question, because i also thought the presentation was excellent. and i really am finding it helpful as i did today with the captain's presentation. sometimes it's hard to keep up with the, you know, i don't know the power point or whatever these preparations are, just on the screen when you don't have them in front of you. so having chief pang's and chief tom's presentations delivered to us was really very helpful. you know, ems-6 is amazing. and my question was, i understand who the client of ems-6 is. i'm a little less clear on who the skirt clientele are.

and and how those two things are going to interact. i don't have an opinion one way or another, i'm just trying to understand. >> president covington: is that question directed to chief pang? >> it could be chief tom, chief pang, whoever who wants to answer. whoever knows. >> president covington: over to you. >> president covington, vice president feinstein, commissioners, i'd like to ask to this question. this is simon pang. vice president feinstein, so ems-6 the core mission is to help and connect utilizers to appropriate resources. the response team is going to

apply the experience and the skills that we've learned in helping these most vulnerable of the vulnerable to people that are in behavioral crisis on the street. and once we get there, we are going to do a needs assessment together with the behavioral clinician and the peer support specialist and we will -- we will refer and connect that person to appropriate resources. one of those resources might be ems-6. if we identify that the person that we went on the call for was a frequent 911 utilizer, someone who is a patient and, vice president feinstein, i want to know if you reviewed our glossary yet. if you know what hums is, high user of multiple systems. >> i did. i just keep waiting for you, chief pang, to come up with more

abbreviations and acronyms. [laughter] >> that is in a nutshell the difference. street crisis response is to help everybody. there's three goals of street crisis response. one, to improve the delivery of care using trauma-informed approach to people. number two is to reduce the incidence of law enforcement response to people that are nonviolent and not committed a crime, but are having behavioral crises in public spaces. and number three, reducing inappropriate e.r. visits by people having behavioral crises. can you hear me okay? >> i didn't hear that last thing you said. it got a little blurry in terms of the audio. could you repeat the last criteria. >> yeah. the third goal is to reduce e.r. visits, inappropriate emergency room visits. >> i see. >> president covington: okay.

and, chief tom, do you have something to add? no. [laughter] okay. thank you. and let me go to commissioner cleaveland. >> thank you, madam president. i don't have any questions. it was an excellent presentation at the last meeting. and it's very, very vitally needed program for our city. so i wish chief pang and to tonk and everyone on the street every day, dealing with our myriad of problems and our citizens that need help, i wish them well and much success. so thank you. >> president covington: thank you, commissioner cleaveland. i agree that it was a wonderful presentation. and i -- i also have to express

my own personal concern about the future of our city, in that i am very fearful that when the moratorium on evictions expires, that there will be many, many more people in dire straits and not -- not able to successfully process everything that is happening to them. so i'm hoping that the moratorium will be extended in some way or that there will be another stimulus package that comes, so that we don't see many, many more people out on the streets. so i just say that to ask a

question, is there any discussion about how to beef up, if needed? that question is actually for chief nicholson, i think it's more appropriate for her to answer that question. >> thank you, president covington. in terms of beefing up, yes. there is a plan in place. we only have one unit out right now for the street crisis response team. and it's from 10:00 until 6:00 on a daily basis. in january, we are ramping up with a few more units. and in march, we expect to have many more units on the street. and so since this is the first time, the first year we're doing this, chief pang, chief tong, basically looked at, you know, the calls that we are going to be taking from the police

basically. and it was about 17,000. and chief pang did the math and this is the -- that's what we came up with. that's the amount of resources we came up with. so, you know, again it is only in its first month. we really need to see its efficacy. and what, if anything, we need to tweak. and i think really, you know, how the program -- what the program also needs to be successful is those resources, whether it's mental health, whether it's a rehab bed, whether it's, you know, whatever it happens to be. those are the resources that we need on the back end. because we can see how impactful and resourceful ems-6 has been, working with very little resourceses on back end.

so what's going to really impact this program is those resources. i have absolute faith in my members being able to do this. again we really need to see how this works before we can ramp it up beyond what we are planning for in march. >> president covington: all right. so in march, chief of the department, in march you said there will be several more. >> yes. i'll have chief pang answer that. they ramp up. i believe there's going to be more in january and then in march. chief pang. >> yes. and would it be possible to share my screen. i have actually prepared three more slides for the presentation. how do i do that?

do i have to be given permission to share my screen? >> president covington: by all means, -- >> maureen, needs to give it to you. >> president covington: madam secretary will help you with that. >> clerk: yes. i'm trying to find your name here on the screen. >> may i ask, madam president, just one more question of chief pang, while we do that? >> president covington: i think chief pang is trying to concentrate on getting the slides. so can you wait until he shows us the slides and then you may have additional questions. >> the slides -- yes. [laughter] >> okay. can you all see that? >> yes. >> president covington: yes, we can. >> okay.

so we have -- we are three distinct phases plan. we have now in phase 1. that started last week, last monday, november 30th. and then phase 1, november 30th we have our first street crisis response unit up. we call it scrt 1. now we anticipated that being available for 12 hours a day, seven days a week. but we have a limiting factor at the moment. health right 3 360, the community-based organization providing service is still hiring people. and it's -- you know, it's -- we -- this is the problem of our very ambitious timeline. so it's reasonable that they don't have enough behavioral clinicians as it is. what they've done is they have a clinician, a psychologist named dr. whitaker, who is excellent and she was actually there for another program, but they asked her to switch over to this program. she's only able to commit right

now to monday through friday eight hours a week. so we're working the first week, last week we worked 10:00 until 5:00. and we cut it off an hour short to have formal question briefing session. this is a new team, we want to get it right. we have three different agencies involved, each with a unique culture. it's us, the fire department, health right 360, providing the behavior clinician and ram. this week we're moving it up -- we're expanding by one hour, 10:00 until 6:00 for this whole week. and on saturday, december 24t 2h december 24th, we hope -- that will be our first saturday that we're in service. and by january, we hope to be in service on sundays as well. so by january, we will be seven days a week. if we actually meet the 12 hours per day, that is yet to be seen. it all depends if we have the personnel available. now in january, end of january,

we will have our second street crisis response team up. so this is phase one. phase one from november 30th until the end of march. so we'll have either one or two units up. our bandwidth is very, very limited. so we have a priority geographic zone, that's the tenderloin police station district. we want to see if we can cover 100% of the 800 calls in that district. as we found, in the first seven days of work was that we've had to take calls in surrounding districts, just to make sure that we kept busy. because this is a very unpredictable thing. we're just sitting in the tenderloin waiting for the next call to come. we might be wasting our time. again right now in phase 1 our priority scopes are adults that are nonviolent, have not committed a crime, that are in public spaces and are priority

b police code 800. priority b means there's no need for lights and sirens. that's phase 1. phase 2 would be from april to october. and phase 2 we will have six response teams in service. there will be six -- six vehicles on the 12-hour shifts, every 24-hour period, seven days a week. we will be citywide. again our priority scope is it will remain the same. now in phase 3, which is november of 2021 and onwards, that's when it's time for us to reassess what we can do and how well we are doing. so all along it's going to be a process of continuous improvement and iterative process. but by november of next year, we want to evaluate.

we expand to more than police codes 800. what does that depend on, it's just an analysis of the call volume, can we do this. are we doing this safely. are we achieving what we set out to do. we also want to get community input, make sure that other community groups, who are involved in this line of work, feel that we are helpful in doing the job we said we would do. and the expansion is going to be really be depending on, you know, budgetary decisions. and i have to say that chief nicholson is 100% supportive. so the budget decisions will really be external to the fire department if this is what city leadership wants. i think there's enormous -- a team like this can do, not only for people in behavioral crisis, but people in social crises. and not only police code 800, someone having a behavioral crisis, but someone who simply needs a well being check in a public space.

someone who is prone on the sidewalk, is that a behavioral crisis, is that person just need shelter. i believe that this sort of approach is the way to go. now i also want to share with you what has happened in the first seven days. first seven days very, very limited response hours, as i said. 10:00 until 5:00 last week. we've had 36 dispatches for review from the d.e.c., the department of emergency communications. we turned some of them down if they're too far away. we're not going to le playa and fulton. because we're prioritizing the tenderloin. and also if it is call comes in and it's somebody in the private residence, we don't want to accept that. so out of the 36 dispatches, we accepted 18. and you can see the breakdown here. so this breakdown is largely -- this is what we expected. we expect that most people are going to be lumped in the community, by their choice.

there is no mechanism in our city to compel someone to accept resources. and we cannot change that. i believe we're going to improve on this number. this is the first seven days. but as we get -- as the team gels and we improve our art form of persuasion, we are -- i believe we're going to make the numbers look thinner. fewer people left in the community, and more people transported to non-e.d. resources. the nor non-ambulance transports to non-e.d. resources, that's success for me. 22%. that's pretty good for the first seven days. we did have one ambulance transport to an e.r., which i think is another sign of success. it means that we went to a call and recognized that someone was having a medical emergency. and we were able to get that person expeditiously to the hospital. now if we weren't there, that person likely would have gone to the hospital as well. it would have taken a lot longer, because the first person would have been law enforcement,

hopefully would recognize a medical emergency going on. they would have had to special call an ambulance, that adds another five to ten minutes to it. so we were able to do this much more rapidly. so those are the three slides i have prepared for you today. do you have any questions? >> president covington: okay. thank you, captain pang. let's see. vice president feinstein. do you have any additional comments, based upon the most recent information? >> not about the squad, but sort of reverting to the direction i was heading in previously. if you want to defer, previous pang, you should feel free to. i'm trying to keep this as relevant as we can. i think we all read the article

in the "chronicle" today about the woman who sort of frequented my neighborhood at -- around castro and market. and, you know, turned up dead of an opioid overdose. but had had many, many, many, you know, contacts with law enforcement, -- the article was a little vague. but, you know, she still ends up on the street dead. the comments made by a whole lot of people, were sort of insulting in many ways. because i have to believe that people didn't just walk by her, that they tried to help her. and i'm just trying to see if someone like her fits in anywhere. and non-tenderloin person,

they're not threatening, definitely a danger to herself and others by any reasonable definition of the phrase. and yet, you know, she's now dead. and i just -- i don't know if you saw the article or if you could help me weave like what direction we can go in as a department to help folks like her. >> thank you. thank you for the question. i do have comments. first of all, the ems-6 team knew this person very well. >> okay. >> in the previous 12 months before her death, ems-6 personnel engaged her 107 times. >> wow! okay. >> and in the previous 12 months before her death, she was -- she was transported by fire department ambulances to emergency rooms 68 times.

i think that captain sloan might have her own -- captain sloan interacted with this and captain mason interacted with this person personally. i did not. i've been in the office for the last year. but i do know that ems-6, in conjunction with street medicine, that would be the high-intensity care team, because we have a nurse practitioner that regularly rides with us. and the nurse practitioner was assisting this person. and this person was connected to congregate shelter and also to a hotel at various points. so i would personally say that the engagement piece is there. this person is easily found and directed to places, but the problem is long-term how do we keep this person engaged and --

i would say perhaps what's missing is a means of compelling someone, who may not be literally interested in continuing their engagement with resources. that's missing. and i'd like to turn it over to captain sloan, if captain sloan has any comments. >> president covington: captain sloan. >> good morning, president. good morning, vice president and command staff. i also read that article. she was one of our clients. and i agree with chief pang. one of the chief barriers we run into, it is voluntary. there was care provided to her on site. as street medicine does, to try to improve her outcome.

and sadly -- [indiscernible] and she had accepted some congregate placement through captain mason's work. and she continued to use substances. and unfortunately, you know, she got -- it sounds like some fentanyl in there. this is what we run into with a lot of our clients. there's two types of conservatorship. it seems to me right now that the l.p.s. in particular has some, in regards -- [indiscernible] in that from what i understand, that the general where they stabilize a patient, the patient is already waiting. further reducing the capacity to take new patients to be conserved. the other path to the office is a little bit harder. because it's often reserved for older adults.

and we have a handful of clients that are very young, but have suffered. they don't quite use that criteria or have income i will say that some of the successes that we've had is with post post-acute community conservation. and that is stabilizing discharge to housing. so we've had some successes there where we had a 70-year-old male who was homeless since 2015. we got him housed and then he acutely decompensated. he lost his housing. thanks to this particular program. we got him stabilized. he was then back to his how hou. he takes medication and he's not on the rolls any more. he call to say hi every so often. >> nice. >> yeah. so, yeah.

getting people conserved remains a barrier, based on system capacity. and covid is not helping us in that. it's hard to ask for beds for somebody is not unstable, when they need the beds for people severely ill with covid. we're doing our best to stabilize the community and shelters, you know, site 42, to keep them safe. we can push more for these types of things. but i don't know there's a real answer as far as compelling people into treatment, when they -- i would say we may see people up in our top ten, in our top 20. they absolutely need help. they're in crisis. >> president covington: i understand. >> thank you. >> madam president, can i ask a question while we're on this topic? >> president covington: most certainly. go ahead, commissioner rodriguez. >> so i have spoken about this

before. i think i shared that we went through the same problem with my mother-in-law, at trying to get her into conservatorship. and so i wonder -- to get to the question, if you went to i guess a hospital and said here's a record of a person that we've serviced 100 times this year. and 60 times last year. wouldn't that bear any weight, even though there's a waiting list to say, look, this person obviously, if we've dealt with her this many times, wouldn't that bear any weight? >> well, that's a very good question. and it is part of our frustration. i think there are some -- there

are some administrators who are tired of ems-6 personnel pounding on the door saying you have to take a look at this person. it's not tenable. it's not -- it's not tolerable. but it's not the case. it's too difficult. and i -- i think -- i have to say something, which is that one issue is that there are many, many san franciscans, perhaps a majority of san franciscans who actually are very concerned about civil liberties and are not interested in increasing the ability of the government to restrict someone's rights. so, i mean, this is going to be -- this is a cerebral argument that san franciscans have to have with themselves and determine what they want.

i'm a member of the working group for the housing conservatorship. and i still am baffled as to why we have not presented even one person before a judge yet. i've been told why and it seems so unusual and twisted to me. i cannot quite comprehend it. but w-- we haven't. >> and may i respond to chief pang, just to that one point, just to reap force what you're say -- reinforce what you're saying. my understanding is in 2020, is the public conservator has not brought a single case to court, not one single case. and, you know, they haven't come off of the court where the cases would be presented. you know, that -- i just can't figure out what their excuse is. and i understand the civil liberties of, you know, the

people's sentiment. there's also some humanity that needs to play into this. and, you know, we can continue working on our various work groups. but, you know, it's -- it's -- this is just to me unconscionable and immoral. and i agree with what your frustration must be. so i want to thank you for hanging in there. >> president covington: is that it, madam vice president? >> yes. i'm not going to utter another word. >> president covington: no. no. that's okay. it is very disserving. so i'm wondering if we need more information on the housing conservatorship? and that information can be

printed and given to the commissioners, so that we have a better grasp of why it is that, with more than 100 calls for this person, that a conservator was not appointed. it would help me understand a little more, as to why the safety net has so many holes in it. and why it's such a small safety net, when the need is so mas massive. this is not just frustrating for the ems-6, it's frustrating for i think all people of goodwill. so that's -- that's it for me. on that. any other questions? anyone want to speak at this

time? >> just a comment. >> president covington: yes. >> i just wanted to comment to our fellow commissioners and to the command force and everybody that's online. what a great thing it is that we can have a dialogue nature of this case and the subject matter. that we have ems-6, chief pang, captain sloan, and the department members to have this kind of interaction and communication, to have the vice president ask the question, point out the example and have chief pang, chief sloan respond with data and for information. i think it's a really wonderful thing that we are able -- we commissioners are able to have this kind of access and at a commission meeting have this much information that comes across. i just want to say that and reiterate the importance of our

program, but the importance of being able to have the dialogue that the commissioners can get information. thank you, madam president. >> president covington: thank you. commissioner cleaveland, did you have a comment? >> thank you. >> chief of department, your hand is raised. did you have a -- >> did you have a comment? >> nope. >> no, madam president, i do not. >> president covington: okay. thank you. chief of the department? >> no, ma'am. thank you. >> president covington: okay. thank you. this work is so important and so vital and so demanding physically and mentally. for the ems-6 team. this is, you know, taking care of people physically and then

advocating for them. and advocating and advocating again. i could not applaud you more loudly. it's just wonderful, wonderful, essential work. so thank you everyone. all right, madam secretary, are there any members of the public that would like to speak? >> clerk: we pulled public comment and there was no one in the queue. >> president covington: yes. i just want to make sure that during the interim, no one has signed on. >> clerk: i'll check. there is nobody with their hand up on the public comment line. >> president covington: okay. thank you. public comment is hereby closed. next item, please. >> thank you. >> clerk: item 8, fire commission meeting calendar 2021.

discussion and possible action to adopt the 2021 fire commission regular meeting calendar. >> president covington: okay. commissioners, i want to give you my thinking on the calendar. i think that this year we would have benefited from two more meetings, another meeting in november and another meeting in december. as you know, we had to postpone for a full month discussing the -- well, there was no discussion really. but approving the $13 million going before the board of supervisors. i think we would be better served to pick some dates in

november and december, that would give us two meetings in those two months, just as we have throughout the other ten months. and if there is nothing pressing, then things are moving so quickly in the world, but at that time, if nothing is pressing, we can cancel those meetings. but once we approve this agenda, it's -- it's hard to -- with all of the rules in place about meetings, it's very hard to have an emergency meeting or a meeting that is not scheduled. so that's my thinking on it. >> okay.

>> president covington: i'm sorry. can you repeat that. >> yeah. can are you going to call up the order? >> president covington: no. i want comment. so please comment. i keep saying about my union, i was part of the executive board even when i was out in the field. we would have our meetings. and in the beginning we would cancel november and december, but then even our membership got uptight and stuff needs to be done in a timely fashion. postponing it a month. so what we did was say that the november meeting, makes it first week of november and then the second meeting would be maybe the third week of november. and like you said, if there was nothing pressing, but at least everybody is busy, if you don't

have the dates set aside ahead of time, it does become a problem. i kind of agree with madam president. if we can set that date, you know, maybe move the first meeting back a week and then set the other one up and then if we don't need it, we could cancel. that's just my thought. >> well, sfgov tv has us on a schedule for the 2nd, wednesday month of the -- of the month. so we cannot switch it. their tv allotments. so i would have to check with them about adding two more meetings. >> president covington: yes. it would be based upon the feedback that we get from sf govas to what the dates might be. they would have to tell us what

kind of coverage that they would be able to provide. >> correct. >> president covington: okay. so are there any other commissioners who would like to speak on this? commissioner cleaveland, -- excuse me, madam vice president? >> madam president, i don't have any opinion on this. i think it really matters -- it really is up to sf gov and city hall where we can get the time on television and whether we can get the room, once we're able to go back to city hall. so i really think we can't make that decision until we get more information. >> president covington: okay. so not making the decision, it's getting feedback from you, commissioner cleaveland, as to whether or not you are for or

against having two meetings -- two additional meetings. >> defer to the will of the commission. >> president covington: okay. thank you. all right. anyone else? so i will table this until our next meeting and we will have at that time feedback from sfgov tv as to what dates are available. okay. all right. thank you. is there any public comment? >> clerk: interest is no public comment. >> president covington: okay. public comment is closed. and the next item, please, madam secretary. >> clerk: item 9, commission report. report on commission activities since the last meeting on november 10th, 2020.

>> all right. commissioners, what would you like to share, if anything? anyone? you've all been sheltering in place, which is very good. i have nothing to report as well. we can't hear you. is there any public comment on this item? >> clerk: there is no public comment on this item. >> president covington: okay. thank you. and next item, please. >> clerk: item 10, agenda for next and future commission meetings. >> president covington: all right. thank you. i have an item i would really like to officially welcome and

hear from our -- excuse me. fire department physician. if the doctor can be scheduled for our next meeting, that would be good. and any other items? >> clerk: i believe we have rescue on the agenda. >> president covington: okay. >> madam president? >> president covington: yes, commissioner nakajo. >> i would like to, if it's appropriate, suggest a future agenda item for our next meeting in january. >> president covington: yes. >> for vice president feinstein, commissioner rodriguez, it's a point of information on the first week of january, i believe we have our annual election of

officers for our commission. and i would like to, madam president, have that as an agenda item of our january meeting, our first one i believe. and as a point of information to commissioner rodriguez, vice president feinstein, we've -- we have pretty much supported the concept of collective leadership. as a point of information, all the three commissioners started with commissioner covington, commissioner cleaveland and myself have all served in vice president and president roles. so i would like to, madam president, have this agenda item the beginning of january and to keep our tradition in process intact by electing the officers. >> president covington: yes. the vice president and i have already discussed that as well with the chief of the

department. always comes during the first meeting of the year. and it's the last item on the agenda. >> thank you, madam president. thank you. >> president covington: okay. any other agenda items? none. okay. well, any public comment? >> clerk: there is nobody with their hand up on public comment. >> president covington: all right. thank you. so that was our last item, yes, madam secretary? >> clerk: yes, it was. >> president covington: all right. i will entertain a motion to adjourn. >> move to adjourn, madam president. >> second. >> president covington: thank you. i would also like to adjourn, madam secretary. >> clerk: and commissioner nakajo. >> i concur.

thank you very much, madam president. >> clerk: commissioner rodriguez? >> i concur also. i'd like to wish everyone a nice holiday, if we don't see each other. >> thank you. thank you. >> president covington: everyone, please have a very safe christmas, hanukkah, kwanzaa and we'll see you in the new year. thank you all very much. >> thank you. bye-bye. >> thank you. >> happy holidays, everyone. >> happy holidays, everyone. >> happy holidays, everyone.

lesb ri >> by the time the last show came, i was like whoa, whoa, whoa. i came in kicking and screaming and left out dancing. [♪] >> hello, friends. i'm the deputy superintendent of instruction at san francisco unified school district, but you can call me miss vickie. what you see over the next hour has been created and planned by our san francisco teachers for our students. >> our premise came about for san francisco families that didn't have access to technology, and that's primarily children preschool to

second grade. >> when we started doing this distance learning, everything was geared for third grade and up, and we work with the little once, and it's like how were they still processing the information? how were they supposed to keep learning? >> i thought about reaching the student who didn't have internet, who didn't have computers, and i wanted them to be able to see me on the t.v. and at least get some connection with my kids that way. >> thank you, friends. see you next time. >> hi, friend. >> today's tuesday, april 28, 2020. it's me, teacher sharon, and i'm back again. >> i got an e-mail saying that i had an opportunity to be on a

show. i'm, like, what? >> i actually got an e-mail from the early education department, saying they were saying of doing a t.v. show, and i was selected to be one of the people on it, if i was interested. i was scared, nervous. i don't like public speaking and all the above. but it worked out. >> talk into a camera, waiting for a response, pretending that oh, yeah, i hear you, it's so very weird. i'm used to having a classroom with 17 students sitting in front of me, where they're all moving around and having to have them, like, oh, sit down, oh, can you hear them?

let's listen. >> hi guys. >> i kind of have stage flight when i'm on t.v. because i'm normally quiet? >> she's never quiet. >> no, i'm not quiet. >> my sister was, like, i saw you on t.v. my teacher was, i saw you on youtube. it was exciting, how the community started watching. >> it was a lot of fun. it also pushed me outside of my comfort zone, having to make my own visuals and lesson plans so quickly that ended up being a lot of fun. >> i want to end today with a thank you. thank you for spending time with us. it was a great pleasure, and see you all in the fall. >> i'm so happy to see you today. today is the last day of the school year, yea!

>> it really helped me in my teaching. i'm excited to go back teaching my kids, yeah. >> we received a lot of amazing feedback from kiddos, who have seen their own personal teacher on television. >> when we would watch as a family, my younger son, kai, especially during the filipino episodes, like, wow, like, i'm proud to be a filipino. >> being able to connect with someone they know on television has been really, really powerful for them. and as a mom, i can tell you that's so important. the social confidence development of our early learners.

>> good morning. welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority transportation meeting for tuesday, december 8th. our clerk is brittany milton. could you please call the roll. >> commissioner fewer. >> present. >> chair haney. >> present. >> commissioner mandelman. >> present. >> commissioner mar. >> absent. >> commissioner peskin. >> present. >> commissioner preston. >> present. >> commissioner ronen. >> present. >> commissioner safai.

>> present. >> commissioner stefani. >> present. >> commissionerruacommissioner . >> present. >> commissioner yee. >> present. >> i will make an announcement about public comment. public comment will be available for each item by calling 415-655-0001 and when prompted enter access code (146)486-8433-pound and pound. you will be able to listen as a participant. dial star three to be added to the queue to speak. you will hear a message advising you have two minutes to speak. calls will be taken in the order received. speak slowly, clearly and turn down the volume of your television. 30 second lag time during the

course of the meeting. that concludes my announcements. >> go to the cac chair report. mr. larson, good morning. >> good morning. chair peskin. i am chair of the citizens advisory committee here to report on the december 2 meeting of last week. the cac engaged in a relatively lengthy discussion of the tentative prop k allocation pending demonstration to you the authority board of a business case analysis to support the use of the joint development project delivery method. the cac members were interested in the proposed mix between low, affordable, moderate and market rate housing part of the request for proposals for this project.

in addition, there was concern about reimbursing proposals up to $500,000, to which staff commented that with the delivery method under consideration a significant investment would be required from proposesors. if s.f.m.t.a. would own the intellectual property that could be use full and incorporated into this or future projects. they had questions about the public private partnership model including risk allocation and cost containment strategies. the cac approved recommending the allocations with the amendment that there should be regular presentations to the cac on the modernization project as it progressing. item five on your agenda today they were glad to see the buses

purchased and this represented a commitment to restore neighborhood bus routes in the future. they questioned the timing of the ethe expenditure since ridep is low. the timelines for common requests as part of the item was so long. not to be completed until 2022. a complaint shared by other members whose projects tend to be a little less complicated, more low impact. the proposal with the final report item 4 on your agenda is met with enthusiasm by the cac especially the route up to hunters point. providing redundancy and more

correct connection downtown. it was positive to learn the bayview has protected the most transit service because of the number of potential workers in the community and that community was hit hardest by the pandemic. with regard to item 7 the downtown study congestion study. the outreach on the new concept in the midst of pandemic. it shared the concerns of the puck oofof thepublic with the lt pricing in the em of the zone that might have to cross in and out frequently. in addition, the lack of data shown that could assist to determine boundaries was raised. the cac recommended approving the funds for additional

outreach and studies. also on behalf of the cac i would like to thank the staff of the authority to the big adjustment to the remote standards and maintaining the high standards in the work and information they present to us. i would like to thank commissioner yee for the opportunity he has given me to represent district 70 the citizens advisory committee for the past six and a half years. that concludes my report. thank you. >> thank you, mr. larson. any questions or comments from members? this is not commissioner yee or commissioner fewer's last meeting. they have one more which we will talk about next week. theany members of the public to comment on the cac report.

>> one caller. >> two minutes begins now. >> good morning. just wanted to appreciate the staff for the detailed minutes that are more detailed than most policy bodies in the city and very helpful to allow me to make very brief comments on some of your following agenda items and i appreciate chair larson and cac meeting last week despite technical issues. it was a good meeting. i wanted to say thanks again. >> thank you. >> any other members of the public for the cac report? >> there are no more callers. >> public comment is closed. thank you, mr. larson, thank you for nice comments about our great staff and with that, madam

clerk, please call the next item. >> i would like to remind you if you are not presenting keep your camera and audio off. we can only allow nine items. item 3 approve the minutes of the november 17, 2020 meeting. this is an action item. >> is there any public comment on the minutes? >> no public comment. >> public comment is closed. a motion to move the minutes from our last meeting made by commissioner fewer. seconded by -- safai and seconded by fewer. >> commissioner fewer. >> aye. >> commissioner haney. >> aye. >> commissioner mandelman. >> aye. >> commissioner mar absent.

commissioner peskin. >> aye. >> commissioner preston. >> aye. >> commissioner ronen. >> aye. >> commissioner safai. >> aye. >> commissioner stefani. >> aye. >> commissioner walton. >> aye. >> commissioner yee. >> aye. >> there are 10 ayes. the minutes are approved. >> next item, please. >> item 4. adopt the 15 third bus study time report this. is an action item. >> hugh, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin and commissioners. i hope you can all see my screen now. no problem. this is the 15 third bus study. we did come before you in july

for an informational update. now we have done the last few items to complete it and are bringing it forward for adoption. i want to start by thanking commissioner walton for requesting this study, which is coming out of our planning and it was to look at a technical evaluation of bringing back the 15 third street bus to service given a number of community concerns that have been raised across a variety of forums about service on the t and questions about that and the ability of folks to reach downtown, in particular, from the bayview and hunters point. the goals of the study were about improved access to downtown. wanted to make sure any serviced

would focus on cost-effective service. we reviewed quite a lot of work done previously plus our own work that looked at a variety of planning efforts in the study area. we did find and hear very clearly that there were a lot of concerns and interest in bringing back the 15. in the power presentation i gave a full rundown of the background data. today i want to walk you through the couple routes that we tested and evaluated. then i want to give you the high level findings. we looked at two possible routes, both would be express type routes. both would serve downtown on third and fourth streets and run

excess mission bay and dogpatch on third street. 15ax would be local on third street running down through bayview and into visitation valley. then the other of which would be the 15bx more hunters point express to make the loop or routeing through the hill and hunters point for folks and as chair larson mentioned there is wide interest because of the general reduced level of accessibility from that particular neighborhood. the overall findings of the study were that each of these routes would add significant new riders to the muni system. i will say the evaluation for the study was based on our travel demand model and trying to get information about how ridership would look pre-covid.

we were evaluating for the long-term and implementation questions were the seconded part about the current situation we are in towed. you can see the gold bar would be the new riders. left side just the 15ax service. right side you have both the 15ax and bx together, how they would perform. the shadings of blue are folks who wouldn't be be new riders, they would be shifting from other existing services. you can see there is quite a bit of demand for these types of services today. we also did a comparison to other express bus services muni operated in the past. in particular, just look at travel that is in the peak period and direction so you can

see that both the 15ax and bx as am inbound and pm outbound perform similarly to the express bus services today. lower than the most heavily traveled but more than quite a few other services operated pre-pandemic. finally, the new piece of information that we did develop since we last presented to you was about the overall cost to operate the service. these costs are based on average operating costs for buses in the city so they are not necessarily a specifically cost for this service as much as general understanding what the cost might be. we looked at both all day service as well as a.m. and p.m. only and peak direction service, as i mentioned. then we also looked at operating costs on a per-rider basis.

the overall finding that is important is that these costs are well with in line with what m.t.a. has today for other similar types of services or a little lower in some cases. finally, i want to note that while we were conducting this study, s.f.m.t.a. did see these findings and we worked with them and they convened a working group to identify route options for short term implementation. their focus is as much on providing some of the -- addressing some of the particular issues around social distancing and need for service for essential workers during the pandemic. they saw real opportunity to use this study as a way to help address that need and to demand. the work of that group identified three options for short term implementation of the

route. they did recently in the last few days complete a surveys and they have a preferred option which would route through the hill in hunters point and get better service from there directly to downtown and i do have sandra from s.f.m.t.a. today to answer more specific questions if you have those questions as well. with that, that concludes my presentation. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. lock. commissioner walton, do you have any questions. is 15 is predominantly in district 10. >> thank you so much, chair peskin. i want to thank cpa for the work on the study and thank m.t.a. as well for being responsive to what the community wants and to

bring back a piece of history and culture and improving transportation in the district. this is something the community has been asking for for a long time. thank you for the study. this is going to be something we are excitedded about in terms of the 15 day view hunters point express which should operate early 2021 during this pandemic. i want to let them know that we appreciate you for your response to the community. >> thank you, commissioner walton. any other comments from commissioners? seeing none. is there public comment on this item? >> yes, one caller. >> first speaker, please. >> david. let me run through my comments.

part of the trying this unreliable t line rail service. how is that a problem? i have no issue with the pilot project but is this the best time? is there a timeframe and evaluation to determine whether to make it permanent? does this echoir less service on other parallel muni routes? did that mean duplicate service on third street. if vehicle availability is constraining factor does adding this service delay restoring other routes? m.t.a. is looking to cut nonessential sources. they talked about laying off 1,000 people. is this the best solution right

now? how does this proposal relate to commitments already made regarding transit service to serve the hunters point shipyard development? lastly, this would add an express service to that area at a time when most other express services are not operating. it doesn't pie appear richmond e coming back. the 7x at sunset are not expected to return. i would like to understand. i am concluding. i would like to understand why you are proposing a different operation. if it is to try it, that is fine. i wanted to raise those concerns. >> are there any other members of the public for public comment

be on item 4? >> there are no other callers. >> public comment is closed. are there any final comments from staff? >> i don't have any further comments from our end. i do have sandra online, i believe. you want to say any concluding words about short term implementation. >> good morning, board. yes, this route is going to come into service as part of the january 23rd change, and some of the things that may being it possible. the day church route is going back to trains and that is making the new service possible. it is everything we are doing is

temporary right now. we will do title six analysis march of next year and evaluating the route. ridership will be part of that process. >> basically, you will evaluate it two months in, is that correct? >> you are starting january 23rd and evaluating in march, it will be a very small data set. >> correct but we are analyzing the entire system. maybe given such a short period we give it another more lengthy period of evaluation about ridership and how it is serving people. that is the next time we take stock how the ride is performing. >> thank you. seeing no other comments from members or staff, commissioner walton would you like to move

adoption? >> thank you so much, chair peskin. i would love to move for adoption of item 3. >> item 4. is there a second to that? >> second. mandelman. >> on that motion made and seconded, madam clerk, a roll call, please. >> adoption of the bus study. commissioner fewer. >> aye. >> commissioner haney. >> aye. >> commissioner mandelman. >> aye. >> commissioner mar. absent. commissioner peskin. >> aye. >> commissioner preston. >> aye. >> commissioner ronen. >> aye. >> commissioner safai. >> aye. >> commissioner stefani. >> aye. >> commissioner walton. >> aye. >> commissioner yee. >> aye. >> the item has approval on the

first reading. >> next item. >> item 5. allocate 16878202 in prop k sales tax funds and $234,005 in prop aa vehicle registration fee funds with conditions. this is an action item. >> deputy director at the transportation authority. i would like to note that the s.f.m.t.a. has requested to delay consideration of the replace 30 30-foot hybrid motor coaches request until the january board meeting. this is to allow the agency some time to put together a very brief presentation on the financial benefits proceeding with the project now rather than

later and also to justify why that project was a priority at this time. the revised funding request before you today is for 6 82,000 $600 in prop k funds and the amount has not changed. with that we need an amended motion at some point. i am sure, chair peskin, you will guide that process for approval of requests that are proceeding. with that i will begin my presentation now. the four requests before you today, two from prop k sales tax, and two from the prop aa vehicle registration fee. district 7 is a neighborhood program funding request for implementing the priorities that emerged from the budgeting process that commissioner yees

office undertook. the $132,000 in prop k funds to be added to general fund moneys ready to implement these recommendations on the slide in front of you. there are enhanced crosswalks and traffic calming and various other recommendations to be implemented with these funds. the traffic calming in excelling see or is a request to implement high priority measures that emerged from the community-based transportation band done for the excelsior a year or year and a half ago. the various elements include speed cushions to preserve the neighborhood and residential feel of any of the streets in the area. the locations are shown in your

packet that accompanies this item on our website. the page street neighbor way project is vehicle registration fee first request for improvements on page street. these would implement bump outs at six different locations, four of these buildouts will be landscaped with rain gardens to be maintained by the sfpac. it includes raised intersection of buchanan street, the first of its kind in san francisco. you can see illustration on your slide. the project also includes some of the other recommendations to improve the safety in this area. this is near a school and

various other public facilities. the s.f.m.t.a. is ready to go with this project. 99% design. the m.t.a. would hope to work to complete many of the improvements before school starts in the fall. given the vicinity to the schools. conditions on the request. next item is related to this request to fully fund the project including $1 million allocation of funds from the special fund from former central freeway parcels for this project. as of november 16, 2020, the market advisory committee approved the resolution of support for $1 million for this project. we will have a presentation on that next. the other condition is that

these funds are on the construction support recommending this. this is additional funding above and beyond the $550,000 already budgeting for construction. m.t.a. needs an updated budget. the high budget for this work is because of the coordination that goes along with the rain gardens and decorative asphalt and new type of media. it is th the coordination with e project on golf street. last is lighting improvements. it is the design phase to install four pedestrian scale lights. this is an important pedestrian path across from the elementary close to the cable car line and

the bus drops in the chinatown subway station. i can answer questions. we have project managers here. >> are there any questions from staff? commissioner safai. you are raising your hand? you are on mute. >> no, i don't have any questions. i wanted to comment on this. i want to thank the s.f.m.t.a. i know this money was from prop k two years ago. we went through community prophesies and i have been working aggressively with neighbors. this is one of the most sought after programs at the neighborhood level that i have been part of as supervisor. so many requests for traffic calming we had to compile await

list so we can go back. one of the things we were able to turn on its head when i became supervisor rather than asking neighbors to do 50 plus one. we referred out to neighbors to make it proactive. to date we have done over 40 traffic calming speed cushions. 60 are in the queue. this is part of that. i want to thank staff for working with us and tom mcguire s.f.m.t.a. for working aggressively with us to implement this vision. it is something that has had an impact on our neighborhoods. pedestrians feel safer. this is something. the magnitude what we do on a

normal basis is small. impact is significant. i want that on the record. >> do we need to hear from mr. pick ford? >> mr. pick ford will present the next item. >> okay. any members of the public to testify on this item? >> commissioner preston, go ahead. >> thank you, chair peskin. i wanted to comment on the part of this. i spoke on this project when we entered the funding request and i appreciate the description of the project that is laid out. this helps in terms of flowing

traffic. in the section i sited for the firsted raised intersection in the city. this has many benefits for the community not just more safety around the elementary school but also connecting john moore in a safe way with the park nearby. i appreciate this moving forward. i do want to thank some folks who worked hard for a long time on this project. specifically, maria and mike from cta. casey, jamie and mark from m.t.a. the entire cac including the vice chair henderson.

we appreciate their unanimous support and the neighborhood association, walk sf and the bike coalition who have all advocated for these. it is going to promote safety in the neighborhood. thank you for all of your work on it. >> i am delighted by the lighting. if you have seen this book that just came out. much the first chapter is about three universities in three blocks. it is a neat little short read. it is about time it got decent lighting. commissioner safai. >> this is one thing i wanted to get on the record. the only thing that has been a little frustrating with this

process with traffic calming and i know s.f.m.t.a. is listening. is the conversation between the fire department, s.f.m.t.a. and final decision. one of the things in the notes because public works and fire department has to have public approval. iit may not happen until spring of 2022. fire department is more aggressive in responding. implementation needs to move quickly. spring of 2022 is not an acceptable time based on all of the work we have done. that is it. thank you. >> seeing no other questions from members, why don't we open

up to public comment. >> five callers on the line. >> quickly on these items. i have asked if all of these capital projects are needed given the uncertainty of m.t.a. in general. i appreciate the delay of the 31st as the placement item that we will hear when in the future. they should scrutinies each request and decide which to support. assails tax pro sees need to prioritize projects in the strategic plan to better align sales tax revenues with

projections. i thank staff for hearing my concerns at the cac meeting and updating the contact information. i was going to comment on item 6. i will roll that in here. if octavia study is expected in fall of 2021, isn't this project premature? i believe that reducing travel options in paid salary in the lower hate that you restrict travel blog that it doesn't go through puts more traffic on open cremand concentrates more on open sell. that is my concern about the project. >> thank you, caller.

>> good morning, commissioners. i am kristan lucky, senior organizer on staff at the san francisco bicycle coalition calling on behalf of over 10,000 members to give strong support for this project. i want to thank commissioner preston and s.f.m.t.a. for leadership. we have been working on this for years. it has been great. we are continuing to bring pedestrian and bike safety. i am happy to see the funding request. it will complete safety on the corridor including the raised crosswalk. we are excited to see that. the first in all of san francisco and i think they really have improvements. i hope to see this funding

approved and i look for word to working with you to continue to reimagine this neighborhood street. thank you for your time. >> good morning chair and commissioners. i am bryan hoffman, walk san francisco organizer. i am here to share the the aloe kateing this funding for the project from these agenda item as well as the next agenda item. we are grateful for the yearlong planning and outreach for the project. it is to identify and support this project. it is approved only in septembe. we know that it is not for everyone especially those walking. each year we see crashes, people

walking off for the real needs drivers in the intersections. walk sf is ready for the rain garden at the crosswalks where crashing occur and to the city's first ever protection o on the intersection. it is for people all ages walking on the way to school, to play at the park or just on their way home or walking in the neighborhood. it is more than two years since approval. they deserve this project moved forward with four years left. thank you.

>> good morning. i am the environmental equity program manager at the green lining institute a nonprofit advocating for racial equity for 27 years. i am in support of continued funding for the congestion project. it is the most innovative efforts in equity. i have been particularly impressed by the degree of details and thoughtfuls partnering with community based organizations and posting co-creation and design worksion. it is preand post pandemic they

have high-quality despite the circumstances. it is written about and shared with other cities and country. we are interested in following this model. the project is getting a lot of attention around the country. it is very important to share the strategies in the best practices. it is a larger relevant to all transportation planning and decision makings. thank you for your time. >> thank you. that wases for item 7. comment noted. next speaker, please. >> we are talking about item 5 right now. >> good morning, commissioners

and chair peskin. i am vice chair of the market advisory committee and hayes valley neighborhood association employment committee. calling with in youic support for the im provements. connects schools, parks and housing. during this pandemic things have gotten worse because buchanan has become a cut through north south route. cars can exit the freeway, come up and fly up buchanan. we a lot of stop signs there. this is very important to address this. long-term the open cell issue is a chronic congestion problem that needs addressed along the

entire length of the corridor. this is particularly burdened and causes a hostile situation on the streets. this is a very tent rich part of the city. the very dense part of the city with a lot of car-free households or car-lighthouse holds doing the right thing but putting up with the chronic congestion. this neighborhood is what is needed and it is mitigation from the previous s.f.c.t.a. study of octavia boulevard. i thank dean preston for moving this forward and please support the project. thank you. >> there are no more callers. >> public comment is closed.

i suggest a few changes, amendments to the resolution. why don't we make $16,878,202 should be 682600, is that correct? >> yes, that is the correct amount. >> elsewhere in the resolution where it refers to five projects it should refer to four. for instance where it says four of the five requests. it should say three of the four requests, right? >> correct. >> whereas on the first page refers to replacement of the 30-foot hybrid motor coaches

that should be removed? >> yes. >> okay. i would like to make a motion to amend the resolution as stated. is there a second for that motion? >> second. >> seconded by commissioner yee. we can take that without objection. then unless council disagrees with me relative to the rules of this body and if council does not disagree with me we can vote on the resolution as amended. is there a motion on the amended resolution? >> so moved. preston. >> seconded by fewer. on that motion made and seconded. a roll call, please. >> amended motion. commissioner fewer.

>> aye. >> commissioner haney. >> aye. >> commissioner mandelman. >> aye. >> commissioner mar. >> marabsent. commissioner preston. >> aye. >> commissioner ronen. >> aye. >> commissioner safai. >> aye. >> commissioner stefani. >> aye. >> commissioner walton. >> aye. >> commissioner yee. >> aye. >> there are 10 ayes. the motion passes. >> next item. >> item 6.

approve $1 million in former central freeway parcel revenues for the page street neighbor way project. this is an action item. >> we are recommending the prop aa funds for the neighborhood project. in response to the request at the november 17th board meeting to ensure the project is fully funded we recommend the city use $1 million in revenues from parcels of land occupied by the central freeway once. in 1998 the san francisco voters approved prop e to make the transportation authority responsible for the replacement project. in that scene was the development of set of projects intended to address the impacts

of the new boulevard on traffic circulation. these projects which included sidewalk and bike lane improvements, streets, lighting were funded by revenues generated by the sale and use by the projects. they have been implemented. there is $7 million in parcel revenues. in 2019 the neighborhood program funds for staff to conduct a study to evaluate accessibility and safety and circulation around octavia boulevard. the study is expected to be done by fall 2021. you can expect to see the projects at that time. meanwhile page street which would construct the safety

improvements is ready to advertise for construction as soon as funding is secured. approving $1 million would allow that project to start as soon as spring 2021. you also heard the market on octavia, the advisory commit fee unanimously approved transportation authority approve the funds. that is what we are recommending here today. i am happy to take questions. i know the project manager is available for questions as well. >> any questions or comments? >> thank you, chair peskin. to just reference my comments on the previous item. the two items overlap in funding the same project here. you know, i want to emphasize this is a real good opportunity

to use the funds from the fund to help avoid delays on implementation of the page street neighbor way project. also utilizing the complete funds when we have the recommends on the ongoing study on octavia to conclude in the summer of 2021. reiterate my thanks to those i listed before and urge colleagues t to support this important item. thank you. >> i did complete my comments. >> are there other members to speak to item 6?

if not, why don't we go to public comment. is there any public comment on item 6 which overlaps with the previous item. first speaker, please. >> one caller. >> good morning again, commissioners. i am a senior community organizer on san francisco bicycle coalition. i am calling to support this. as mentioned previously. [indiscernable] this would allow the s.f.m.t.a. to move towards construction. this funding approved i look forward to working to continue the work to prioritize those walking and biking on page street. thank you for your time. >> does that conclude public

comment? >> one more comment. >> good morning. this is jason henderson from hva. i want to reiterate that the s.f.c.t.a. did a study almost six or eight years ago. it called out that page street really needed to be treated as a walkable and bikable street. bikes need corridors, too. please keep that in mind and please support this. this is exactly what the proceeds from the sale of the freeway parcels was meant for. this is spelled out in the market in oklahom in the octavi. please support this project.

thank you. >> there are no more callers. >> public comment is closed. commissioner preston would you like to make a motion for the million dollars of funding. >> in my thanks to the many advocates and staff who have worked on this, i neglected to thank one very important person. i want to thank my legislative aid, preston kilgore in district five and who has been in regular touch with the various folks who i thanked previously, thank you for your work on this item. with that i would like to move that we adopt item 6. >> is there a second? >> second mandelman. >> madam clerk, please call the roll on that motion.

>> commissioner fewer. >> aye. >> commissioner haney. >> aye. >> commissioner mandelman. >> aye. >> commissioner mar. absent. commissioner peskin. >> aye. >> commissioner preston. >> aye. >> commissioner ronen. >> aye. >> commissioner safai. >> aye. >> commissioner stefani. >> aye. >> commissioner walton. >> aye. >> commissioner yee. >> aye. >> it has approval on first reading. >> item . appropriate $550,000 prop k funds for the downtown san francisco congestion pricing study. this is an action item. >> i am a senior planner of the

transportation authority presenting this item. this is an update on the congestion pricing study which you last heard from us in june about. >> excuse me will you open up the window. we can't see it.

it is not open to the full-size of the window. >> yes, that is better. >> this is prop k request. we have an update from the last you heard on the study back in june. we have a major round of community outreach, hearing some of the concerns that you expressed to us back in june whether we could do equitable outreach during shelter in page. we were focusing on reaching underrepresented folks. i have an update here. the goals of the study are to meet the 15% vehicle trip

reduction weekdays. looking forward to planning for as we recover from the pandemic and congestion is down. we are seeing it start to increase in some locations around the bay bridge. the goal is to get traffic moving when the traffic resoundses and ad vance equity. along the lines of advancing equity when we started looking at data we looked at who travels downtown during the peak commute hours. in the bottom bar you can see the folks driving during those peak morning rush hours are disproportionate lehighe lehighr income. those were less likely to be driving. iin fact, all of the folks

downtown only 13% were low income drivers. those are the folks most concerned about protecting from equity as we think about policy solution. from the perspective of looking at drivers representing a quarter of the drivers. half are in the top two income groups. the other thing we looked at that is a take away is that most of the vehicle trips were coming from within san francisco. whereas the quarter were from around the region. we need to address that three-quarters come from san francisco. we can't rely on a problem outside of the city. it is helpful to keep in mind the substantial number of vehicles downtown, 25% are the tmt vehicles. that is the significant reason congestion increased between

2010 and 2019. they are half of that increase. >> the outreach portion. the overall approach is focused on equity in underrepresented communities. we took the concerns along the entire process. we have been advised by the policy advisory committee that consists of half equity focused organizations. they have been meeting throughout the study process. we also have had another corelment procreation workshops for low income and communities of color and partner with community organizations to host the workshops where folks can come in and participate without equitable congestion that would

work for them. then the co-hosts are the participants. we moved into those we were using a card game where folks could play with trade-offs, fee level, discounts, investments that could develop an equitable program. we transition to remote version of the activity where we mailed packets of materials to people and folks could call in from home or in some cases hear it in affordable housing complex rooms. this is our deepest outreach with 160 folks primarily from lower income communities and communities of color. beyond that, we also did a range of other outreach activities to reach more broadly.

that included public meetings, stakeholder meetings where we spoke to 250 groups, that wases more than 75 in the districts across the city. we had a number of those in language as well. we had additional surveys and texting version for those who had less digital access. we got over 1300 survey responses that included in language custom service as we worked with stakeholder groups to distribute given community needs. overall we goat quite a bit of feedback. there are a few different ways

we let people know about getting engaged. we distributed posters and parking garages. we worked with media to get a number much media hits and in language advertisements to make sure we were reaching those communities. the feedback the top take away will not be a surprise. congestion pricing is a range of opinion from strong support to keep concerned and varies from the neighborhoods close by within the zone. chinatown, folks had concern. folks in tenderloin attended to be pretty interested in th in te

idea. affordability and whether we could design a program that adequately protected lower income groups and maybe gave them benefits. if we could avoid harm there. second was public transit and whether transit would be up to the task given sufficient options for people to choose. also, the effects on accidents. given the impacts covid had had and whether this would be another concern there. benefits were potential to make travel easier and quality of life in the neighborhoods that are most congested. people most interested in prioritizing the outreach activities included by and large income-based benefits. that would be exemptions,

discounts from the actual fee itself as well as potential for transit subsidies. the revenues from the the program funding, reduced fares for low income folks. on investment they were interested in making the transit system better, followed by bicycle safety for top priorities. in the input we developed a set of three scenarios we planned to analyze further in the next ten of the study. these are two scenarios given what we heard very focused on income-based transit subsidies. we also heard interest in nonresident discounts in trying to balance with the funding. another thing is whether the fee would be just charged to drive

into the zone or a lower fee in both directions to driver it across in or out of the zone. we developed a set of income-based discount that has a couple of variations across all scenarios we proposed full exemption for people in the low income groups and then the variation is among the next categories low to moderate income groups, the level of discount to that moderate income category. given the need overall to reach that 15% vehicle trip reduction when we recover from the pandemic the idea is we would set the base fee for the higher income driver and the discounted as a result of that 15% given

the different discounts ranging from $7 in both directions to 12 to $14 in the fee you were paying in one direction. on top of that we also have looked at other groups. across all scenarios discount of 50% for disabilities. this would really only make a difference for folks in those high income groups because they won't get a full exemption on the basis of income. the balance together with the need based discount would be included. one scenario would make a difference for those hiring but fits in one of the categories. there is a daily cap. those who make more than two trips for child dropoffs would not have to keep paying each

time they cross. the proposal how to charge for uber and lyft. we would have the same level of fee so the same amounts apply. the fee would also apply for folks taking any trips within the zone as well. lastly, custody is something in those discount packages. this means we could broaden or deepen the lifeline transit fare using the program revenue. the other element is refined geography. this would be adjustment to the boundaries we started with. we tried to develop the zone

boundaries to follow the natural neighborhood boundaries. we are also including the most congested streets and the on and off-ramps so we wouldn't mover from just one location to another. next step from here as i mentioned we plan to analyze the scenarios. we will share the results in another major round of community outreach to get more input as we move forward, final recommendation. this analysis and outreach will happen in the winter and spring we will return to you next year with a recommendation. lastly, the actual prop k request in front of you today is for the same scope of work that we presented back in june where we did the contract amendment for the consultant contract. this is the prop k funding request to support that work. that is the same set of additional outreach that our

policy advisory committee asked for early in the study. it included additional meetings and additional workshops. those in low income communities and communities of color to accommodate ditoaccommodate the. as i mentioned we will bring that back in the spring. we also do -- now plan for the next round of outreach in the spring. given what we learned from what we conducted in shelter and place. we will look at what the next round of outreach needs to look like to maintain the high level of engagement and reach the groups we have been able to reach in this round. we will look at whether some scope and schedule and funding options and budget options for

the next round of outreach to try to refine that. then we will look for external funding sources for that outreach work. we may need to come back to the board if necessary in the spring if we looked to figure out where things stand for that outreach. that concludes my presentation. i am happy to hear questions or thoughts you have today. >> thank you for that thorough presentation. let's open this up to members. commissioner haney. >> thank you, chair peskin and thank you for your work and the presentation. can you describe in more detail the different options you are looking at for zone residents? in some versions they have 0% discount. can you describe that a bit more

since this is in my district? >> i will bring back up that slide. the idea here is we got varying feedback. some folks want to focus as much as possible the different discounts that we are looking at on the income. there was also interest for those living in the zone having a look at what it would include to have a zone resident discount. two of the scenarios. the one on the left and the right include deeper and broader income-based 100% up to 33% for moderate. they don't include separate resident discount. the resident discount what that

means you would be -- residents would get the discount that applies to their income group or disability for that reason. there wouldn't be a separate discount if you are a higher income resident. this middle scenario here on the other hand the income based discounts are not as broad. 50% discount at low and not moderate. 50% discount for zone residents. that would apply to every zone resident regardless of income level. is that helpful? >> yes. the idea here would be that if you lived in the zone and you had to take a trip outside of the zone, you would be paying in some cases the full fee?

you are basically being charged to leave the zone and come back home. obviously, the zone residents are unique and their continues originate within the zone. everyone else is coming from elsewhere into the zone. they would be charged for basically taking the trip outside the zone because then they have to come home? >> that is true. being a zone resident if there is not a zone resident discount or if there is a 50% and you are in a higher income category, you would be in the inbound scenario. you commute outside the zone and you would be paying if you come back in during the evening peak period paying that fee. if you commuted you could drive from somewhere with from the

zone to somewhere else in the zone and not pay the fee. people in the zone would make those trips in private vehicle without incurring the fees. whereas people outside would have to pay to come in but would not have to pay to drive elsewhere outside the zone. >> i am sure there will be more conversation and a lot of -- you have spoken to people in the zone who have a different view on that issue than people outside of the zone who might not be as concerned about people in the zone. i am sure there will be a lot of concern about people being charged to leave their homes and come back. the goal here, as i understand it, is to relieve congestion inside the zone, which would be

mostly people driving into the area, not really trying to prevent people who live in the area from being able to move around, although obviously we would like to reduce their trips as well where possible. can you go to the boundary slide. i don't have a sense from this slide where we are drawing the likely sort of impact zone. is there a better sense of that or what the actual boundaries would be in i see the community of concern, of course, and the different transit lines. we are thinking that entire area there with the gray?

>> right. the proposal is that this gray line and the white would be the proposed boundary of the zone. we had actually started and this wases the recommendation from the 2010 congestion pricing study with laguna street as western edge of the zone and 18th street as the southern edge. that looked at a wide range of scenarios. we have done some official analysis as part of the study, also. there are tradeoffs with the size of the zone where basic lieu he a larger zone such as within the 18th or this modified version not splitting neighborhoods from feedback we heard. what this does is encompasses enough of downtown that it could

avoid with the smaller zone the issue having people try to drive around the zone and actually adding to congestion in the neighborhood outside the zone. a large enough zone what that means is there is enough reduction of traffic coming into the zone itself that there is actually other cities that have seen decreases in neighborhoods just outside the zone boundary. this is the larger zone. what i was saying is trips within the zone boundary within somebody's own car would be charged. it is large that way. >> it is essentially all of district 3, 6 and 5 and 9. then a little bit of 10.

everything else. got it. okay. i am sure there will be more time for conversation about this once we receive the recommendation. >> one more thing. i would like to note the hours are morning and evening weekday peak periods. somebody who lives within the zone who is traveling outside the boundary or coming back home at a time that isn't the evening or rush hour would not be charged either. it only applies during the morning and evening rush hours. >> may i just add, i do believe we have received some letters and feedback from mission bay organizations, employers that they do feel like they would like to be outside of the zone.

neighborhood groups might be divided. we have tried to avoid splitting neighborhoods. there is a question what is the minimum size of them that could still be feasible and effective to reduce the trips to the core. >> in terms of deciding whether to include a neighborhood or not, is it based on the amount of congestion? the decision to include or in mission bay based on the level of congestion or feedback? >> right. i think it should be as the whole study is based on the technical need and feasibility of the given configuration and public input. the traffic network is concentrated in the core,

meaning south of market and financial district and civic center. we know mission bay is the emerging third employment need, and right now you see it come in over the next 10 years. we expect as that development and central waterfront development we will see that need. we want to do 2030 analysis. >> what you are looking at here is existing 2019 prepandemic congestion level. the next analysis will look to a future year when mission bay will be more built out. that is the reason we wanted to keep looking at it for the purposes of next round of analysis to see what the congestion looks like when

complete. >> i am concerned about models that puts a heavy charge on those living in a zone. to leave home and return and be charged is not the main goal, in my understanding. i think that the problem is that people are commuting heavy into the area. some of the models that don't have a deep discount at all for people inside the zone do not seem fair or equitable to me. >> thank you. commissioner preston. >> one question on the timeline

slide that you gave us the various six steps to get the final pointing a recommendation. can you play out beyond that for the benefit of commissioners and the public. my understanding is once you get the recommendation there may need to be state law changes to facilitate the implementation. in the fastest case scenario what timeline are we looking at once the recommendations are made and assuming they were adopted to the point? how long is the point of implementation? >> thanks for bringing that up? that is one thing i meant to say and neglected it. thank you. if the board asks us at the recommendation stage to move forward with either the

recommendation or modified version and look at next steps there would be several steps that we would need to do before we could implement the congestion pricing. that is why we are looking at this now as congestion has declined. it is now coming back. there is a long lead time here. those steps include working out a lot of specific details how the system would work. at this stage we are looking at the high level what would the policy look like. there would be a lot of work to deal with the details how implementation would play out. we would need state legislation as well. through all of those steps working out the details and a lot more outreach for input as we go through that in terms of actual user experience of the system and getting into morety

tails of each of those elements. we would look at in the three to five year timeline after we complete the study. >> thank you. >> madam executive director, anything to add? >> i believe that is fair and it all depends if we have the support of state and federal government as new york did when we were able to receive $3 million for facilities money. the conditions are important when we would be able to start and have that capacity in place on day one. i might go back to speaking to commissioner haney's question about zone residents. in london they have a zone discounts. it is 90% discount.

in stockholm they don't. in new york city the approval does not include zone discount. they are not done with their discount policy. about 75% of trips driving originate within san francisco. within that is 60% from the zone itself. within that number 25% of the down another -- 25% of downtown are tmc. that is a quarter of the zone trips. the internal trip making is a significant portion who is driving downtown during the peak. >> commissioner preston. >> i had one question but a

follow-up. i wonder on the strategy with going to the state authorizations we need. is the thinking we would have fully baked a proposal, adopted a proposal in terms of the parameters and then begin the discussion? i will just say observing the incredible heavy lift that it is to even get discretion for us to lower speed limits in san francisco, i am wondering if there will be parallel efforts like before this is fully baked will we seek discretion delegated to us locally or is the thinking these have to be sequenced where our proposal is more fully developed before we start that? >> thank you. we have had ongoing conversations with members of

the state legislature regarding authorization for a program like this, in particular senator bloom introduced a bill a couple years ago with senator weiner from the senate side to authorize up to four pilots in the state of california. la metro and city of lr are studying this concept actively. other regions have expressed interest. san diego and sacramento as well. to your point these are not easy to craft and pass at the state level. we have a general strategy in the legislative platform to pursue authority to consider the pricing. as to any specific bill that is up to you to take your guidance on that. it may not happen in the first go. we hope there is enough statewide support to introduce it and to pass it when the time

comes. it could take two years. >> thank you. any other questions or comments from members? i don't see anybody on the roster. why don't we go to public comment on this item. >> there are current lie five callers for item 7. >> first speaker, please. >> davidpel tell again. if anyone thinks i oppose everything in the world. not true. i support city-wide and targeted outreach on the pricing study. i think it has a lot of things to think about. i support the proposed funding