item 30, public comment. our most favorite time of the day. if anyone would like to address the board, please step forward and line up and we'll start with you, mr. wright. >> 14th amendment of the constitutional and tupac says equal protection under the law. it's been violated by this administration and past administration and i object to this proposal of 8,000 apartment unit complexes built in the city. in fact, it turns out it's 8,900 units. i object on the ground it discriminates against single people. that proposal was explained as only for family members only. so understood, -- so in other

words, a single person can't put in and you're advocating you want to make the minimum requirement to be a tenant in the building at 1100% of the a.m.i. as a family unit you have to make $92,950 a year. that means people making less than $92,000 a year can't even put in an application to be a tenant to live in the multi-million dollar complex being proposed. all these incomes are not being included in the inclusionary loan and it's another example of discrimination. i find it to be scandalous and woeful misconduct. for three persons you have to make $103,750 per year to qualify.

everybody below this income bracket can't apply. it's an example of discrimination and gentrification and discrimination based on geographical location. in washington, d.c. there's an attorney filing a lawsuit based on gentrification where you give preferential treatment to white people and displacing colored people like you did in fillmore. >> supervisor: thank you, mr. wright. >> it saddens know bring this to you but i just want to share with you an incident that took place october 25 at safeway super market in district 5.

i was racially profiled by a security guard and cashier at that particular store. and the biggest thing about this is that i tried to go through the proper steps. obviously, if you stop, you're embarrassed and all these things happen to you but i showed the manager my reset and they finally apologized but there was really no follow-up on why this is happening at safeway and continuing to happen at many safeways across san francisco. since then we've been trying to talk to the corporate office in pleasanton and talking to a guy named brian claiming he's doing an investigation but i want to bring to your attention since i did research there's safeways in san francisco and 1300 in california and 900 safeway stores in the united states. i'm getting calls and people are talking to me that the racial

profiling thing is starting to pick up and you see it all the time at the stores with the security companies that's not trained well and usually pressured by the store managers to just pick people randomly or sometimes even follow people throughout the store. let me say to make a long story short, i'm asking you because i'm come to each supervisor that we need to have more maybe at the public safety level or maybe at a committee of the whole, we need to find out what's going on with safeway including other retail stores in san francisco. thank you very much and i will be talking to you. >> supervisor: thank you, next speaker. >> thank you, president cohen.

the san francisco superior court is adjudicating people from san francisco into out-patient and in-patient treatment and psychiatric treatment. they're being extremely secretive about this program. they will not reveal case numbers. those are supposed to be violating people's confidentiality. i don't know how you can find someone's identify from a case number. if anybody knows how to do that, please let me know. as far as i know it's a serial number assigned by the clerk. [please stand by] .

>> okay. maybe we can call the ballot. >> on items 31 and 32 quad. >> yes, ma'am,. >> supervisor mandelman? [roll call] >> there are ten aye. >> thank you. these items passed unanimously. thank you. these resolutions are passing. would you like to talk about item 33 quad.

>> may i read the item first class. >> this is the item that establishes the board of supervisors regular meeting schedule. >> i know i am interrupting your dinner, but i was curious, our people aware that we swapped out -- veteran's day or a meeting about veterans day for something else around thanksgiving, and i will go with whatever other board members want to, but i was a little uncomfortable with that i feel like that i am not honoring the veterans. >> okay. you severed this item to talk on this item. is there anything else you want to do or any action you want to propose? >> i'm asking -- our people aware of this?

i guess i was a little uncomfortable knowing that it was tied to veteran's day that we cut. >> did you want to say anything? >> yes. thank you. regarding the veterans day holiday, which we normally have taken off, at this year, because i asked that the board follow the board to rule and meet the week of thanksgiving, and not to the week of after thanksgiving, if you could point that out on the calendar so the members could see the month of november, we would not be meeting two weeks in a row. so we would have for three weeks to meet in front, i indicated we would be meeting on the 12th, if you can see that. otherwise we would have a meeting on the fifth, we would be dark on the 12th, a meeting on the 19th, no meeting on the 26th, no meeting on the third

so we would have three weeks off november and december, and two meetings in december and the winter break at the end. i am not opposed to making november 12th veteran's day holiday, but since we were taking off the 26th and the third, i left it there as a meeting so that the board could get the business done before we went into the thanksgiving break and the winter break. >> thank you. supervisor ronen? i had brought this to the attention of the boards because it has been really helpful when we have the week of sense just thanksgiving off because sfusd is off that week. for parents, we have to get childcare that week. if we don't have it off, which is not something, i mean we can

figure it out to, but i know a lot of aides and a lot of supervisors have children so it's been really convenient when the thanksgiving week is off, because san francisco is supposed to the clerk's conference, the clerk needs to take that following week off, and so that would mean that there was not very many board meetings in november and december and so angela's way of accommodating that was to take the day after veterans day. we would still celebrate veterans day, but we would usually -- usually when there is a holiday on a monday, we don't meet on the board, and we thought that that accommodated the needs of parents, and also make sure we had enough board meetings in the months of november and december. but i'm open. i wanted to see what the opinion of other parents on the board was. i just know that having

thanksgiving week off has been really helpful given sfusd's schedule. >> i agree. we have done that two years in a row. we have had the week of thanksgiving off. i know it is extremely health -- helpful for myself and for others and for anyone else who have children. i would absolutely agree with that. this year, we did both. we had the week of thanksgiving off and we had veterans day off, so this year, in your proposal, we would be pushing the schedule farther in to the month of december, right? because of -- does not mean that the entire clerk's office will be at the conference class. >> we are hosting the conference >> we are hosting the conference in san francisco so the entire office will be part of that hosting. that is why we are pushing the schedule deeper into december then we normally do.

>> to the president, supervisor kim reminded me we did not take veterans day off. we actually took off elections day. >> that is why we had -- >> in the current year there was no veterans day holiday. >> okay. >> we celebrated veterans day, but we still get up on tuesday. >> okay. >> i just raise the issue and i am okay if we agree on this calendar. >> and we take this without objection and excellence. we can take this same house, same call are there any other duchess or anything else? >> yes, i have three housekeeping items before i read the in memoriam his. on the agenda for december 11th , there will be the seniority pole for the newly elected members of the board, not supervisor mandelman or

supervisor stefani, so that will be one of the first items on next tuesday's agenda, and given that there will be a board meeting potentially a december 18th that is when we will have the commendation saying the farewell commendation saying goodbye to the supervisors who will be leaving the board will put accommodations on the 11th thank you for that direction. do not forget to which the board president happy birthday next thursday. with that, i will read the in memoriam on behalf of supervisor peskin and supervisor yee or the late manny lunn. on behalf of supervisor peskin got jury robbins, and on behalf of supervisor mandelman, for the late cannot eke a cow. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank our friends at s.f. golf t.v. for

assisting us with this evening's broadcast. is there any other business before this body class. >> that concludes our business for tonight his. >> thank you ladies and gentlemen. we are adjourned. [♪]

>> chair peskin: good morning and welcome to the san francisco transportation authority for today, tuesday, december 4, 2018. our clerk is mr. albert quintanilla. mr. quintanilla, could you please call the roll. [roll call]

>> clerk: we have quorum. >> chair peskin: thank you. and colleagues, i just left a project labor agreement meeting with commissioner safai, so if we could have a motion to excuse commissioner safai, made by commissioner ronen, seconded by commissioner stefani, and we will do that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> chair peskin: next item, please. >> clerk: item 2, citizen's invoicesory committee report. this is an action item. >> chair peskin: mr. tennen. >> peter tennen, vice chair of the c.a.c. all of the action items were unanimously approved, and i'd just like to pass along a few comments on two of the items. the first is your item six, to direct a motion of support to direct staff to advance the

work and seek adjustment for pras stu pras -- project study update. motorized vehicles would be charged, but scooters and bicycles would likely not be charged. and how would network transport companies be charged, and staff replied that since t.n.c.'s were not a factor in 2010 when the last study was done, there'll be more study on this topic. and then, someone raised the issue that what would be done in areas of high housing population and seniors, especially along laguna street that would be affected by congestion pricing. and staff responded that

accommodation would be made for this population living along the affected corridors. and then, your second item was item nine, and one member congratulated the transportation authority for implementing social responsibility within the investment policy and also for their high bond rating. and another member expressed their support for strict investment policies. so that concludes my report. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. tannen. are there any questions for the c.a.c.? seeing none, is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> chair peskin: mr. clerk, call the next item, please. [agenda item read] >> chair peskin: is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, public comment is

closed. [ gavel ]. >> chair peskin: is there a motion on that item? made by commissioner stefani, seconded by supervisor kim. on that item, roll call, please. [roll call] >> clerk: we have first approval. >> chair peskin: i think it's finally approved. >> clerk: no. >> chair peskin: we do the minutes twice. >> clerk: no, i'm sorry. final approval. >> chair peskin: next item, please. >> clerk: item four, appoint two members to the citizen advisory committee. this is an action item. >> chair peskin: thank you. the other mr. quintanilla. >> thank you.

to qualify for appointment, applicants must be san francisco residents, and must appear before the board at least once to speak to their interests and qualifications. attachment two in the packet is a list of applicants, and the enclosure has details on each applicants. the applicants are due to t the -- [inaudible] >> chair peskin: okay. are there any applicants for the citizens advisory committee that would like to testify. all right. seeing none, is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed [ gavel ]. >> chair peskin: commissioner kim? >> supervisor kim: i juthank .

i just wanted to share a statement from commissioner hogue. the reason i missed meetings is i had a bad hip, and in october, i had seven hours of hip replacement surgery. if reappointed, i will be at the january c.a.c. meeting because i won't have to deal with my hip. i just wanted to let you know a little bit about becky, before living on treasure island, she has been a very passionate and active member of our citizens advisory the committee. she is someone who is very committed to serving our city and if not for the medical issue, would have attended the meeting. i would ask the board to consider appointing her to the board. she has committed to attending once her medical issue is resolved, however if this continues to be an ongoing issue with the next board,

she'll work with the supervisor elect to find another member to replace her. >> chair peskin: can i consider that a motion, commissioner kim? >> supervisor kim: yes, chair peskin, i'd like to make a motion. >> chair peskin: motion to rea-appoint commissioner hogue, seconded by commissioner yee. commissioners, can we take that same house, same call? [ gavel ]. >> chair peskin: can we have a motion to continue the district ten seat, made by commissioner mandelman, seconded by commissioner yee, and we'll do that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> chair peskin: next item, please. >> clerk: item five, allocate approximately 25 million in proprop k funding for tax

requests. this is an action item. >> chair peskin: mr. quintanilla. >> today, we are before you for a request for about $25.8 million. these funds were identifies during the prop k strategic plan update, and along with two additional fund exchanges will direct 21 million to help backfill the regional improvement funding gap that we have now, the rest of this gap is going to be split by sfmta and m.t.c. in this allocation request, we're also reflecting the delays caused by the mining in the chinatown station. >> chair peskin: that's not. clerk: s, i just wa -- that's

news, just to inform my colleagues. [inaudible] >> -- this facility services approximately 165 trolley coaches. this project will improve workers safety and productivity, security, safety, and fleet reliability. construction is expected to be completed by december 2020. the long-term plan for sfcta for this facility is for a full rebuild by 2021. they will try and relocate these lifts to either this facility or other sfmta facilities. the next request is for $24.1 million for el taraval light and rail enhancement projects. this project -- this allocation

request is foes from west portal street to sunset boulevard. construction is coordinated with sewer, water, and street resurface to minute mice disruption to the public. construction is anticipated to start in spring 2019 and go through spring 2021. this is one of the fund exchanges that will help backfill the central subway gap. this money will be subject to a separate allocation request in fiscal year 19-20. the next request, also from sfmta for $5.6 million to -- [inaudible] >> -- between church and utah. this is part of the 16th street

transit enhancement projects which similar to the ones before is a larger set of transition and public improvements. and construction is anticipated to begin spring 2019 and go through the end of 2020. the next request from s.f. public works is to fund the design of the great highway terminus narrowing which would narrow from four lane to see two lanes. this project will allow a separate prop k funded project to begin, and together both projects will provide protected pathway and offer safe working for access to the beach. the sign is expected to be completed by 2019, and construction funding for this project is still to be determined, but public works and m.t.a. is working with the

ocean beach association to identify funding. the next project is from public works to fund public works portion of the taraval project to pave 26 blocks between west postial station and sunset boulevard. project includes new sidewalk construction and curb ramps. again, this contract is coordinated with the el taraval transit enhancements project. the next request is to fund the repaving of allemeny boulevard. it would include new sidewalk construction and curb ramps. prop k is leveraging 1.75 million in sb-1 program partnership funds. construction is anticipated to start spring 2019 and be open by full 2019. the last request is for sfmta

for the market to sansome neighbor bicycle project that will provide safe and attractive bicycle alternative. no loss of parking or travel lanes is anticipated. outreach for this project has been conducted as part of the embarcadero bike week, and it's anticipated to be open for use in summer 2019, and with that, we'll take questions. >> chair peskin: and are there any questions from members? seeing none, is there any public comment on this item? please come forward. >> good morning, chair peskin, commissioners. charles nefarge, senior community organizer at the san

francisco bicycle coalition. pleased to be here to speak to the bicycle and sansome bicycle projects. in light of the killing of kevin manning, we know more than ever that we need safe bicycle routes through the northeast of sansome and battery. supervisor peskin. thank you for kick starting this process with your ntip money. we appreciate you leading the way. can i have the overhead. >> chair peskin: overhead, please. let's try that overhead one

more time. do you have that up? [inaudible] >> chair peskin: we have to turn that off and on, is that what staff is saying? >> excellent. i want to say that this is really only a start to making last week, the examiner, they referred this the safe alternative to the deadly embarcadero. that's great, but what we can see from the scope here, those streets only extend to broadway, so i wouldn't call this a safe alternative quite yet. the 200,000 today, it's a great kick start to this project, but we want to make sure that we continue to push and get these bike lanes all the way to market so that they create a connection in the bicycle network.

so thank you again, commissioner peskin, sfmta staff. we're excited to get this project in the ground but also expand in the success and get it all the way to market, which is a bigger lift, but a crucial one. >> chair peskin: thank you for those comments. if there is any further public comment, please come forward. >> by now, i hope the value of bike lanes so those who bike is clear, so i want to spend my time talking about the value to the community at large. more bike lanes mean a cleaner city. we know the single largest offender to our greenhouse gas emissions in san francisco is vehicle transit. we need to make it more attractive to bike, walk, and

use mobility options in our neighborhood. we also know we need stronger bicycle corridors. in north beach, the vacancy rate has more than doubled in the last three years alone. transport london found that those who use nonauto modes of transit spent 40% moreover a four-month period. i hope this does not block our commitment to very important other projects, the first being the embarcadero enhancements, and the second being the long-missing plan for construction of a true bicycle connection from north beach through to downtown.

thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. is there any additional public comment? mr. tannen? >> yeah, peter tannen. i just wanted to second the comments of the bicycle coalition. when this was presented to the c.a.c., i noticed that the bicycle routes didn't connect to other bicycle -- official bicycle routes south of broadway. i think the bicycle lanes with a great idea, but i also think it would be great to look at extending them further with market street. thank you. >> chair peskin: we agree. seeing no additional public comment, is there a motion on item number five? made by commissioner brown, seconded by commissioner mandelman. we have the same house, same call. [ gavel ]. >> chair peskin: that item is adopted on first reading. mr. quintanilla, next item,

please. [agenda item read] >> chair peskin: mr. dentalpost? >> thank you. good morning, commissioners. so as you'll recall, back in october, we presented information on the 2010 mobility access and pricing study, which looked at how we could implement a conjepgestio management program to better manage congestion in the city, and we came up in that study to look at a northeast core don to manage congestion in the most congested areas of the city as well as a multimodal project. your directive to us was to get a new study and directive. so we've been working on putting together a proposed scope. today we have an outlined

version of that to share with you, and we're asking basically if we're on the right track with that and to get your confirmation, hopefully, that we are, and if we are then we'll come back early next year with a prop k request to get started as soon as we can. so the proposed console before you involves developing a more confined set of scenarios than we developed last time to try to stream line this effort, and we'll be basing or including in those scenarios a fresh look at what should be included in and how we should target pricing in terms of exactly where we should be pricing as we move forward with this, as well as what appropriate fees and times and things would be to manage congestion as best we can, things to make the program more

fair and also to encourage people to use sustainable modes of transportation. and lastly, we would include in those scenarios a package of proposed multimodal improvements that would include things like transit improvements. we heard the importance of including major bike improvements and pedestrians improvements as well as things like repaving and streetscape improvements, and so those would help manage congestion and make the system work better. we'd be developing those scenarios based on a few things. first of all a substantial community based effort.

we will then take the scenarios, we will evaluate them and how they stack up against the goals of the program, and then, we would develop a new set of recommendations and form this analysis and also ways that we could speed up delivery of those improvements. as i mentioned, there would be a substantial community out yaech and engagement effort as part of this, and that would include two major rounds of outreach. the first we're anticipating spring to summer of next year, how congestion affects them, as well as program elements that we should include. a second round of outreach would be in early 2020, where we'd be sharing the results of our performance evaluation and asking for input on what the implications are for what scenarios people support and what our proposed

recommendations will be. it will include key stakeholders, transit operating agencies, regional partners, and caltrans and so forth, and a committee that would include a wide range of stakeholders like those that are concerned about the wide range of the transportation system, neighborhood associations, network and environmental advocates, and to really get all those folks at the table so that they can provide in-depth input as we go through the entire study. we'll also continue our work partnering with pier cities where they also have implements or are considering congestion pricing so we can keep learning from what they're doing. so we're looking at starting this as soon as we can early

next year and wrapping up by mid2020, and we estimate the costs to be 1.6 million, and we'd fund that through a combination of sources. and what we're looking at is prop k, where there's already 500,000 programmed in td 41. if you endorse this scope moving forward, then we'll be returning early next year with a request to appropriate those funds. we also know there's programs fees that are programmed for pricing and intensive work, so we're seeking those funds, and then, we're also looking at other grant sources, such as regional funds that we can use to get this started and moving along. so with that, happy to take questions and look forward to your direction. >> chair peskin: thank you for

coming back at the t.a.'s direction. are there any questions or comments? commissioner brown. >> can you tell me, how will the members of the policy committee be chosen? >> that's a great question. i think we would want to make sure we have a wide range of seats representing different interest groups, and it's likely to be a large group, and i think we'd also want input from commissioners' offices as we do that so that we're representing all the different viewpoints all the way along the process. >> chair peskin: any further questions, commissioner brown?

are there any further members of the public who would like to comment on this earth shattering ordinance? mr. r adulovic? >> tom radulovic. we're here to support the ordinance. you should definitely charimplt congestion charging. the goal is really to move more people. this is a diagram that shows you that private automobiles, half of the city's and state's

co 2 emissions a co2 emissions. if you can get people to shift the modes of transportation they use, you can shift more people. all the data that we have shows that parking is an incredible effective tool of mode shifting. another way of doing this is making walking, cycling and transit more tractive. we'd love to see you create more bold moves. a lot of people in apartments won't say this to you but will

say this to us. they don't know how supportive you are to take roads and use them to support modes. >> chair peskin: mr. chawa. >> thank you, commissioners. the best part of following tom is he says everything that i was going to say, and then, i have to makeup new stuff. thank you so much. i'm on the board of san francisco league of conservation voters, as well as san francisco bicycle coalition, but i'm speaking for the league of conservation voters. i'm thrill as a commission that you are taking up this important move, and i just want to highlight that this provides a real opportunity to bring together many of our goals that we've fought for and we've all believed in for so long, whether it's a transportation first policy, whether it's improving muni, whether it's

improving our vision zero outcomes and street safety as well as and obviously our carbon emissions goals. this is one of those things that you as sitting commissioners and supervisors get a chance to nail, right? we can pull all of these things together by making this kind of dramatic step forward, and this is a real opportunity to lead. it's an opportunity to lead within san francisco because there will be resistance, but the data and the evidence is clear that this is the right thing to do, and our needs are clear that it's the right thing, but it's also an opportunity to lead nationally. we've done this in europe, we've talked about it in other cities, but here is a chance for san francisco to take one of those real steps that show that we as californiians and we as people on this planet really care about what this world looks like. as you all know, we are the last generation that has a chance to get this right, so i

really hope you keep that in mind as you make this decision. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, and i noticed our b.a.r.t. board member elect ms. lee. congratulations. you now occupy the b.a.r.t. board seat once occupied by mr. radulovic. >> i'm the executive director of walk san francisco. i'm here to express walk san francisco's strong support of this body's propose jolly for congestion pricing study here in san francisco. as a vision zero city with the goal of eliminating all severe and fatal crashes by 2024, we

need to be exploring all possibilities and resources to get to this goal, and congestion pricing is one of those tools in our tool box to reduce the number of car trips and eliminate traffic collisions. sadly, we have had more deaths this year on our streets than last year, so our great efforts to redesign our streets simply is not enough, and we need to be more bold and innovative in our approach to reach vision zero. as tom did mention, studies have shown that everyone benefits from congestion pricing. cities that are trying it are now seeing that this benefits transit riders the most. what i like to remind people is transit riders and muni pedestrians are people. we need to be providing them with the resources and ability to move more people around our see more effectively and efficiently. walk san francisco asks that you support sfcta's pricing

study, give them the funds to do so, and explore this untapped potential. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, jodi. ms. lee, thank you. >> thank you. i'm speaking as executive director of the san francisco executive director. listen, i know that congestion pricing can be difficult to think about additional fees on our streets, but the truth is for every single muni rider, we already have a fee. it's called our transit faires and how much we use or streets and what are the costs. we need to be make sure that we are fighting every revenue possible so we can be investing in oall of our streets, so we can keep the city moving as it grows. the study that was done a long

time ago was done, i mean, before tilly was executive director, liz bryson was still at the t.a. it needs an update especially because this city has changed so many in different ways. i hope this moves forward and san francisco can be advancing the best policies for transportation and be once again leading the way. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. are there any other members of the public on this item? seeing none, i would actually love to make the motion, but i won't do it. but as the district three supervisor, that is the area that would i think most be affected and to the good. is there a motion to advance the proposed scope of work for the congestion pricing study in made by commissioner kim, seconded by commissioner brown. we have a different house. roll call, please.

[roll call] >> clerk: we have approval. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. quintanilla. next item, please. [agenda item read] >> chair peskin: ms. laford. >> ana laford, director of policy and authority at the transportation authority. the metropolitan transportation authority in 2015 established the state assistance county block programs. f.t.a. funds are generated from the diesel sales tax. previously, the funds were distributed over the last ten

years via regional paratransit program, a regional lifeline program that funded projects that improve mobility for low-income communities and the transportation authority as congestion management agency did five cycles of calls for projects over the last ten years for that program, and then, also, there was a north county small transit operator share that we did not receive any funds from. m.t.c. has revisited this allocation methodology and has now put together a new block grant that allows counties to determine how to use the funds, and we are required to submit an annual distribution policy to the m.t.c., and that is the item that is before the board today for consideration and for action. so over these two fiscal years, we are expected to receive $7.6 million, and that's the amount that san francisco would have received under the former regional programs. 40% of the funds to the sfmta's

paratransit progr paratransit program, and this would have made the program whole. we're also recommending 60% of the funds go to a new s.f. lifeline transportation program. the first cycle would cover these two fiscal years, and the program would be administered by the transportation authority. so the eligibility for s.t.a. funds, you have to meet the state's eligibility guidelines. the intent of our program is to support projects that improve mobility for low-income residents. this is keep in the spirit of the former regional program and continuing it with the san francisco flavor, if you will. we're requiring a 10% local match to the project, so once these projects are screened for eligibility, what we would do

is evaluate the projects based on the prioritization that are in your materials and packet as an attachment to the memo, attachment one. we are proposing to give highest priority to transit service projects that benefit communities of concern. f.t.a. funds are very few sources that we as the t.a. can prioritize for operations, so -- and we also expect to see -- it provides an opportunity for broad distribution geographically of benefits to communities of concern, and this is where high populations of low-income communities live. the priority would be given to projects that have emerged. you'll hear about the district ten ntip program that has recommendations as an example that are very focused on engagement particularly the low-income populations.

we will prioritize projects that are ready to go, as well as geographic diversity. so once the board adopts the framework for this program, and again, we're recommending a percentage split as opposed to an impact dollar amount because the exact dollar amount we'll receive each year is based on the final rozon sailiation. we would -- final reconciliation. with that, i can take any questions. >> chair peskin: are there any questions from miss la fort. is there any public comment? seeing no public comment, thank you for that presentation. is there a motion to approve the grant framework? made by commissioner yee, seconded by commissioner kim, and we have the same house, same call [ gavel ]. >> chair peskin: the item is approved on first reading. next item, please.

[agenda item read] >> chair peskin: miss hyatt. >> rachel hyatt, district planner. this is the district ten ntip planner. we looked for projects that will improve health, care quality, reduce vehicle miles traveled in district ten, especially through partnership of developers in all of the major development areas that are happening in district ten as well as emerging mobility services. we built off all of the long amount of planning that has been done in district ten and our deep understanding of the needs that have been vocalized throughout the years, and we used a cocreation strategy in developing the recommendations. we worked with an outreach team that used techniques, working with all of the stakeholders, so community members, both new and long-time residents, but also institutions, employers,

and representatives of the development community to cocreate the solutions that we're recommending today. the first area of recommendation is new mobility. and microtransit or shuttle is recommendition as that we heard. we -- is recommendations that we heard where they are consistent with m.t.a.'s private transit vehicle permit requirements. i also want to mention the private microtransit services that m.t.a. does offer through their paratransit program that are available to seniors and people with disabilities. we have recommendations to support expanding the availability of sharing services. so for instance, moped sharing

services, car share services throughout district ten, working with the planning department, and with developers or private property owners to do that and make those more available, and also to support these firms doing outreach or services doing outreach to the community in relevant ways, community relevant marketing. we heard a lot of demand of support for school trip making and support for alternative ways to get kids to school and to recommend continuing pilot and experiment with school trip, ride matching or school trip microtransit. we heard a lot of interest, so mobility services are tools that can support people being able to shed a car, being able to not have to own a car to access mobility services but instead be able to reach a

whole array of different types of mobility services through technology. and we heard interest in these types of services, especially programs where you get rewarded for your sustainable travel, and these kind of rewards, transportation rewards programs are things that employers or institutions like a hospital, school or a transportation management association can -- can implement. we also heard a lot of demand and recommend we're publicizing of services that make these technology-based tools available to people who don't speak english, available to people who don't have smart phones. i mentioned some of the rewards that can be implemented through developers. and our last category was about

partnerships, partnerships between the community, between community based organizations and between mobility service providers to expand the reach of these transportation programs. we heard a lot of interest in the transportation management association or transportation coordinator concept. this is a role that many new developments are either required to or are choosing to offer as a trip management or travel demand reduction measure, and we do recommend some strategies in this study to work with the planning department to make these types of services, coordinator services available to existing land uses as well as the new land uses coming in and to coordinate them and expand their efficiency and their reach through coordination mechanisms. please let me know if you have any questions, and