronen, uber and lyft are both contending that the study did not consider critical factors,

which you have spoken to, such as the growth in tourism and the growth in freight deliveries. can you speak a little more how you netted those out that 50% of vmt and congestion are associated with tnc's? >> sure. i want to also reiterate, this needs to be data-driven. what we have used is all of the best and comprehensive information which we have actual data so we can move it out of the realm of hypothesis and into the realm of facts. with respect to deliveries, we are looking at the change in deliveries and there is no data right now, presently on how changes in deliveries have occurred. we would note a couple things. first, for every delivery being made in the absence of that delivery service, it's likely that would have been a trip somebody else is getting on the network to make themselves so the delivery trip while it may

be new, in fact there's been a decline or reduction because somebody didn't make that trip on their own, would be the first comment i would make. in capturing the background growth, we do actually represent increases in commercial vehicle travel including what's referred to as light duty travel, that's driven by population and employment. so that actually is incorporated in the background growth we have. with respect to visitor travel, there's been a very significant increase in visitor travel between 2010-2016, about 50%. our model does include information on visitor travel and changes in visitor travel. our estimate is it's about 4-5%. overall visitor travel by all modes represents 4.5-5%. tnc represents an even smaller share of that overall market

and we are working to build in more of that. we looked at the mode share information from sf travel about what modes travelers are using. continues to be primarily transit and walking. tnc's for sure, become a much more attractive mode for residents and visitors, i would note our tnc data set, the tnc trips represented in it, many or some of those trips i should say are visitor trips so that does get captured as well. >> chair a. peskin: thank you for those answers. i note the irony of the tnc companies, on the one hand, challenging your findings and on the other hand, not providing data themselves. has there been any recent requests from this study to them relative to asking for

their data. i mean, if they want to refute it, they should cough up the data. >> sure, and we would really welcome -- like i said there's a lot of theories floating out there and if there's opportunity to visit or update this analysis with additional data, we would welcome that opportunity. i would note we are also making available -- because it's really important, when we do research, that it's clear that research is transparent and reproducible. so the data that dr. erhart and his team did, they can download from the website today. again, that data could be augmented or complimented if there's additional data to answer those questions. sftc a&m ta have been striving to work with the tnc and there's been much more

collaboration with respect to pilots. this research effort started a little bit long before that new tone was set. so we haven't incorporated any data directly from tnc's but we certainly could if that were available. >> chair a. peskin: i want to echo what joe was saying, the tone has changed but we still have a ways to go. finally, my last question before i turn it over to commissioner ronen and other commissioners on the screen, is there a way to measure the induced demand? >> that's a great question. with the data we have today, it's not possible for us to put a fine point on induced demand. however, there is research out there from other folks that has looked at the induced demand effect and it seems to be about 6-8% plus/minus. the sftca in partnership with

the metropolitan transportation commission, mtc is actually fielding a survey, we already completed the pilot, we will go out in the field in a couple weeks specifically looking at overall travel behaviors focused in san francisco but across the whole region and it actually does collect data on induced travel. >> chair a. peskin: i think that would be interesting to learn about. commissioner ronen? >> commissioner ronen: yes, thank you. thank you for this. the results and findings are extraordinary. anyone paying attention and looking on the streets, the fact there are stickers indicating which cars are potentially driving under uber and lyft are probably not surprised about these findings, but to have some data to finally look at that we have been craving is very, very meaningful and it's extraordinary. i feel if this is not a call to our state legislators to

introduce legislation to provide local authority to regulate this new form of transportation that is causing up to or about 50% of the congestion on our streets then i don't know what is. and i think we should consider whether it's through the transportation authority or the board of supervisors of officially passing a resolution asking our state legislators to intervene here because something that's causing such an impact on our local streets and the fact we have such little authority to control or intervene is ridiculous and just not the case in other places in this country and in the world. when i was traveling in spain over the break, their cities have the ability to control the number of tnc's on the street,

i think that's something we absolutely need to do in san francisco. we need to do it ages ago, we need to do it today, i think we would be willing to do it the minute we had the authority. i was in l.a. with a bunch of other commissioners with the t.a. to study congestion. and i grew up in los angeles and my family and friends thought it was hilarious that san francisco was going to l.a. to study congestion. because l.a., you know has been considered among the worst cities in the world for this. but that's how bad things have gotten here. and to know the tnc industry is responsible for about 50% of that congestion is truly extraordinary. supervisor peskin stole many comments i was going to make. the irony of the tnc's criticizing under extremely weak terms your report and then failing to cough up the data is

pretty funny. and you know, i guess, i don't know if i'm making a formal call through the t.a. maybe we can draft that resolution to send to our state legislators but the time was yesterday to do that, so thank you so much for your report. >> thank you, commissioner. if i might offer one minor correction. the report indicates about 50% of the increase in congestion. >> commissioner ronen: sure. >> with respect to total congestion we do include some statistics on that. we estimate it's about in the downtown core about 36% of total congestion. the 50% is the increase in congestion frmt . the other thing i would note this report with the tnc's report was studiously silent on making particular policy prescriptions and we look to this body and others to provide

us with guidance on next steps. >> commissioner ronen: okay, thank you. >> chair a. peskin: right. and i do want to associate myself with commissioner ronen's comments. at this point we're -- our hands are tied. so all we can get is information which is why i requested this series of studies so everybody can read about it in the newspaper and everybody knows what the numbers are. let's be honest. these companies have great amounts of power in sacramento and are not interested in allowing us to legislate locally as we historically were able to do in and around the taxicab industry. but i think information is power and that's all we've got right now. i wish we had more. i would certainly support going to our legislative delegation. but let's be honest. i think the chances of any of them taking that up are slim and the chances of it passing are slim.

just getting the authority to be able to do a per-ride fee was a huge lift for which we are all indebted to assembly member and the delegation, but that got out with one vote to spare, it got out of the committee with one vote to spare. on a 7-6 vote. and we were all petrified the governor would veto it. this is an evolving field but the information is important. i want to thank joe and the staff for doing it and doing it very well and very transparently. and with that, commissioner brown? >> commissioner brown: thank you, chair peskin. as i got the report, i started

digging into it. so one of the things i noticed was the report doesn't provide info on usage of poll services such as lyft line and uber. is it possible to gather and analyze that data and report back and does the t.a. staff feel it would be relevant and if it's a factor to be considered when moving forward with any legislation regarding tnc's? that's one of my questions. i have a couple more but. >> if i may respond. no, we do not have data on use of pooled versus single occupancy or single passenger trips. it would be wonderful to have that data. we will get some of that information in a survey i just mentioned a few moments ago, that will give us an aegs. indication.

we coordinate certain amount share drive. the estimates is based on some data available published in other reports one that came out this past summer in new york. it shows a very conservative, meaning a high estimate of shared rides. we will have some insights into that imminently and that will certainly be reflected in our subsequent research. >> commissioner brown: thank you. and once again, supervisor ronen said it was funny that we don't have this data, i think it's really sad. i just can't believe we are actually here without true numbers. why were trucks excluded from this analysis of vehicle trips? >> there is truck trips happening. when i referred to the vehicle commercial model, that's the model that comes up with the estimate for the base in 2010-2016 of commercial

vehicles and it includes all classes of commercial vehicles. it's driven by population and employment change as those make deliveries but what we don't include, because we don't have any data on it, the new emerging delivery services, and so on. >> commissioner brown: thank you. my last question, is district 6 and 10 the only districts where pick ups and drop offs are higher on weekends. one might expect job growth but can staff comment why district 10 has a higher drop-off rate? >> i guess at this point i would say -- >> commissioner cohen: i can. i was joking but -- [laughter]

you can get to where you need to go, the question is how to get back. it has to do with the lack of resources when it comes to public transportation, efficiently running people from point a to point b. people are able to take public transportation to where they need to go and often times you see them taking an uber or lyft or any other means of transportation back to where they started from. in particular the busses that run on top of the hills, when i think of potrero, west point, bayview hill, it's also infrequent, the busses are infrequent. all i have are anecdotal stories and personal experiences. but when i think of the hunters point shipyard there's no busses out there and those are homeowners. so our infrastructure in terms of public transportation hasn't caught up yet. >> chair a. peskin: joe, do you

want to respond? >> i would just say, i think that sounds like an entirely plausible explanation. we can do more exploration, i'm not prepare today give more definitive statementles, if you would like to weigh in. >> i would like to comment on the shared rides. we will absolutely need that information for the calculation and collaboration of the proposed tnc per trip tax. as you recall it was a 3.25% tax on solo rides and lower rate 1.5% on shared rides so we are hoping to have the cooperation of both companies to help us estimate those accurately. >> chair a. peskin: as the 11 of us craft that measure which has to go before the voters in november 2019, obviously the tnc companies will be at the table and they have actually, kind of given me and my office some amount of data i was able

to look at, i wasn't able to keep that helped us come up with that 3.25%. and actually, if it told me anything at all at a high level, it told me these studies numbers are actually quite conservative. and when we actually some day see the real numbers we find out they are an even larger portion of the traffic and congestion in san francisco than i think we are currently attributing to them. supervisor brown, are you done? >> commissioner brown: [off mic] >> chair a. peskin: supervisor fewer. >> >> commissioner fewer: thank you for this study and thank you without all the information, somewhat incredible and brilliant. on page 4, it's worth noting the sentence that says however, it doesn't address other key questions, effect iss on tnc on

safety, transit ridership and other potential long term effects. i just wanted to say, i think that sort of analysis is really important when we talk about our city resources. law enforcement. i think when i speak to officers in my neighborhood, 80% of the tickets they give out are tnc's. the traffic control personnel that's needed. pedestrian and bicycle and vehicle safety, quite frankly overall in san francisco and how does that jive with our vision zero goals. and then i think if tnc companies are pushing back on these findings, i don't think their voices have any credibility whatsoever unless they are willing to share their information, otherwise i'm just going to ignore everything they are saying, quite frankly. if they have a valid argument, come share their information with us.

then i find, so i think that commissioner cohen's response was, i think, accurate for her neighborhood. but i just want to note, where we have made the biggest transit investments is where we see the largest congestion and tnc's. we see in the corridors where we really invested in transit. those are the areas that are being utilized the most by tnc's. so some, i think, her explanation is valid, but on the other hand, i see that where we have made these transit investments that they are really using heavily tnc's, so what is that about? the effect that it has on our transit ridership, i think is a really important factor to look at. thank you very much. >> chair a. peskin: thank you, commissioner. commissioner cohen? >> commissioner cohen: thank you. i want to get clarification,

i'm under the impression, it's the c.p.u.c. that regulates tnc's. is that correct? >> chair a. peskin: that is correct. >> that is correct. >> commissioner cohen: with that said we need to be imploring the future goef -- governor of the state of california because the governor appoints the members of the c.p.u.c. we need to be smart and strategic on who and how we will go about how to implement these changes. i've personally not talked to mr. cox that's a candidate but i have talked to former mayor of san francisco gavin newsom about my concerns and the importance of being thoughtful in the selection of the c.p.u.c. person he will be able to appoint shortly thereafter should he be victorious in november. and i think we, as a body, could possibly weigh in or get together that resolution and again to help develop some criterion available to evaluate

what an ideal candidate would look like in their representation of san francisco. i also want to note and credit, director risken have been trying to work with c.p.u.c. members on better regulation of tnc's. and also to collect the data. there's just been a large resistance. it's been really strong. i think there's been a lack of understanding to the importance that california public utility commissioners bring to this larger conversation. this conversation about tnc's and how dynamic it is, and how really over burdened we are here on the local level, not being able to create policies that would help us adjust to the influx of cars on the street. i think it's incredibly important also that we start to do more of a data-driven

analysis much like we have before so we can create policies that are thoughtful and spot on. so instead of creating things, i'm thinking of using a scalpel, a fine-tuning tool to begin to help us with our transportation challenges, as opposed to a sledgehammer and just start knocking away and hacking at it. i think that's not in the best interest of our constituents. the reality is our people are using them, supported by the data you found. particularly i'm thinking of district 10. also i'm sensitive these tnc's are hiring my constituents, formerly incarcerated that have high school education and don't have college education, for me it's a little bit of a double-edged sword. i'm looking for a careful, thoughtful response to the congestion we see on our streets and i want to thank you for your team's study. >> thank you. >> chair a. peskin: thank you, commissioner cohen. commissioner safai? >> commissioner safai: thank

you, mr. chair. you referenced this. i just wanted to speak more about it, i know it came out in the report today. you mentioned how we would be crafting legislation as it relates to the future gross receipts tax a certain rate but in a way it's a per-ride fee so they will, the companies will have to share data. i just want to give you an opportunity to talk about that a little bit more. that's an important part of the conversation. this is a good start but when we actually have the data we will be able to dig in deeper and have a deeper understanding. i know you said based on your quick glance of the information. am i correct, we will have additional data? or how are they actually going to be able to assess this tax on a pro-ride basis total number and that's it? >> chair a. peskin: so the answer is a little complicated. a lot of tax payer information is confidential. so it could be viewed by the

tax collector and could be used for audit purposes, but could not be transmitted to the legislative branch of government for policy discussion. so the answer is, yes, a part of the city would have data, but it could not be shared outside of the tax collector's office. i think that's probably the right answer. i don't know if stan taylor or -- will want to respond to that but i think that's the impression we are all under. if you have no further questions, commissioner, and before we open it up to public comment, was that -- just through the chair real quick. was that a shaking of the head, i didn't hear anything for the record on behalf of the t.a. >> chair a. peskin: i think staff agrees with my analysis. >> commissioner safai: it would be good to hear from the

director. >> i concur with our chair and we will certainly be seeking the fine grained information, we will be careful with privacy requirements, but we will want the per-trip information. the tax will be on all origins, in fact all requests for shared rides, for example, even if they weren't completed as a shared ride. >> commissioner safai: i'm sorry, just through the chair, can you speak about that for a minute? we don't need the individual's information. obviously that information will be transmitted and they will understand how to calculate the tax. we are trying to get just some raw numbers. can you talk about how that violates -- >> it should be a way to aggregate and anonymize that information. we haven't done that for

revenue and trip modeling. as the legislation gets formed i think we will be able to inform that with a bit more detail what kind of implementation measures to implement this efficiently and accurately. >> commissioner safai: through the chair, that was a little bit different than what you said. i understand we won't be able to get the individual person's information but we will be able to compile some raw data. >> chair a. peskin: i think we need to do some talking with the city attorney and maybe our counsel. and by the way, we should be cognizant of the fact the city attorney has actually been litigating against uber and lyft relevant to data and we both as the t.a. and board of supervisors have been absolutely consistent now for a couple of years. uber, if you are listening, and lyft, if you are listening, our desire this information be made publicly available and then we wouldn't have to worry about what is confidential and not

confidential. so hopefully as part of that new tone we set with assembly bill 46 they can move into the dawn of 21st century of cooperation with this municipality. thank you, commissioner safai. i want to add that, when you look at that map where the congestion is. and you look at the various graphs, not surprisingly, it tells us what we all know and experience, the vast majority of it is in and around the downtown, the northeast quadrant of the city in district 6 and 3. and to that end, we should also be cognizant of the fact, 50% of the increase in congestion between 2010 and 2016 is attributable to tnc's. but let's not forget the other 50% is attributable to other things and again it's clustered in that corner of the city.

to that end, i thought it was time to start our congestion pricing discussion again and have asked staff to put that on our next agenda because there are some things that we can do and some things that we can't do and some things that are politically possible in congestion pricing which would need state legislation. maybe one of those things. so i thought we should take that out of the dust bin of history and we will do so at our next meeting. joe, any final comments? and thank you again for your very good work. >> thank you. no final comments. thank you for giving us an opportunity to present. >> chair a. peskin: thank you. are there members of the public that would like to talk about this? if so, please come forward. seeing none. we will close public comment. and we will move to introduction of new items. and i have one thing i want to discuss with you and that is,

the unfortunate situation that we all find ourselves in, relative to the transbay terminal. and i want to start having a conversation about how we are going to get it right as it relates to phase 2 of that project. we all know, or at least i remember when transbay started. it was going to be a very expensive $700 million project. it ended up later on being a $1.5 billion project that came in at $2.2 billion dollars and has become a source of danger and embarrassment. and we all are aware that 80 feet under that $2.2 billion facility is a huge empty train box and we have really a mission to put a train in that box, whether it's the caltrain downtown extension, and/or maybe some day, i probably

won't be alive to see it, high speed rail. but getting the next phase right is something i think we should all be thinking about and exploring. i've met with our council firm to talk about new potential governance structures whether they are regional in nature, whether they are city-controlled for bringing that piece of infrastructure from fourth and king street to the downtown terminal. which we approved with the pennsylvania alignment earlier this year. and so i want people to start thinking about that. and in the meantime, i really think we need to reconsider the money that we have been advancing to the t.j.p.a. for phase 2. we all know that, because phase 1 was so costly that they borrowed from phase 2, so phase 2 is now in the hole. we have to restore public faith in confidence in our ability to

deliver this project before we go much further. so i want you all to think about that and we will be exploring different options at meetings ahead and i'm glad fremont street is reopen. are there any other introduction of new items? seeing none. is there any general public comment? seeing none. the t.a. is adjourned.

>> they tend to come up here and drive right up to the vehicle and in and out of their car and into the victim's vehicle, i would say from 10-15 seconds is

all it takes to break into a car and they're gone. yeah, we get a lot of break-ins in the area. we try to -- >> i just want to say goodbye. thank you. >> sometimes that's all it takes. >> i never leave anything in my car. >> we let them know there's been a lot of vehicle break-ins in this area specifically, they target this area, rental cars or vehicles with visible items. >> this is just warning about vehicle break-ins. take a look at it. >> if we can get them to take it with them, take it out of the cars, it helps.

>> good morning.

thank you, everyone, for coming to our first mayor's disaster council meeting of the year, the fiscal year, the first under the leadership of our new mayor, london breed. and the first for me as director of emergency -- department of emergency management. appreciate you all being here today. i'm going to call the meeting to order and i'm going to pass it on for opening remarks. >> thank you. and thank you, everyone. you know, i know there's been previous disaster council meetings, but this is a very special occasion for me and for the mayor. it's really an honor to be here representing the mayor and also too be here with all of you to be part of this critical conversation around keeping our communities resilient and prepared. and i know we'll be talking a lot about connected communities today. and, you know, as we