continued collaboration are bullet points on what the plan is. >> i'm going vote against it because the lack of clarity. >> let's clear it up. what's your lack of clarity? >> i can't figure out how the five covered the six in the other changes. >> so in the summary of recommended actions, numbers two, three, four and five fulfill the directive under strategy six. it was to define the strategy. >> i can help with this. >> if we look at item six on page one of the memo, so not what's on screen, define an

approach to identify. what we're seeing is items two through five in the summary of recommended actions are the approach that we are going to take. >> that's six. execution. >> that's right. >> and no changes in two through five except two are not going hire another -- [laughter] >> i'll make the amendment to this motion. you're basically saying what staff's recommendations is your motion? between listed numbers one and two say to implement step six of the january 24 and tie them in that way it will be clear two, three, four, five refer to number six. >> that's fine. >> fair enough. >> i do not want the same clarity problems that occurred last. >> that's a good addition.

>> thank you. >> that was an amendment. >> if the maker will accept the amendment. >> i will accept it as a second. >> the motion passes. >> we have to vote. >> we to -- we do have to vote. >> as long as you accept the amendment. >> and i concur. >> we have a motion by commissioner paskin-jordan and a second by commissioner casciato and there was an agreement from the maker and any questions from the board as to what is in front of us? any questions from staff? any discussion on this item? okay. i will call for the motion in a moment. i just want to highlight one thing, i said this before.

all divestment actions we take or restrictions we need to track and see how much it's making or costing the system. and i intend to make it a policy but it's probably a good practice any way for transparency purpose as staff so can you work on that so in the near future we see what's going on with the numbers. i say that because had we done this a year ago, hes corporation has been up 50% and that's among the five we're going divest. they're up over 50%. w dax energy up over 73% in one year on a one-year basis. so the stocks we're going to be getting rid of, had we done it a year ago we would have lost a million dollars on.

that's a reality the board needs to meet the shortfall somewhere and find better investment opportunities. be sure we're tracking this from the date that anything passes. >> roll call vote, please. >> yes. >> commissioner paskin-jordan. >> yes. >> commissioner stansbury. >> yes. >> commissioner safai. >> aye. >> commissioner driscoll. >> yes. >> commissioner bridges. >> aye. >> motion passes. thank you very much. this was our last item on the agenda for the day. we don't have -- do we have [indiscernible] on there? >> no. >> meeting adjourned. thank you for your time.

>> chair a. peskin: good morning and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority meeting for today october 16th. our clerk is mr. steve stamos. mr. clerk, if you could please call the roll. >> clerk: item 1 roll call, commissioner brown. brown present. commissioner cohen absent. commissioner fewer present. commissioner kim absent. commissioner mandelman present. commissioner peskin present. commissioner ronen present. commissioner safai absent. commissioner stefani present. commissioner tang present. commissioner yee absent. we have a quorum. >> chair a. peskin: okay, could

we have mr. larsen from the citizen's advisory committee present his report? >> good morning, chair peskin, vice chair tang and members of the transportation authority. i'm john larsen and i'm here to present the report of the citizens advisory committee. the c.a.c. recommended approval of the appropriation request included in item 5 on your agenda. the san francisco transit corridor study and streets and freeways study requests representing parts of the overall connect sf effort generated c.a.c. discussion about the impacts of the options generated from these studies on housing availability, affordability and gentrification. the c.a.c. encouraged implementation of a displacement metric if it wasn't already included in the studies. the c.a.c. encouraged as much lane separation as possible

with regard to bike path design for yerba buena road and treasure island road. during the clean air program of projects a c.a.c. member assisted college students with bike share memberships raised concerns about non-competitive bid contracts for bike share companies. one is the forego bike by sf students. the c.a.c. also heard about the experience of u.c. berkeley with the same program. and heard that it was a good last-mile option for commuter students. the c.a.c. recommended approval of the program of projects. lastly the c.a.c. approved a motion of support to recognize michael robert painters contributions to the design and

realization of the presidio parkway. the c.a.c. wish to add support to the board resolution approved at the september 25th meeting to demonstrate public support to the state legislature for the idea of landscape tunnels. that concludes my report, thank you. >> chair a. peskin: is there any public comment? thank you, mr. clerk could you read the next item? >> clerk: approve minutes of the september 25th minutes. we >> chair a. peskin: we can

amend and they are posted on the internet, we can speak to that and make that amendment. >> clerk: on page 2, item 4, approve the minutes of the november 17th 2018 meeting should have been the september 11th 2018 meeting. >> chair a. peskin: on that item, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the revised minutes, commissioner brown aye. commissioner fewer aye. commissioner mandelman aye, commissioner peskin aye, commissioner ronen aye,

commissioner stefani aye. commissioner tang aye. minutes are approved. >> chair a. peskin: next item, please. >> clerk: item 4, state and federal legislation update, this is an information item. >> chair a. peskin: mr. watts, are you on vaecation now? -- vacation now? the governor is done. you should be in hawaii now. >> i wish i were. but thank you for the thought. working closely with prop 6 campaign folks. >> chair a. peskin: thank you for that. >> continue to work. i will give you a few different items today a little bit of a catch up of bills how they turned out that you, as a board, took positions on. a little bit of a look back at the session that just finished and a little bit of a look forward and i know time is precious. so in your packet there are two tables under the legislative item, table 1 is a status update of measures that suppose

or formal position, there are 27 of those in the two-year period. there were 10 opposed positions which i will come to a little later and three of those passed. a couple key bills, i think, from the perspective of the board and from staff and management that we worked on this year would be ab 2865 by mr. chu, the hot lane measure that would allow an alternative for the authority to consider using that law to implement hot lanes. the lady merging, but very important measure, ab 1184 by mr. tang which authorizes the city and county of san francisco to do a t.n.c. tax, that was supported and the bill

was chaptered. a bill you had on the watch list, didn't take a formal position, but which has garnered a lost attention throughout the bay area is mr. chu's ab 2923 which was chaptered. and if that is the bill that deals with t.o.d. units near b.a.r.t.-owned properties. jumping on from that -- oh, i should mention, the table 2 is the list of bills that were watched and monitored but for which no position was taken this year. looking back at this particular last year, i think one of the under stated themes of the year was the state budget. the revenues that poured into the state coffers put the state budget over $200 billion for the first time in its history and it allowed the governor to fund the rainy day fund to the max and that contains about $20

billion dollars. the governor would point out it's been a long time since there's been a recession. even though we had adequate resources that have come in and a lot of programmatic investments being made this year, he would caution us, or caution law makers, not to dig too deeply into the rainy day fund at this point in time. senator deleon carried sb 100 this last year and that requires 100% renewable energy implemented by 2030. and there was also a major, major effort on privacy that was started by an initiative and in the legislature wanting to make some changes to that. they negotiated a settlement and put that in a bill, sb 375 and that privacy law is now on the books.

moving onto kind of a forecast for the future, if i can turn my page. i think this next year we will see tax reform dealt with. senator hertzberg has made this a long-term goal of his. he and his staff have been working studiously in the background and they will be coming forward, i believe, with a major service-type sales tax. if former mayor newsom is elected to the governor ship i would expect more return to homelessness issues and guaranteed healthcare. and i would close by indicating that senator wiener has indicated in the press he intends to bring back a vehicle congestion fee and work with assembly member bloom who also introduced the bill last year, but they were retained in

committee out of difference for the initiative process. so with that, i bring my report to a close, and stand ready for any questions. >> chair a. peskin: thank you, mr. watts. and thank you for tracking and lobbying on all of those bills. are there any questions for our sacramento lobbyist? seeing none, is there any public comment on this item? commissioner yee? > commissioner n. yee: thank you, chair peskin. i don't necessarily have a question on the presentation, as much as, i guess i was a little disappointed with what happened with ab 298. and that really give the state, let the state dictate when one

takes a scooter and basically those that are 18 and over wouldn't need a helmet starting in january. and the question i have is, we do agree, or disagree with the agenda that you laid forth, in terms of what we would support and not support, and so forth. but i'm just curious, when we do this, we have basically a long list of items. do we actually prioritize how much effort we put in on each item? or how does it work for you? and how do you coordinate such things like the scooter issue with sfmta and also the city lobbyists? >> well, addressing your first question first. how do we coordinate. once you have taken a position,

staff does prepare a letter, whether support or oppose or seek amendment. that gets delivered. i use that then as my walking around tool, if i might be that way. it's a nice document to walk around and meet with committee members or meet with the chair men. so onto your second question. 2928, i did touch base early on, not necessarily with m.t.a. but with the lobby firm for the city and county. coordinated a couple of contacts and then i lined up my energy in the senate transportation committee, because the bill was moving so rapidly at first coming out of the block and when it finally got to the senate, i heard from the senate chairman's office that they would be recommending changes to the author, wouldn't tell me what they were but i was monitoring it very closely

and stayed in touch with their office. i was just not able to stop the measure from moving forward. > commissioner n. yee: if you have more time, what more effort could you have given to this particular item? >> i'm not sure it was a matter of time. it was the scheduling. if you look at the history, the bill was bounced around quite a bit to the floor and to the senate transportation committee. so as a matter of getting the attention of the senate committee staff, at the right point in time when the bill was going to be heard. because they don't like to be bothered with bills in that coming week. so it's more of a matter of coordination. > commissioner n. yee: okay, thank you. >> thank you.

>> chair a. peskin: thank you, mr. watts. and i think i asked for public comment on this. is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. next item, please. >> clerk: item 5, allocate $1,470,529 in prop k sales tax funds for eight requests with conditions and appropriate $490,000 in prop k sales tax funds for three requests. >> chair a. peskin: mr. quintanilla. >> this morning we present eight allocations and three appropriations in prop k funding. the first is golden gate bridge highway transportation district. for $150,000 in prop k funds to extend the useful life of

docking ferries. prop k leverage is $1.3 million dollars in f.t.a. and golden gate transit district funds. and this will extend the useful life of the docking and boarding facilities until 2021 when full construction of the facilities will start. it's included in prop k ferry categorization item. the next is from sfmta for $100,000 in prop k funds to improve safety and accessibility into golden gate park at 45th and lincoln. this is an important access point to the park. and especially with the recently renovated playground. this will improve near-term improvements to long-term improvements and construct three curb ramps and install continental crosswalk on the eastern leg of the intersection.

this would be open for use in march 2020. this is neighbor transportation improvement program project. the third request is from the sfcta and sfmta for planning of bike and ped facility from the current pedestrian landing in the bay bridge to connect to the new or treasure island ferry terminal being planned as part of the treasure island development. this plan will allow the project to get ready for the next phases of seeking environmental clearance and the plan will be done by fall 2019. the next request is from b.a.r.t. for $550,000 to improve bicycle parking access for b.a.r.t. stations. it has three components. the first component is to install 30 new bike security smart rack systems.

you might have seen these racks on 16th avenue b.a.r.t. where b.a.r.t. had a one-year pilot program. so they are installing 10 more bike racks at 16th street station and 20 new at 24th street station. the second component is to install five bike channels. and the third is improve safety and user experience at the embarcadero, open for use in march 2020. did i answer your question from the sfmta to fund a bicycle education outreach project? this is a 12-month contract similar to previous years where sfmta will provide multilingual outreach for biking and offer over 40 classes to adults and kids to teach things from how to learn to ride a bike to traffic skills 101, both in

classrooms and on the streets. there will be evaluation that will look at attendance, demographics and increase safety. the next request is for bicycle safety education but targeted for schools. this project will fund 2-week classes at six middle and high schools and three elementary schools. expected to reach about 430 kids. and the elementary school kids will receive fundamentals of bicycling and middle and high school kids will receive classes on how to ride safely on city streets. this project also includes program evaluations including surveys, pre-and post-class tests. locations are still to be defined but will consider things like availability of a p.e. teacher to continue the classes, as well as locating schools with constrained amenities and less-than-bike-friendly neighborhoods.

>> good morning, my name is linda nickel, i'm with the t.a. i was going to take a moment to remind you about connect sf. connect sf is a multiagency partnership to build an effective equitable and sustainable transportation system for san francisco's future. i'm joined by some of my colleagues from planning and the m.t.a. today. there are three phases of connect sf. the first phase was our 50-year vision which we completed in april of this year and included a robust public engagement process and the phase 2 where we are right now looks at our needs to get to that vision and includes several specific modal studies including the transit corridor study, the 22nd street allocation study and streets and freeways study. the transportation needs assessment looks at where our needs are and what those needs

are. and the transportation network development is where we are going to be looking at those modes. both of these studies are funded and under way. and will be finishing soon. the transit corridor study will be led by sfmta, prop k request is for $420,000. $100,000 of that goes to additional outreach, which will be administered by the t.a. and we are leveraging money from both m.t.c. and caltrans. the 22nd street relocation study will be led by planning. this is for $160,000. there are several special conditions included in our enclosure of the report and again, this project leverages money from m.t.c. lastly, our streets and freeways study will be lead by t.a. prop k request is for $150,000.

and it will develop our next generation of major street and freeway-related projects. >> chair a. peskin: does that conclude the presentation mr. quintanilla? >> yes. >> chair a. peskin: commissioner yee? > commissioner n. yee: could you speak a little bit more to the bicycle education piece? the second bike item. >> yes, i will invite the project manager from sfmta. > commissioner n. yee: in terms of how we choose these schools and sustaining. what happens when you do the

initial program? you only reach so many kids and then the following year you would have other kids. so what happens then? >> good morning, commissioners, my name is maryam cerrell from sfmta. our goal is to roll out these programs in a sustained way throughout the school district. right now we don't have that level of funding but we have a lot of things we are still learning in terms of logistics of operating these programs. so for now, we have a smaller number of projects and there are -- i can pull up some of the factors that go into making the specific selections. but the idea is to, for instance, with the elementary school program which is fairly new, we have only done three elementary school program classes so far, both physical environments and demographics in terms of being able to understand some of the different logistical constraints, we bring a trailer

where we load the bikes up. street sweeping turned into a challenge last time. those are the types of things we are trying to evaluate but otherwise we work closely with the school district for schools that have availability within their physical education departments to provide these classes and work with the school district sustainability director on determining those schools and look for schools that have high free lunch programs and some other factors to make sure we are sort of reaching a diversity of schools in that program. > commissioner n. yee: i guess i'm a little concerned about this sustaining piece. meaning that, the school, beyond initial sort of drop in resources, or the resources you were given initially, what is the expectation for the school

to raise money for future sort of education classes and then if that's so, that's a little concerning because i know that not all elementary schools, the amount of money they can raise is equal within all the schools. some schools can't raise a cent and some schools can raise a half million dollars. so how do we sort of equalize that playing field? >> for the upcoming -- for this particular grant, it's just for the spring semester of the 2019 -- or '18-'19 school year. starting in the fall, we have other grant sources obag and atp that will fund some of that work for the next two years. again, it won't be rolled out in all schools but in terms of the long-term strategy, i think we are still working on that. i recognize your concerns about making sure it's provided

equitably. > commissioner n. yee: when you do work it out, i would love to have a presentation at this meeting. >> absolutely. >> chair a. peskin: thank you, commissioner yee. are there any other questions from commissioners? seeing none, is there any public comment? oh, commissioner cohen? >> commissioner cohen: thank you very much. good morning. just a couple things i wanted to be on the record. first of all, i hope at least two middle schools from district 10 will be on the list. have you compiled your list of schools or how you will target or make your selection? >> we haven't selected the schools for this spring program. as i mentioned, this is a stop gap for one semester, this particular funding. and it will be a total of nine schools. so i'm not sure if we will be able to have two in district 10 for the spring but there's an ongoing program we will be working for. >> commissioner cohen: fair

enough, perhaps i can make a persuasive argument, we have proliferation of cars you have heard me advocate about education of young people and getting them oriented to different modes of transportation. just for the record i want to recognize though we have scooters on the street, we don't have any in district 10, so we are starved when it comes to transportation. so i think it's important to focus these resources where they are needed not always where it's expedient and easy not where we will just have successful tests from our pilot programs. carver which is an elementary. i think, yes, that's it. that's all i wanted to go on record but i just wanted to be pretty strong and straight forward what i would like to see and which schools i would like to see in your study. thank you. >> chair a. peskin: thank you. commissioner fewer?

>> >> i would expect to see these at my middle school presidio, and other middle schools that could benefit. when i vote on millions and millions and millions of prop-k funds which my residents also contribute to, i see little reflected for any kind of improvements in my neighborhood. so i think really the voice of equity, that our schools in the richmond district shouldn't be neglected but should actually be prioritized. thank you. >> chair a. peskin: thank you, commissioner fewer. mr. quintanilla, any comment? if not i will open it up -- oh, commissioner safai? >> commissioner safai: sorry, i want to put a plug for the only middle school in my district, james denman, the same grounds as balboa, so you could get a

two-for-one potentially working with those schools in a similar location. as supervisor cohen said we are also transit-starved for different alternatives. we just did bike and roll to work, or excuse me, to school. it is successful every year, it's getting better and better. just a plug for james denman. >> chair a. peskin: plug noted. commissioner cohen? would you like to speak again? >> commissioner safai: she hit it after me. >> chair a. peskin: with that we will go to public comment. i have one speaker card from mr. christopher white. if there are any other individuals who would like to testify on this number 5 please line up to my right, your left. >> good morning, i'm christopher white, i'm coordinator at the san francisco bicycle coalition. i want to thank the sfcta and sfmta for their support of the bicycle education safety

program. in the last 10 months this program has provided education for 1,655 children and adults and reached well over 15,000 people through community outreach. your support for safer transportation doesn't just save lives, it changes them also. one student, natalie, was 45 when she learned to ride a bike through this program and she wrote to us, taking her classroom class and road skills class gave me the courage to imagine riding on roads one day and gave me many skills and tips that surely saved my life. i'm out of my car, 40 pounds lighter, so much more confident and living a biking dream i would have otherwise thought was permanently outside my reach. thank you very much. >> chair a. peskin: thank you, mr. white. seeing no other members of the public on this item, public comment is closed. colleagues, is there a motion to move item number 5? made by commissioner brown.

seconded by commissioner mandelman. on that item made and seconded, a roll call please. >> clerk: item 5, brown aye. cohen aye. fewer aye. commissioner kim aye. commissioner mandelman aye. commissioner peskin aye. commissioner ronen aye. commissioner safai aye. commissioner stefani aye. commissioner tang aye. commissioner yee aye. the item is first approved. >> chair a. peskin: all right. next item, please? >> clerk: i'll just make a quick note we are having slight technical difficulty with the laptop but we have the overhead projector working and all these powerpoints are posted on our website. item 6 adopt ten 2019 prop k

5-year prioritization programs and amendment of six 2014 prioritization programs. >> i'm very pleased to present the first group of 5-year prioritization programs to you this morning for the 2019 period, for the period starting in july 1 of 2019 and going through 2024. so we are now up here. as a reminder, we have presented on this item, i think since march. so we are in the home stretch of adoption of the five ypp's i will call them going forward. we are in the 5 of the 2014 5ypp program. looking to allocate prop k funds to projects over the next five years so it allows for the board and public and different agencies to see what is

expected to be delivered over the next five years. and it also allows an opportunity for public engagement as far as what is going to be delivered with prop k funds. the reason, the purpose for the 5ypp's again to encourage cross-category coordination, as well as opportunities for input. the process that we have been undertaking, it's an iterative process. this is the circle i keep referring to, we are working with the agencies to develop the 5ypp's and next month with the programming and cash flow settled for those projects we will bring before you the strategic plan for adoption. that takes into account revenues and expenditures and financing costs expected over the next five years. the elements of the 5ypp's as designated in the expenditure plan approved by the voters. you have to have a methodology

how you prioritize projects, a five year list of projects, funding scope information. i will just point out all of those wonderful details are in the attachments to your packets. i know this was a heavy paper month and lots of attachments are available on the website of each of the 5ypp documents because these materials come together in a 5ypp document available for public review. the first group of projects before you today, many of these categories are programs, like tree planting and sidewalk repair and curb ramps where agencies don't necessarily have specific locations identified at this moment but they will be presenting potential locations as the funding requests come through on an annual basis. and also, on some of the materials that we described in board briefings and provided to board members, you could see a city-wide or a to-be-determined list of categories.

so this is an opportunity that if there are specific locations that have your interest, or interest from your constituents of where curb ramps are needed, where a signal needs an upgrade, these are the categories you could weigh in on and provide feedback to the transportation authority staff or the implementing agencies. so continuing the second group that you will see next month, are also shown on your slide. these have many location-specific categories. like for the traffic calming, pedestrian and bicycle safety. as well as citywide impactful projects like the vehicle categories and from muni, facilities and guideways. so the transit categories. all right, what we look for. this is what we are reviewing. we have been working closely with the agencies over the last few months to get these documents prepared for you. the first of the 5-year prioritization plan is from

b.a.r.t. station access safety category. it's wonderful to see so much leveraging with b.a.r.t. funding with measure rr passing, the b.a.r.t. bond, there are significant funds and resources available for b.a.r.t. to do projects throughout its district. so the 5ypp includes station implementation, it will provide additional funds, accessibility improvements that have been identified by key stakeholders for visually and sight and other needs of stations to address access and address accessibility issues at balboa, 24th, embarcadero, station wayfinding at glen park and you could see example of what those might look like for wayfinding. next 5ypp is for the ferry category. site-specific category for the

downtown ferry terminal. some have a 5ypp amendment, it's cleaning up, if you will, fiscal year '18-'19. five years ago the agencies had an idea of what they might do in this fiscal year but sometimes it's not exactly what they are going to do this fiscal year. so we are taking this opportunity to make sure the program of projects for this fiscal year, year 5 of 2018-2019 reflects what we expect to come in and request allocations for the next five-year period. agencies aren't going to be requesting funds and then adding a couple of projects for state of good repair projects. you will see this reflected in other categories as well. some of these amendments set up projects for the next five-year period. so for the b.a.r.t. facilities category, also site-specific, facilities that are on the b.a.r.t. line. so the districts that are

reflected for receiving these projects are b.a.r.t. station or b.a.r.t. line area projects. or districts. so 2014 amendment glen park improvements that instead will be used in the next five-year period to do elevator renovations. and also guideways category for b.a.r.t.. this is for a new traction power substation north of the daley city station. you will see the caltrain and muni shares of this facilities guideways and vehicles categories at your next meeting. the next three are the three signals category. for the new signals category, locations have been identified for contract 65. they have not yet been identified for contract 66.

know that m.t.a. is working to develop that recommended list. there are, what we have seen on trends over time is for the signal projects to be costing more, limited number of bidders, escalating cost of construction, so the number of locations you will be seeing is less than the number of locations we have seen historically. and because of those increased costs, the sf go project is a local bus transit signal priority you have already allocated the '18-'19 share of projects for last month and this program will continue the next five years to give priority to transit on local bus routes. that's sort of the three signals categories is for upgrades where a signal already exists to put a larger signal head or mast arm. the 5ypp for 2019 includes work on the grade highway, third street, western additions.

these are some specific locations of projects but also programs like signal conduit and upgrades where signals are to be identified. so an opportunity for your input to be taken into consideration. street resurfacing category. there's one amendment for fiscal year '18-'19 almeny project, some will go toward the taraval project as part of the streetscape project. you will see a request for taraval, not just paving but transportation improvement. the 5ypp, about $4-$5 million a year, funds about one project a year for street resurfacing. so this should be a category should prop 6 pass in november there will be impacts to d.p.w. for paving. also if there are prop k funds

for equipment, like you see for street cleaning and also for street repair. the next category is for bicycle and pedestrian facility maintenance. this is doing sidewalk repair and also repainting green bike lanes or bike boxes or safe hit posts that have been hit or damaged. the public sidewalk repaired, d.p.w. used to prioritize around street tree because it's the tree roots that typically cause the damage on sidewalks. they have funding to maintain the sidewalks and also to maintain the trees. so prop k is now being programmed or requested to be programmed for locations that are non-tree related damage. on the edges of curbs and at returns. and we will be monitoring that use of funds. there is an existing backlog that public works has that will carry it through the next few years for implementing but also eligible uses for maintaining

street structures like stairways and disrepair maintained by the city. so just keeping an eye on the priorities for that category. the last category is the tree planting and maintenance category. as i mentioned with prop b we are no longer requested to program funds for maintenance and only for planting. it will plant about, i think it's something around 400 trees per year. and i think there is something like 50,000 empty tree basins, it's a drop in the bucket but an effort to green the city and increase the canopy cover throughout the side. so the next slide is just a recap of where we are. this is the first group of 5-year prioritization programs, 5ypp's and next month you will have the rest of them in front of you, along with the adoption of the strategic plan for your consideration. and with that, i can take any questions and there are also many project sponsors and project managers here as well. >> chair a. peskin: thank you, ms. lafort.

are there any questions from members? seeing none, i guess we are all well-briefed. are there any members of the public who would like to speak to item number 6? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to approve, to adopt 10-year 2019 prop k. moved by commissioner tang, seconded by commissioner yee. same house, same call. it's approved on first reading. next item, please. >> clerk: item 7, approve part 2 of the fiscal year 2018-2019 transportation fund for clean air program of projects with conditions, this is an action item. >> chair a. peskin: mr. pickford? >> i'm mike pickford with the transportation authority. it's intended to fund projects

that reduce emission from motor vehicle trips, $4 surcharge on motor vehicle registrations and measured by the air district. 60% of funds for shuttles bike parking and zero emissions vehicles. 40% are managed by the counties with the transportation authority administering the program in san francisco and programming 700,000-800,000 every year. every year the transportation authority releases a call for projects for the funds we administer. the first thing we do with applications is evaluate based on screening criteria by the air district including cost effectiveness. all t.c.a. projects must meet a threshold that varies by the type of project. in addition to the air district screening criteria, our local expenditure criteria which the board approved in february and instructed us to prioritize applications by looking at project type, emissions reduced, the readiness of the

project especially as most t.c.a. projects are expected to be completed within two years. you will notice zero emissions non vehicle are the top priority type followed by others. in july, remember this is part 2. in july, the board approved funding for four projects in our part one call for projects which didn't use all the funds available. you will see that remaining amount on the slide. subsequently evgo and sf environment decided to change the electrician vehicle charger technology and resubmit the project with a more cost effective charger type. this resulted in additional funds being available for a part 2 call for projects. so for that part 2 call for projects which you are considering today we are recommending fully funding four of the five applications we received and partially funding the fifth in order to use all of the remaining funds.

i will now describe the projects. first bike racks on busses. this project would install bike racks on golden gate busses san francisco, marin and counties. our recommendation would fund about two thirds of the requested amount. however this project is scalable and golden gate will not be receiving all the busses at once so there's an opportunity to apply for additional funds next year. awarding additional funds to this project is our recommended contingency if other projects don't move forward. the next memberships for sf state students, would provide 400 free yearly passes for pell grant eligible students and 150 and 300 for other students starting in the 2019-2020 school year. expected to install bike stations near campus in early 2019 so these will encourage enrollment as it rolls out.

it's recommended for funding with the condition that lyft in the process of purchasing motivate, the company that operates ford forward go bike, project commensurate to the award in order to continue this program for a longer duration. next the car share electrification. evgo offering the first car share electric vehicle option. it requires a policy waiver to allow the chargers to be dedicated to car share instead of publicly available to anybody with an electric car. staff are considering making this a permanent policy change going forward. it was submitted in the first call for projects but the charger technology was changed from dc fast charger which is a very expensive, very fast type of charger, to a much cheaper level ii charger more

appropriate for this project given that the spaces are dedicated to a car share vehicle and make the project more cost effective. next is building mixed use. they are complicated for this type of project. these chargers would be available for use by residents, customers or any other member of the public. finally, ev chargers at safe institutions. will work to provide two chargers at each of ten congregations. one location has already been identified at grace tabernacle community church. they would be publicly available and leverage parking spaces often under utilized most days of the week. with that i can take questions and we have project sponsors, a number of folks able to answer questions. >> chair a. peskin: thank you,

mr. pickford. any questions from commissioners? commissioner yee? > commissioner n. yee: i'm not too sure. if this is the place to have the discussion. but there's been a lot of interest in these chargers whether for general public use or for private companies to use it and i'm just wondering maybe in the future, chair peskin if we could put this as an agenda item to have a thorough discussion what's the policy around creating these chargers, especially when project companies are using them? they are taking away space from the general population and they are using our infrastructure. what's the cost to the city versus what they are

contributing. overall, i support the notion, the more electric we could go the better. but i think we have to have, i would like to understand what the trade-offs are. in allowing, in particular project companies to take over some of our infrastructure and what are they paying for this? >> would you be interested in hearing from sf environment on their perspective? > commissioner n. yee: um, sure. >> good morning, commissioners, i'm zach thompson, zero emission vehicle analyst for sf environment. to your question, supervisor yee, i know you mentioned concerns about these chargers being available to private

companies rather than to the general public. but in this case, we feel with this being a car-sharing provider that, in a way means these chargers are open to the general public. anyone in the general public can get a membership to the charging or the car-share provider maven frmt it's a free membership, anybody can sign up for it and would therefore have access to the vehicles and charging stations themselves. > commissioner n. yee: i'm sorry, i can't follow your logic. let's say 24 hour fitness says, hey, give me a building but the benefit is you give me the building. anybody from the public could be a member. here is a project company benefiting financially and what are we getting out of it, is the question.

>> yeah. so the site owners themselves are getting a benefit of this as well, right? because they are putting in this amenity at no cost to the site owner as well. so it's a benefit to the site owner, it's a benefit to the car share users. anyone who doesn't therefore have to own their own private vehicle can therefore use this car sharing service and drive emission-free. > commissioner n. yee: do we have any, again, not your department, but, does the city have a policy along these issues? these autonomous vehicles that, i guess they are already trying to apply to operate in san francisco and they are electrical vehicles and it

becomes, the charging stations. so that's coming down the pike, i'm just wondering what's our policy around these infrastructure issues? >> i'm not entirely what the city's policy is around autonomous vehicles and the private companies that will be using them. > commissioner n. yee: well, they are just part of the issues that i'm seeing where eventually is a possibility that there's so many of these stations being put up for all these private companies. at some point, you kind of wonder, you know, why are we allowing them to take over our streets? i guess, you are part of the coalition that's going to be working on these issues.

i'm suggesting that the city should have a policy so that we can fully understand and we can fully evaluate whether or not we want to support these projects or not. >> yeah, i think that's something we agree with and we would be happy to be part of those discussions on how we develop that policy. > commissioner n. yee: can t.a. -- director tang, can t.a. take a lead in this? >> thank you, commissioner yee. i would say perhaps i could work with director debbie rafael from the environment leading electric vehicle sort of planning strategy for the city. and we could come back to you perhaps at a hearing later to provide an update. > commissioner n. yee: perfect. >> chair a. peskin: and i would be amenable to that. thank you, commissioner yee for that forward-thinking policy admonition.