we are in right now. whether it is congestion or dmc or angry white guys on bikes running stop signs. there is a lot hitting us. yes, we did select the south of market. it was very intentional. we understand that you are not going to have high proportions of people of color. there were other reasons to do the intercept. the data is very interesting and it acknowledges that. i think what you are responding to is there are interesting patterns. we need to dig a little deeper. there is more here to understand what is going on in san francisco. there is also these dilemmas that you bring up where culturally, in home countries, bicycling was the way people got around. so what happened when we came to this country? why, historically was a bicycle ok and here it is not?

there is a lot to uncover and a lot to unpack. i want to thank my colleagues for taking on this first step. we got a small grant from c-14 to ask these questions. they are very interested in other cities around the world to start asking similar questions if you are going to invest in activities as a city to combat climate change, how should you be thinking about that through a gender lens and asking about women, intersecting? i think this conversation shows how deep and rich that conversation can become when we open up the questions. >> i just had a follow-up. i will say that i usually take bart every day within the city. what i noticed at night, and i feel for these women, most of them are service workers and immigrant women where english is

not a primary language. they may not even speak english. i am fearful for them. i know, fairly recently, we had a meeting, i was at -- i have been asking for four years. can we have sfmta talk about safety issues? part of it, if you will work in the service industry where it is labour-intensive, you may not even have the energy to make to and from work. and the hours are in issue. when these women are getting off at midnight, there is no way they will bike in that direction once i get off of part, they are taking the bus to the excelsior, to the bayview, i would not be biking at 12:30 am or one in the morning in that area. >> thank you. we are doing a time. i think we don't want to overstay our welcome. but if there are any other questions from commissioners, then i will open it up to public comment on the site and. -- open it up to public comment on this item.

>> one of the bigger issues is also, you just mention something in terms of the cultural biking translating at the same time. one, biking has no shows -- social status. ok. there is no social capital in it and for a number of communities, women included, there is no social capital to be a bicyclist that is part of the american culture. what kind of car you drive, you know, all of those things. so there is no social capital. i think we need to look at that. two, biking has become, with all due respect, something of a middle-class and upper-middle-class white privilege. it is a luxury. we need to change that. and along with that, is not that women of color are not at all concerned about climate change,

we are all women. we pulled up half the sky. we are in tune with what's happening. but i think that looking at climate change and the contribution of bicyclists to alleviating the obstruction that we are seeing, i think is a really good start. that may not be the thing that grabs folks. so sometimes the message that we are using and the message that we abandoned that, because that is really the goal. that is the mission. that is the purpose or one of them. but there are other things they are equated or that our attendant to the idea of bicycling that are a lot deeper. so i just wanted to say i think that that is part of the culture shift. there is no social capital.

>> that second shower of the day how much extra water will you use? [laughter] >> i thought about that immediately. >> we will ask for public comment. >> so i am down on townsend street and seventh every single week, monday afternoon for a toastmasters meeting. and i spend some time running around doing things south of market. it is part of the global capital of tech. we also know that only about 30% of people who work in tech companies are women. so i am just wondering about that particular choice of location because the demographic , just might work for us definition is only 30% women. i am wondering if there were other parts of the city where we could have studied that we may

have gotten a quite different picture. i get out of my car and i'm walking along townsend and they will be a row of seven men and one woman walking to lunch. and that is the culture down there. i don't know if this is the forum to answer that question but that is bubbling up for me. >> great. thank you for that question about why we located the study in soma. there is a couple of reasons. one is we have a study already looking at biking health and the benefits of biking in the soma neighborhood. we have a lot of really good data about bike lanes. the very important piece of this study that i don't think we really articulate for you is one of the things that it did is it demonstrated that in three days, with just a few graduate students within an emeritus

professor and some of our environment staff, we collected a ton of information about who is biking. it had not been done before in san francisco. it was low cost and it was fun. people had a really good time doing surveys and the people who were intercepted for the surveys , more people stopped and said that they would answer the question then said they would not. so what we have done with this study is demonstrated that yes, we can do this. we did it in a place where we could marry it with other information that we had and we can easily, easily go out and do this again. we can find graduate students, we can mobilize our own folks, which we brought with us because they speak other languages. we wanted to offer surveys in cantonese or hurt spanish and folks could not answer in english. and we could repeat this and other parts of the city. we now know that it is so critical to go out all day and to be there within those non commute hours where women are biking. it is our intention to motivate

ourselves and motivate partners in transportation in the city and get some of the key community partners during the surveys. not only is it easy, it gets us rich information that we have never had access to before. so i would like to commit to you that we will repeat these studies. i can't quite do that. but i will be presenting this to our partners and to department staff and it is our intention to get more folks out there with more information on the streets. we do not need to just talk to people biking. want to talk to people who are we walking. and just my last thing, these intercept surveys are so critical. in the early -- when we early said to the folks and the researchers, you cannot stand on the corner in san francisco and click your clicker and say, man, woman, wait, asian, black. that is not acceptable. we need to people to sell -- self identify.

these surveys give us access to that information in such a meaningful and rich way and folks want to provide that information. we really appreciate all the comments and all the information we've got. there are some really interesting studies from c. 40 in transportation in mexico about how women on transit are treated and some of the strategies that they are using to overcome that and i ensure we will be happy to share that with you. there are more case studies coming out from around the world on women and climate challenges like this and i am sure you will all be interested. will provide those to you as they come out. >> will you look at the questions? sometimes it is the questions posed that will determine your outcomes. >> absolutely. >> they are in the full study report. >> yes. we will make sure you have them. a lot of the demographics, as you are asking for it, they were doing things much more in detail >> thank you. any other comments?

>> hi. i just wanted to say, for the question of why in the u.s. there are way less biking than in europe and in africa and asia , just because this country was completely built around the car. the invention of the car has created our entire city and our entire way of functioning is around the car. we need to somehow reconstruct that to give wait -- give way to the bike. we need to somehow give less room to cars in the streets so there will be less cars coming. we know that making larger lanes will just make them filled even more. and there is an incredible amount of traffic already. we need to get the car out of the streets and that is when bags will be more accessible and a lot safer and women will come a lot more. another comment i had is i was in excelsior and there were no bike lanes there at all. so i don't feel comfortable biking.

and we had one of those sunday closed streets. it was the last one of the season in the excelsior and it was the first time i saw bikes. they were everywhere. when you close the street to cars, bikes come. there were people that were pretty diverse and riding their bikes in the street. i think the solution is pretty clear. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> if there are no more comments from the public, then we will go to the next item. >> the next item is item six. review and vote on approval of joint resolution regarding women and the environment. this is a discussion and action item. >> thank you. commissioners, i think that you have this resolution in your pocket which memorializes numbes attention to our joint areas of

concern which are women and climate. i will open it up for commission comments. we need to keep it brief as a reminder. we don't want to overstay our welcome. i ask for your indulgence. i wanted to recognize the former police commission president who has joined us tonight. thank you for joining us. and i just want to thank the leadership of the department for putting a resolution together. i wholeheartedly approve. president? >> i couldn't agree more. i just want to say that what a historic meeting this is and thank you for being here. we will open it up for conversation and discussion. commissioners? any comments before we take public comment. >> i have one and i echo commission or shorter's comments on women and water. i did not say anything about water here.

is probably not as resolute -- prevalent except for the second shower of the day if you are biking. i had my 40th high school reunion over the weekend and one of my close friends is a hydrogeologist. we have talked about different women who have come up with ways of purification in countries where women have to spend half of their day getting water for the families. that is very much a feminist issue. we don't need to include it here but i thought i would bring it up in case the department of the environment wanted to bring up anything on water and we could work in tandem. >> yeah, i suggest a quick edit on the first page on line 17 that we change the worst department of two commission on. >> on 19 it does say the department. >> thank you.

>> without objection? >> i don't know how to frame the other one. that's ok. [laughter] >> my only other concern was that in line at ten, we are saying reduce instances of an impact of domestic violence, sexual harassment and we say employment and workplace equity as if we want to reduce the instances of employment and the instance of workplace equity. it is not quite read correctly. >> we should say improve. >> and improve workplace equity, employment and homelessness? i just think we have to reword that somehow. >> i guess my suggestion would be to change it to read resistances of an impact of

domestic violence, sexual-harassment and homelessness and improve employment and workplace equity? >> how about workplace inequity? >> change it to inequity and do what with employment? >> leave out employment. i guess, if you are not employed , you cannot address the workplace. it would be employment and workplace inequity. >> reduce employment and workplace inequity. yeah. i think it would have to be online ten, it would be harassment,, employment and workplace inequity, and homelessness. >> i move that we make those edits to the resolution. >> i second.

>> do we have any objections? so moved. >> any other comments from commissioners? ok. seeing none, we will ask for public comment. is there any public comment on this resolution? >> into the mic, please. >> i'm not sure if this is about the commission. these should of course, effect. i have a letter from san francisco on speaking on behalf of of san francisco. san francisco forest alliance is asking, once again, why does san francisco continue to expose women and children and other deadly herbicides? as you know, on august 10th

2018, in san francisco, a trial of dimensions -- the jury found monsanto guilty and ordered to pay 289.2 million in damages to the school district. the jury determines that the company knew about this and purposely deceived his partners. by now, roughly a thousand 700 plaintiffs have made claims in state courts across the country alleging the exposure of the herbicide led to various types of cancer. as part of that, they remain in san francisco and still use this pesticide. and other widely herbicide in san francisco is -- pesticide -- it is 20 times as toxic and

causes severe burns at relatively low levels of exposure. is a high priority for replacement at least since 2009. the forest alliance first started keeping track. it is used on grass, where children eat and sit. instead of committing to pesticide free parks, the department of the environment is meeting new herbicides to be used. which are not as widely used they have not been determined to be -- san francisco forest alliance asks here for your attention once again. herbicide chemicals are more toxic and more dangerous and more mobile than their manufacturer disclosed. the danger from this --

[indiscernible] >> liver and kidney damage and other damages. there is no safe exposure of those chemicals. even low levels of exposure could be harmful to humans, animals, and the environment. in children, pregnant women, and the elderly. ok. >> thank you. >> we asked -- we ask for those herbicides to be banned. >> thank you, very much. do we have any other members of the public who would like to comment at this time? ok. seeing none, public comment is closed. i believe that we need to have a motion to approve this resolution and a vote. do i have a motion to approve?

thank you. do i have a second? we can take a vote of both commissions at the same time. >> i think we have to do it separately. >> got it. we will do the commission on the status of women first. >> and the resolution as amended >> the resolution as a mended. may i have a motion to approve the resolution as amended? thank you. do i have a second? do i have any objections seeing none, the motion to approve the resolution is approved. and for the commission on the environment, do i have a motion to approve the resolution as amended? so moved. seconded? all in favor? any opposed? any objections? the motion carries. thank you. next item.

>> the next item is item seven, general public comment. they may address the commission on matters within the commission 's jurisdiction and not on today possess agenda. >> is there any public comment on this sight and? welcome. >> that evening. i am the executive director of the friends of the commission on the status of women. i would like to take this opportunity to thank the commission on the status of women for your support of the human rights of orient ceremony and luncheon that we had on september 20th. thank you two commission are shorter and commissioner harris who were on the host committee for the award ceremony. thank you to the vice president

and the president for sponsoring a table. and thank you for driving attendance. thank you. i know you said hundreds of e-mail invitations throughout the city to drive attendance as well as to the department staff who volunteered for the day. that success translated to the highest attendance to date. and that means 430 more people now know about our advocacy work to stop violence against women and human trafficking and promote gender equity. it is allowing the friends to fulfil our funding to the department and we are happy to announce that this year we will

be granting the department $20,000. that is 25% more than what we have granted to them last year. and with continued success and advocacy for the friends, we hope to increase that funding throughout the year. in addition to -- thank you. i would like to point out that this month and early of november , is the city and county 's employee giving campaign happening. the friends is now part of the americas giving campaign federation. that means we are listed in the city and county as a cherry that you all can donate -- charity as -- that you all could donate to. we do have an equal pay initiative in the city where we are aiming to confidently train women to successfully negotiate their own salaries and benefit

packages. we have a workshop here tomorrow in the library from 5:00 pm until 7:00 pm in the latino hispanic room. pick up a copy of the card. there is some in the back. there is a series of workshops that we are hosting throughout the year. thank you, so much. >> thank you. any other public comment? public comment is closed. it is now 6:30 pm and i believe in the interest of time, director raphael and the doctor have agreed to table their reports. >> we will still take public comment on item a, the director 's report. >> public comment? >> the next item is item nine. adjournment. the time is 6:32 pm.

>> thank you. [applause] in this san francisco office, there are about 1400 employees. and they're working in roughly 400,000 square feet. we were especially pleased that

cleanpowersf offers the super green 100% clean energy, not only for commercial entities like ours, but also for residents of the city of san francisco. we were pleased with the package of services they offered and we're now encouraging our employees who have residence in san francisco to sign on as well. we didn't have any interruption of service or any problems with the switch over to cleanpowersf. this clean power opportunity reflects that. i would encourage any large business in san francisco to seriously consider converting and upgrading to the cleanpowersf service. it's good for the environment, it's good for business and it's good for the community.

good morning and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority meeting for today, tuesday, october 23rd. our clerk is mr. alberto quintanilla. mr. quintanilla, if you could please call the role. [ roll call ] [ roll call ] we have quorum. >> thank you, mr. quintanilla. i am going to skip over the chair's report, pending the arrival of commissioner yee, who actually has a brief presentation that he would like to make under the chair's

report, and ask you, mr. quintanilla, to read the executive director report item number three. >> clerk: item three, executive director's report, this is information item. >> this month i'd like to first start by thanking several of our commissioners for joining myself, staff on the t.a., and a set of officials and planners from the san mateo c.m.a., county congestion agency, on a study tour to los angeles, where we visited the l.a. metro express lanes, heard from their staff and their policymakers regarding decision making at a similar juncture to where we are in our planning for potential managed lanes here in the bay area. that was a full-day tour. we were very appreciative of the staff for taking care of us, showing us the facility itself, transit centers, control centers, enforcement points and

talking about the thorough process they undertook in their planning, particularly regarding the topic of environmental justice and equity and affordability of a potential toll facility in los angeles. they shared with us several policy strategies that they adopted ultimately that we're looking at currently in our treasure island mobility management program, as well as potentially for san francisco lanes, should we proceed with those. i just wanted to also extend our appreciation to our staff, anna harvey and andy for setting that tour up. next i just wanted to mention at the regional level, the metropolitan transportation commission tomorrow will be considering approval for the framework of the regional housing incentive pool program. this is another attempt for the region to connect transportation dollars, transportation funding, and housing. housing decisions, which primarily happen at the local level. m.t.c. established the program a

few years ago through the one bay area grant program, in order to incentivize the building and preservation of affordable housing units by local jurisdictions. in this particular program there are about $78 million available, $30 million which are contingent upon caltrain being completed within budget, as some of that money could go to cost overruns. however, that funding will be available to reward jurisdictions who are building and preserving affordable housing. this would be for low and moderate-income leveled housing, as well as the restricted households and priority development areas or transit areas. the guidelines are set, there's been a debate at the commission over potential amendments, and we very much want to thank our commissioners, our representatives to the m.t.c., which is commissioner kim, as well as nick, for shaping the h.i.p. policy. and finally, i just wanted to

turn our attention over to a presentation that our staff has prepared on an item that's on the november ballot, the proposition 6 measure to repeal the s.b. 1 gas tax. this body has taken a unanimous opposed position on the repeal, so we wanted to take a moment to educate the public once again about how san francisco is utilizing these important transportation funds to benefit our local network, both on the railway side, as well as on the transit side, and for that i've got oscar quintanilla here to provide a presentation. >> the other mr. quintanilla, good morning. >> good morning, commissioners. as you know, in april 2017 governor brown signed into law the road repair and accountability act, also known as senate bill 1. this landmark transportation investment package is funded by a combination of gas taxes and vehicle registration fees and provides over $5 billion annually for transportation

projects across california. the state gas tax was last raised in 1994, and since then has lost 40% of its value due to inflation, and with increases to fuel efficiency and more electric vehicles, there's less revenue to repair our roads for every mile driven. this past june california voters also passed prop 69, which ensures these funds are only used for transportation improvements. i wanted to share with you this chart prepared by the metropolitan transportation commission, which shows s.b. 1, how s.b. 1 increases state funding in the bay area alone. on the left you can see pre-s.b. 1 funding levels for existing state programs, and in the red how much additional funding is available thanks to s.b. 1. state highway maintenance, which almost doubles and makes the

fund available for cities and caltrans. s.b. 1 also provides operations and maintenance, and the transit capital program, which funds transformative capital improvements to reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. to the right you'll see also that s.b. 1 creates new programs to maintain transit infrastructure and to reward jurisdictions that have self-imposed taxes and fees dedicated to transportation, like our prop k sales tax or vehicle registration fees. the amounts shown there are estimates for the annual contribution that s.b. 1 would give to the bay area. this is for fiscal year 18-19, and it's about a billion dollars. focusing on san francisco, senate bill 1 provides about $6 million annually in programs distributed by formula, so we can expect this level of funding as long as s.b. 1 revenues

remain in place. in the attachments included in the executive director's report, there's a table that provides details on how the $68 million is distributed, and the latest fact sheet includes a map where the investments are located. san francisco public works is set to receive about $23 million annually for street resurfacing projects, which according to public works represent about 40% of the city's street resurfacing budget. on the map you can see some of the streets that will be repaired using s.b. 1 funds. it includes projects in the soma valley, bayview, twin peaks, among others. smcta also receives money annually for traffic operations and improving maintenance and storage facilities. we have also allocated state transportation improvement

program funds for the restoration of the lightrail lines, about $2.8 million per year. in addition, regional transit operators serving san francisco receive about $30 million per year, which have allowed b.a.r.t. to have improvements. san francisco will also benefit from about $550 million in competitive grants, which will fund new b.a.r.t., muni, caltrans vehicles, safety on jefferson street and geneva avenue, among other projects. as we have reported previously, on november 6th california voters get to weigh in on proposition 6. if prop 6 is approved, it would repeal s.b. 1 revenues, putting these funds and projects at risk. there's currently no back-up plan for the funds, if the funds go away. and then here to my right you can see a map that we put together of all the projects that are receiving state funds

since s.b. 1 passed. and just -- i would like to point out the diversity of project types and locations that are benefiting from this increase in state funding for transportation. there's more muni service in crowded lines, there's state highway paving projects, and a whole lot of local streets will be repaired or constructed. for more information, you can visit our website, sfcta.org/revenue/sb1. thank you. >> thank you. does that conclude the executive director's report? okay. is there any public comment on the executive director's report? seeing none, public comment is closed. and we will return to item number two, the chair's report, and i want to join our executive director in thanking the commissioners that went to los

angeles with staff to do a study tour of the l.a. metro express lanes project. and another commissioner also did some travel recently, and that's commissioner yee, and at this time i'd like to invite him to share his learnings from attending the international child in the city world conference. so, commissioner yee, i will turn it over to you. >> commissioner yee: thank you. thank you, chair peskin. so, i was able to attend this conference called child in the city conference, and one of the reasons why i was very curious about it was because they list cities that have been accredited to be child-friendly cities, and there were none from the united states, and i thought that was

kind of weird. that maybe we could learn something from this conference, so basically the first line would just tell you that, this is where i went. and it's actually the ninth conference of this kind. it's a national conference, which was pretty european centric, since it was in vienna, and then the themes that i sort of picked up on was, you know, when we do planning for child-friendly cities, we should have the children's voices. creating space for play was important. streets and empty lots are resources for playing environments. links and junctions can be useful. many cities throughout europe have taken up this challenge and improving their streets for pedestrians and where children

can play. one of the things -- i went to a couple of workshops, or a couple of field trips, and it was interesting, because the urban transformation of one area is so similar to what is going on in the mission bay, except that their planning of it really includes schools that were built up front, not at the end, which is what's happening in mission bay. their play area was a lot more free for kids to imagine. i don't know what we're doing with mission bay in regards to recreation areas. so -- but what i do see is some similarities about pier 70 in terms of how they are planning out their open-space area and so forth. and then the -- i want to go and

say that as i walked through on one of those field trips that there were a lot of amenities there for families, and not only did they talk about family housing there, they talk about here's the childcare, that's where that's at. and by the way, we're going to build office buildings later, and some other housing later, but what we do have is a childcare here and a school here and a family center here, so the services were already there. the other thing that i really heard a lot of is how -- how we can transform some of these spaces we have now in san francisco, and i'll go through that in a second just from

illustrations, from photos and some slides that i stole from other people. and it was pretty interesting that the theme, the speakers, there were a lot of speakers, and pretty much the themes were around this issue of play, was consistent, and one of the keynote speakers, basically looks at streets and designs and how people move and walk and bike and ride and so forth. could be in places of play to perform, to celebrate, and places to relax. the largest network of continuous public space are really the most dangerous places for kids and everyone else. can we go to the next slide? and maybe this is something that our vision zero is after also,

that our traditional streets really were designed to kill people. the way it's designed. it's not to protect pedestrians. and i think that was a big element of where we should, you know, transplant these places, where streets are so dangerous that we need to do something else to them. and, you know, the stats are factual, and when you look at more than 500 children dying each day on road crashes in cities throughout the world, each -- this is each day 500 children die, and 235 people have asthma in the cities, and 41 million children under the age of 5 are obese due to the lack of physical activity. currently, many of our streets

are designed to do this, to kill. we really need to reinvent our streets. this was a strong message for me. and the design that's to improve conditions for everyone, and then the speaker goes on to talk about little changes can have actually big impact. built environments build connections as a philosophical premise. transformed everyday spaces as places to learn and take risks. one of these talked about, and this other keynote speaker, tim gill, really started -- and it was really interesting how he started his presentation and what he called a "roaming radius" for somebody my age, the roaming radius is very different from the rest of my colleagues

here, who are a little bit younger or a lot younger, and their roaming radius becomes smaller. and then by the time my grandkids are around, the roaming radius becomes zero, basically. when i was growing up, by age 11 my roaming radius, meaning no supervision, i'm on my own, was the whole city. basically, i went on my own, whether i walked a mile somewhere or took the bus somewhere. my parents never knew where i was, and, you know, when your generation was growing up, it's probably more like, oh, you can go down the block or two, and that's it. and at this point it's like when i watch my grandkids, even when they grow up, no, you're not going anywhere, you know, i'm supervising you. and kids learn and play, and everybody raised their hand when they said what was the most pleasant place that you remember when you were growing up, and

everybody said it was outdoors, and when there wasn't any supervision. almost every single person at the conference said the same thing. so, the other keynote speaker talks about this is -- in san francisco we talk a lot about housing, and rightfully so, and the services, we talk a lot about also in regards to dcyf and more currently we talked about prop c in june and providing more services for early education. and one of the things we don't talk a lot about is this thing in red, the public realm. what role does that play in family-friendly neighborhoods. so that's when the message was clearly something for us to

think about when we move forward with comprehensive plans for children and families in san francisco. so i think all these things were probably best shown -- i'm showing you three or four slides that really was a theme for all the speakers in terms of its planning, how do you plan, how do you become intentional about these things, and why. so by creating livable and playable public space, it's about ready to claim on, slide off. in other words, it really makes children want to do physical activities. next. and then links and junctions can be useful. in other words, rather than just looking at playgrounds all the time, as a place for where you end up being what you play and do physical activities, you really -- we need to look at

what they were looking at, you know, where do people go from point "a" to point "b," and how did they get there. and if you look at it, most of us said, we'll walk from one place or another at some point and kids walk from one place to another, so let's look at those links and where we end up and how we activate those spaces. next. and the principles of child-friendly rhythm is the same idea of, you know, how do you look for these elements and stimulate play, inspiring to cross over and do things like that. next. and at the end of the day, you do what we call the experimental phase, in which, you know, basically our local government, us, in this room, becomes the leader and really want to push for these things.

and just don't talk about it. actually follow up with execution. next. and so these are some of the elements that i took from these different presentations, where it's so simple. i mean, kids don't need much. next. and this is along a sidewalk, and, again, these things will -- these -- just adding a little thing along the pathways will encourage children to actually do more exercise. they jump around, they climb on things. next. and then just putting one of these things in there. kids are constantly on that, just spinning around. this is right on the street. next. and one of the things that we have to be careful with is the usage of playground structures. it's good, it tells children that it's a place to play, but these are one-use only types of

equipment, and so i think the message here is not to fall into that trap of just thinking that you put a play structure that only does one thing and that's good enough. next. even when you look at this slide here, this stairway itself, the little round balls are things that kids will sit on, climb on, jump off of. next. and stairways are a great activation for playing. next. and i know we have these in parks, playgrounds now, climbing walls, the newer renovated ones have this, but this is right along some wall on the street, and it's something to think about, you know, especially on walls of public space, we could actually do these type of things and encourage more activity. next.

this is a weird slide, where it's some open space. it could be some empty lot, and all they did was if you look in the bottom of the slide, it shows haystacks. next. and they just created structures with these haystacks, and some of the haystacks were actually there so that kids could actually move them around and build their own thing with their imagination. and it wasn't a very permanent structure. eventually, this haystack burnt down. i don't know what, the speaker didn't say, was this intentionally burnt or was it accidentally burnt down, but it was burnt down, so maybe that was a hint that they should create another structure. next. and the streets were really important in terms of these elements that we're talking about. you know, how do we capture the streets? and we have this as something -- close down the streets on

sundays or something. so we have similar things, but they actually close down the streets a lot more, and some of the streets are permanently closed down. next. and sometimes all it takes are a bunch of boxes, where kids are going to use their imagination, what to do, so anybody that has kids around this age, this is what -- and it's real cheap to do this. next. and this is something that we could do in san francisco, because it's not in front of somebody's house, just going and, i think, between district 7 and 11, we have several of these bridges that we could actually look at and see how we could paint them. and make it so when you're walking through there, they are actually doing something else. next. again, really simple elements, you know, just along the streets. next. and here's a street, again, that

demonstrates, you know, streets are designed to kill. here's a school, and then when you look at it, they transform this just simply by painting a little bit here and there, and narrowing the streets so that cars aren't moving as quickly. and that's how they transform that. okay, next. i want to close this by saying that the way we have it now throughout san francisco is that streets are, when you look at the pyramid of how it works, streets are really for the longest time designed for cars. and then there's a transformation of maybe cars and motorcycles and so forth, and at some point we think about your public transportation, and now we're thinking about bike lanes. and at some point, and at the

bottom of the thought process are people. pedestrians. next. and what we want to do, what i'd like us to do in san francisco, is flip that whole chart around, where we think about people first when we design streets, and vehicles last. so, i think -- is there anything else? i don't think so. so that's my presentation. we have a challenge. vienna, which is smaller than san francisco, made the challenge, their goal, to look at some of these streets and these possibilities, and they wanted to do 400 of these transformations by the year 2025. if we could do 400 in vienna, which is smaller than san francisco, with less resources, i'm going to probably come up with some kind of challenge for san francisco that we should be able to do 500 of these by the

year 2025, and hopefully, i'll be coming up with some resolution that hopefully all of you will be supporting to say let's do this. thank you very much. that was what i learned. >> thank you for that presentation, commissioner yee. are there any questions -- any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed, and mr. quintanilla, if you could please go to the consent agenda. >> clerk: items 4 to 8, compromise a consent agenda, 5 through 8 are being considered for final approval. the remaining items are considered routine, staff is not planning to present on these items, but is prepared to present if desired. if a member objects, a item can be removed and considered separately. >> commissioner peskin: all right, any public comment on the minutes of october 16, 2018? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to move the

consent agenda made by commissioner yee, seconded by commissioner kim? colleagues on that item, a roll call, please. >> clerk: [ roll call ] we have final approval. >> commissioner peskin: all right, next item, please. >> clerk: item 9, update on cordon pricing and incentive-based congestion management strategies. >> thank you, commissioners, for your interest in this item. so, as cohen is pulling up our powerpoint, let me just start by saying congestion has been an

issue in downtown san francisco for a very long time. and we've tried a lot of different ways of dealing with it. today i'm going to talk about the background and rationale for one of the tools in our congestion management tool box, pricing. and what we have done about it so far here in san francisco and what we might think about. so, i'll start, if you go to the next, with what this tool is, and why we might think about using it. then i'll describe our first serious look at it about a decade ago. i'll finish with some information about related efforts here in san francisco, as well as what we're seeing around the country, and the world, and what could come next in san francisco. before we talk about what congestion pricing is, i'm going to take a moment to talk about some of the basics of congestion management. so congestion happens very