>> loud and clear. >> caller: okay, david pilpel again. on item 6, i was not planning to speak on this item and i'm not going to weigh in here on the substance. i wanted to note the exclusive charge language under charter section 8b.121a. and the authority, the exclusive authority or exclusive charge granted to the p.u.c. by the voters under proposition e of 2002. there is city attorney opinion number 2003-03 dated august 29, 2003 on the city attorney's website that discusses that in detail. thank you very much. 22 >> next caller. >> caller: hi, i'm co-chair of the water committee of the sierra club. i want to say that the public doesn't really know about the bay-delta plan update. they don't know about the prba. they could have presented it better. it could be presented to the public if the staff truly believes that's a good proposition. the public doesn't know what's going on here. that's everyone's fault, including the public. you need to keep working on it and you can't say that three very nicely done workshop at sfpuc meetings was ful

. >> caller: david pilpel eagain. briefly fascinating discussion in the weeds on government operations. one of my favorite topics. i wanted to thank you chair preston for sending this to committee. great discussion. thanks. >> clerk: there are no further callers in the queue. >> supervisor preston: thank you mr. clerk. seeing no further public comment, public comment is now closed. i did have one last question. i'm curious if any suppliers or contractors or anyone will be banned from utilizing this process? in connection with our earlier discussion and to the extent there are anyone under investigation or concerns being flagged through any of our other good government efforts just raises any time we're having an expedited process for something, raises that concern. is there any connection or conversation, if in theory or if it's happening in theory? >> thank you for asking that. there's actually two layers. in the case of any federal grant, we must also review the federal government's website. that's one of our routin

david pilpel again.orry, reading from the calendar on page 3 under consent calendar it still has the standard verbiage, no separate discussion unless a member of the board or public requests in which event it will be considered as a separate item. so i read that to mean considered as a separate item, including separate public comment. so if you're going to change your practice, then you need to change that verbiage. so i will speak briefly on the items that i pulled, 10.3, 10.4, 10.6 and 10.10. i understand that i should be able to have two minutes on each of those. i think i'm only going to need two minutes on item 10.10. and so i'll handle the others quickly. so 10.3 and 10.4, taking those together, my question or comment was can any of that work be performed by in-house staff? is a civil service commission or prop j. approval needed in as you have as it's maintenance work on parking meters and pay station infrastructure, which i thought was normally done by city employees. and i also noted that the 10

. >> caller: david pilpel. on item on the c.a.c. report, i did not attend the may 6, 2021 c.a.c.ng. i agree with the first seven recommendations. i have note yet got -- i have not yet gotten through the title vi equity analysis. i may have something to say on that. what i did not understand from the item that was provided to the board or the attachments to the public, it's got motions 1-3 and then 5-9. there's no motion number 4, i suppose if i had attended the meeting, i would know perhaps that motion failed. perhaps there was a misnumbering. i don't know. maybe i can get an answer to that. the first seven of the motion i support. i think they are well thought out. i appreciate c.a.c.'s continued work. i hope you'll respond positively to those. >> chair borden: thank you mr. pilpel. are there any additional commenters on the line? with that, we'll close public comment. do you have a response in terms of the numbering of the item? >> i do. thank you for that. to mr. pilpel, yes, you're correct. there was one motion that failed the adoption. i think that will be number four. to mr

next speaker please. >> caller: david pilpel. i am not laying in on slow streets it today. my only comment here on item 9 is the public utilities commission, the p.u.c., was requested by me and few other folks to either attach or link to their agendas or agenda material correspondences. i would ask, i am asking the m.t.a. board to find a way to do that as well. i understand that given the amount of correspondence, you might receive from the public and the required redaction that may be time consuming and complicated at a minimum, what roberta used to do was put together a list of the correspondence received. so there was at least like a table of contents to that stuff and that material supposed to be available to the public to review at the office on south van ness under sunshine ordinance section 65.9 and 67.23. since that's not available for the moment and it's unclear when that will be available -- because it's a good idea i ask you to find way to at least create a correspondence log that's available as part of the meeting materials and hopefully, attach or link all corr

. >> caller: this is david pilpel. the stakeholder does not generate public outreach done by m.t.a. i'm wondering what public comment has been received in support and in opposition to this proposal and where is it available to the public to read? what is the estimated parking meter revenue reduction for making sure space is permanent. staff report suggest total annual cost is about $10.6 million, how is that going to be paid for? is that at the expense of transit service and other priorities within m.t.a.? the ceqa documents, that's referenced in it staff report is nowhere on the planning department website in particular, let me try to pull that up. i can't find it. it refers to an april 2021 planning department addendum. there are several items in april on the planning department website but no specific addendum to discuss shared spaces. that is not on the planning department website. i urge you to continue this item until m.t.a. or the planning department posts the relevant ceqa document. i would ask are the new fees a revenue measure needing a budget amendment under charter secti

. >> caller: this is david pilpel. the stakeholder does not generate public outreach done by m.t.a. i'm wondering what public comment has been received in support and in opposition to this proposal and where is it available to the public to read? what is the estimated parking meter revenue reduction for making sure space is permanent. staff report suggest total annual cost is about $10.6 million, how is that going to be paid for? is that at the expense of transit service and other priorities within m.t.a.? the ceqa documents, that's referenced in it staff report is nowhere on the planning department website in particular, let me try to pull that up. i can't find it. it refers to an april 2021 planning department addendum. there are several items in april on the planning department website but no specific addendum to discuss shared spaces. that is not on the planning department website. i urge you to continue this item until m.t.a. or the planning department posts the relevant ceqa document. i would ask are the new fees a revenue measure needing a budget amendment under charter secti