Skip to main content

tv   BOS Rules Committee 72315  SFGTV  July 30, 2015 6:00pm-9:01pm PDT

6:00 pm
>> good morning and welcome to actually the very first subcommittee of the transportation authority for timma, the treasure island mobility management agency for today, thursday, july 30th. my name is jane kim, i'm chairing this committee. i'm joined by committee members, supervisor christensen, who serves as vice-chair, and supervisor wiener. mr. clerk, may we take roll call, please. >> roll call, commissioner christensen. >> here. >> commissioner kim? >> here. >> kim, present
6:01 pm
>> commissioner wiener. >> present. >> wiener present and we have a quorum. >> i want to recognize sfgovtv that make pos all of our meetings available online, as well as a transcript >> please call item no. 2. >> progress update on the treasure island transportation implementation plan information item. >> this is our only item of substance. it's an information item and we have some residents here from the island as well, who will be speaking at public comment. thank you. >> good morning, rachel hyatt, principal transportation planner. i have an update on the transportation planning for the island, and please do ask me clarifying questions as we go along. the transportation planning work for the redevelopment of yerba buena and treasure island
6:02 pm
has been going on for over ten years now. the first transportation plan was adopted in 2006 as part of the development te sheet between the master developer and set out the needs for treasure island and yerba buena and some strategis to meet the transportation needs as the island is developed. the transportation management act, california state assembly bill 981 was adopted in 2008, which authorized the program and most recently the development agreement adopted in 2011, included the latest version of the treasure island transportation implementation plan, which echoed the goals and strategies that were authorized in ab 981. we started our work following
6:03 pm
the development the treasure island mobility management agency and we have been working in partnership with them to craft a plan for implementing the strategies that were called for in the development agreement and the ceqa work. the key challenges to improving treasure island transportation are mainly three-fold and these have been recognized since the start of the planning. first is how to minimize new congestion on the bay bridge? when the island grows to 20,000 residents, managing the effective potential new tract on the bridge was seen as a key challenge. then in addition, how to provide new transit services? serving the island and provide a level of transit service that will really provide a feasible option for people to get on and off the island, both to and
6:04 pm
from san francisco and the east bay and how to pay for that new transit, particularly the ac and ferry service. there needs to be a dedicated, but committed source of operating funds. the original 2006 plan, the 2008 assembly bill and the 2011 titip identified these four key goals with corresponding strategis to address those three challenges. the first is the design of the development itself. the vision is for real complete neighborhood on treasure island. right now folks don't have sort of grocery options, for instance, on the island. but to be -- well, the vision for when treasure island is redeveloped is to have all of these services that a san francisco neighborhood has, and
6:05 pm
a street network that is complete. so complete network of sidewalks. all of the new homes will be 15-minute walking distance from a transportation hub, where the regional transit services and the local-island serving shuttle services will meet. high-quality transit on and off the island. the commitment is to provide new regional transit services between san francisco and the east bay, using ac transit direct between treasure island and downtown oakland. a ferry service supplementing muni between san francisco's ferry terminal and treasure island and transportation service. minimizing traffic impacts from the development. there is a number of strategies incorporated in the plan.
6:06 pm
there is a parking maximum of 8,000 parking spaces, residential parking spaces. all of the parking will be managed by price. and the costs of parking will be unbundled from the lease or purchase of homes. so people who want to live on the island without owning a car will not have to pay for that cost as part of their renter, or mortgage payments. and finally a congestion toll on and off the island to encourage folks who are driving on and off to do so during off-peak times, and then finally to be an anti-transit and finally to provide a revenue source, combined with the transit pass purchases and parking fees to fund the regional transit operations. this map depicts the transit that services that are planned.
6:07 pm
the new transit service between the east bay and treasure island, the ferry service between the ferry terminal and the island, and new muni service. the level that is called here is really excellent-level of transit service. it's many times more than what treasure island is served by today, and it is the level that san francisco is most transit-accessible neighborhoods enjoy. and so that is the commitment to provide that level of transit service to make this system work. where we have started is by looking at what it would take to enable this program to be successful over the long-run. so as build-out, after all of new residents are on the island, 2030, what sort of policies do we expect that need to be in place to ensure that
6:08 pm
the program meets its transportation goals and its revenue goals? we need to achieve a 50% transit mode share for trips on and off the island and we need to make sure that the costs are covered, particularly the costs of the new regional transit. so with the work that we're presenting today is our sense of what it will take to make sure that the program is successful. then going forward, there is a number of other areas that we need to work on next. they include how the program is phased in? so development will be phased in through at least 2030. how do we approach that? how do we phase-in in the various pieces the program, aligning the need for toll revenue and parking revenue with the need for new transit service and making sure that is scaled to the new needs of new residents as they come in. designing other benefits, such as the transit pass. all households in the
6:09 pm
market-rate units will be required to purchase a transit pass monthly as part of their homeowner dues, as part of think their rent. we can design a number of benefits into that and that is something that we want to work on over the next few years. working with bay bridge toll policy and i will talk about that in the presentation, another next step making sure that the bay bridge policy and treasure island policy are compatible. we have been doing outreach. we did one round of outreach last fall, mainly using a survey to try to get the word out about who we are, and let people know that we are here and raise awareness of the project. we reached about 15% of the residents, pretty good response rate for outreach survey.
6:10 pm
we are really in[tk-ebts/]ed to indebted to some of the housing partners on treasure island, who helped to offer and distribute the survey for us. it is still online, if folks watching are interested in taking it at some of the things that we have learned from that that there is a great deal of interest in improved transit, particularly east bay transit and ferry transit. at the same time, there is concern and frustrations with traffic issues. so there is a much higher rate of auto ownership on treasure island and yerba buena today than in san francisco on average; which reflects the fact that in part that it's hard to live on treasure island today without a car. it's not a complete neighborhood. there is not a high-level of
6:11 pm
transit service. frustrations or concerns around driving include congestion, costs of owning and maintaining a car, and finding parking. on the question -- well, so something that we observed there is that higher-rate of auto ownership on treasure island. and folks on treasure island today spend higher share of their income on transportation than the average san franciscan. and we do think those two things are related; the higher auto ownership and the higher spending, or expenses on transportation. we do know that in california, low-income households, who rely on driving are auto-dependent end up spending a lot more of their income on transportation than households that are able to use transit as their primary mode of transportation.
6:12 pm
we see one of the best, most effective ways to support a ffordability on treasure island and yerba buena island is to support the ability for households to choose not to own a car, to car-shed a second car or use car-share for their vehicle access. that would be a change from how it is today, there is no car-sharing on treasure island today. this table shows the policies that we think are what it will take to make the program successful over the long-run. and what we recommend is a toll program that has a broad-base, but low toll-level. we expect that before ferry service begins, there will be a period of time as development is being phased-in, where there is not a demand for ferry. and so the need for revenue is to support the on-island, the shuttle services, and the ac
6:13 pm
transit, the east bay service. at that point, the level of revenue that we would need is about a $3 peak-period toll and something lower off-peak such as $1 each direction. we recommend that this toll be in place when there is a core- during transit core hours of operation. when there is a transit option available. we want to credit folks driving from the east bay on to treasure island for what they have already paid at the bay bridge toll plaza and those drivers would not pay twice. shuttles, transit, vanpools would be exempt. and we also recommend a discount program for low-income households on the island. we want to craft or we sought out to craft a program that we could extend to all households in the low-market rate units or
6:14 pm
who qualify for below-market rate units and this would support travelers who are low-income regardless of what mode they are taking. these graphs illustrate the toll-level. in this case the toll-level that we think we will need in the early years of the program, before ferry service begins. the blue line shows congestion-levels on the bay bridge during week days. the orange bar shows toll-level that we think will raise sufficient revenue, and also encourage folks to drive during off-peak periods. when ferry service begins, there is still a lot of work that we are doing with the ferry operators and potential ferry providers to right-size the ferry service. but our best estimate at this time of what it will take is about a $5 peak period toll and something lower off-peak. some of the toll policies more
6:15 pm
closely related to meeting that 50% transit mode-share requirement over the long-run. for instance, our recommendation that there be a broad-base period to the toll, but lower toll-level helps achieve that, especially linking the need for the revenue -- the temporal need for the revenue for the period that transit options are available. and also recommending no exemptions, for instance, for cleaner vehicles. other parts of this policy are more closely related to raising enough revenue to pay for the transit services. something i want to point out is recommendation for how the board could adjust the toll-level annually in realtime based on changing needs. we would recommend a toll-level
6:16 pm
adjustment policy, actually mirrored on mta's policy for adjusting muni's fares so a function of inflation, but also transit costs. let me talk a little bit more about our proposal around transportation affordability. we have looked at a couple of options. one option we considered and analyzed is the idea of a toll discount. this would be, for instance, for example, a 50% discount on the toll. we could extend this discount to households that qualify for muni lifeline pass, about 16%, 15% of the likely population of treasure island. we're not able to find a discount -- that particular approach to a discount would not be feasible for all of the households in the below-market
6:17 pm
rate units, which will ultimately be about a quarter of the population on treasure island. we wouldn't be able to achieve the mode-share target, or the revenue demands. we wouldn't be able to afford the level of transit service under that scenario. something that we recommends an alternative, is a multi-modal or transit discount program; that we would recommend extend to any household in the below-market rate units. the kinds of benefits that we would offer in this type of program include transit-pass benefits, not just for -- well, providing a transit pass for the households in below-market rate units. the households in market-rate units will be required to purchase a monthly transit
6:18 pm
pass, but something that we want to make sure that we do is households in below market rate units have access to a monthly pass, as well as equivalent of lifeline fares on operators who don't currently offer that, ac transit and wheata. we would recommend a program where for transit trips taken by these households, toll credit as crew. this is models on a program that exists in los angeles. their rewards program on l.a. metro's express lanes and the way this would work is like a sandwich card, essentially. for each trip taken on transit, credits towards a toll payment accrue. other benefits we heard are interesting are bike share and we heard interest in the ability to use bike-share on the island and we are committed to providing bike-share on the island.
6:19 pm
reducing some barriers to use of transportation technology, such as for folks who don't have a credit card, or who don't have a bank account and providing that account and even starting off folks' accounts with a starting balance and discounts on things like car-share. which will be a new service on the island as it develops and we would like to help increase access to. we do recommend the multi- modal discount approach. it would provide incentives that are aligned with the overall goals of the transportation program, and would help support the meeting of that transit goal, the mode -share goal. and the vision for treasure island as one of san francisco's transit-accessible
6:20 pm
neighborhoods. we also do think it's truly the most effective way to support affordability. that the burden of owning and operating, maintaining a vehicle is a true cost burden on low-income households and to be able to achieve context where folks can choose to shed one or more of their cars. it's really an effective way to reduce the need for transportation spending. ultimately we project that with a transit discount approach, households will end up spending less on transportation, even then with a toll discount approach. it's because of those costs associated with owning and operating a car. this picture shows the financial overall profile of the program at build-out year. so in 2030, this is what we
6:21 pm
project would be the financial profile of the program. about a $55 million annual cost, and this is the cost associated with providing that very high, and very significant-level of transit service. the transit costs, the regional transit operating is the revenue need for the program. that is the cost. and then the main revenue source is from the toll. there are two other revenue sources or at least two. the transit pass purchases and parking fees. and we also expect to be able to obtain grant-funding, which will help offset the costs of -- the capital costs of the program. this picture focuses on the operating costs.
6:22 pm
we're doing outreach now this summer and will continue outreach through the rest of the summer, through september. we have done some focus groups with different folks on the island. so that some of the housing providers, organized focus groups for us. we had one with businesses on the island. the housing providers have been very helpful in linking us up with opportunities such as tabling the food pantry that is there. we plan to go back and have another community meeting in addition, to the one we participated in in july. this summer, with additional outreach in spanish and chinese and more business outreach. based on the feedback that be get from outreach and your feedback today, we want to consider refinements to this proposal, and bring back a next iteration of the program this fall. ultimately the schedule that
6:23 pm
we're working with is to have the program operational when the first units are available for occupancy in 2019. so working back from that, we're hoping to have some more clarity on the policy parameters of the program. so we can start designing it and working with bata and clipper to set up the systems to enable the transit pass and any sort of discount program, develop agreements and have -- be able to start raising revenue and providing all of that new service in 2019. thank you, and i look forward to your feedback and questions. >> any questions from commissioners? i just want to appreciate all of the work and thought that went in this. i think one of the most exciting things is that this is in many ways a laboratory for us to really try out and think about a lot of different creative ideas around
6:24 pm
congestion management, which is, i think, increasing on the minds of many san franciscans, notice not just those on treasure island and i also appreciate all of the different ideas and thoughts that went into particularly for our existing low-income, and middle-income residents on treasure island. ensuring that we aren't impinging on their current incomes in order to get on and off the island. because currently there aren't very many ways. it's really muni or car. those are really the two ways to get on and off the island. it's great to see how high muni usage is amongst residents. we have a lot more that we can do there and certainly i'm excited about the ferry. many of these other options, along with bike-share and car-share. i know there are a number of concerns from residents that are already there right now and have been offered housing through what was previously the redevelopment area plan. you know, have had
6:25 pm
conversations with the transportation authority, in terms of what are some ways of them being grandfathered in the program? and others? and i know they will come and speak in public comment regarding that. but i do think there are a lot of really great menus of options that we're looking at and i'm really excited about seeing some of these actually occur. the one question that i had and it doesn't have to be addressed today. i think my thinking of the toll policy was going to be more of a five-day a week program and seeing it's seven-days a week. i'm curious whether -- certainly for special events, i think it makes sense, when there are festivals and 4th of july and it's actually very hard to get on and off the island on those day and it's mainly tour ists coming in. are there ways to make weekends more flexibility? so if there isn't a lot of on and off, there won't be tolling going on saturday and sunday? >> yes. the reason that we recommended
6:26 pm
some portion of the weekend is because we do see congestion on the weekends certainly on the bridge so we started off with a recommendation that there be a toll in place when there is congestion on the bridge. and then to help sort of reduce the overall-level of the toll by spreading the base of the toll. we subsequently recommend that during the week the toll be in place when transit has its core hours of operation. >> right. >> would -- i would recommend that the hours of operation of the toll be different on the weekends than during the week, because the travel patterns are different and transit levels are different and there are different periods of congestion. so perhaps what we come back with is the principle of toll hours of operation being distinguished during the
6:27 pm
week, and the weekends. so they would be different. and that they would be based on congestion-level and transit availability, and need to be refined to be very closely linked to those two. >> when you say -- sorry, congest on the bridge, are you saying general congestion on the bridge or actual cars going on and off from treasure island to the bridge? because i think it would be unfair to penalize the residents because of the east bay traffic to san francisco, versus treasure island residents getting on the bridge. >> it should be linked to congest-levels on the bridge itself and not for instance at the toll plaza. >> so you are saying you are going to put a toll on treasure island residents leaving their home on the weekends to come into the city that they are part of, because a lot of east bay residents or other folks are on the bay bridge already? >> it would also -- and then the weekends it would likely be visitors coming to treasure
6:28 pm
island, driving to treasure island. >> i think that is problematic. i understand if it was a sensitivity for who was going on and off the ramps, you know? the on and off-ramps, on and off treasure island, but i don't think it should be based on the number of people on the bay bridge period. >> okay:we'll give this some more thought. >> yes. i also think does it mean there will always be a cost to get on and off the bridge seven days a week? so even at its lowest point, maybe $1 and highest point $5. is there ever going to be a anytime there is no cost at all because there is very little traffic? >> yes, overnight, during the evenings, there would not be a toll. >> i would not support that. i could not support that. i'm sorry, we'll have time for public comment. so there will be a time for members of the public. i cannot support a toll from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. i think that is crazy, i'm
6:29 pm
sorry. i think that it's okay during rush hour to encourage people to drive at different times. and certainly when we are seeing a lot of traffic on and off the ramps on treasure island. but there has to be time periods when there isn't congestion that we aren't charging our own residents to get to the city that they are a part of. i think it's really, really problematic. i do want to encourage of course, people to bike and take ferry, but we're not imposing that same kind of impossession imposition on residents in our city. so i think we need to rethink that. thank you. commissioner wiener. >> thank you. first of all, in terms of covering costs because the tolling was a pretty key component of the approval of the treasure island project when the board of supervisors
6:30 pm
approved it. and so of course we can always talk about some of the sort of precise details of the tolling and we want to be fair and equitable to everyone, but i think we also need to make sure that we are not deviating from some of the numbers that were underlying the approval of the project and the tolling was a part of that. so if we're going to be exploring different options i think that has to be part of the conversation. there are trade-offs to everything. i guess my question is in terms of the costs that are going to be incurred, how does the tolling link up with that? because if you end up having shortfalls, then it has to be covered from somewhere. and so i'm curious to know -- i know there was a slide on that, but if you could in plain english talk about that, i would appreciate that. >> sure. the purpose of having the toll is to raise the revenue for the regional transit operations. so one first obvious place is
6:31 pm
to look whether the level of transit service called for is needed or desired? then there is grant sources will help us with capital costs, and we do expect and intend to obtain grant-funding for capital costs, but it's really having a permanent, committed source of operating funding that is our challenge. >> for what? >> for the transit, operating funding for the ferry and the ac transit service. >> right. and so if there isn't -- if we reduce toll revenue, then where does that money come from for that to make sure that we have strong ferry service, that we're paying for ac transit service and so forth? where does the money come from? >> we need to identify another funding source. >> so it comes from other transit projects or vision zero? it would be transportation authority funding? where would the money come from
6:32 pm
if we had a shortfall because of a reduction in tolls? >> good morning, executive director. excuse me, commissioner wiener, we would have to analyze the options. to reduce the level of transit service. we could look at generating more funds from the other two major sources, which would be parking or perhaps other private sources, but for example, at this point on slide 25, the toll revenues are the majority of the lion's share of the funding for the operation. at that point we just have to make a decision about whether we would be able to offer the level of service or lean on other services, whether parking fees, user fees or transit pass purchases. >> and we're talking about what is it 8,000 housing units being built? >> correct, 20,000 residents eventually. another option would be that costs of services could go down
6:33 pm
over time and that allows to us monitor and right-size the service. >> and remind me how many housing unitss are currently on treasure island today? >> about 2,000. >> so from 2,000 to 8,000. >> correct. >> and so i think that -- [ inaudible ] >> excuse me, it's 2,000 residents? >> so about a thousand units. >> about 700. >> the director of tihda is here. >> going from 700 housing unitss to 8,000 and i want to make sure that we're not making long-term decisions for 8,000 based on 700 residents today. it's one thing if we want to give special consideration to existing residents which i think is a conversation worth having, people who have lived on the island and have set up their lives in a certain way. and so sort of approach to providing support for those residents as we transition.
6:34 pm
but to start talking about significant toll changes on which this plan was based for the future 20,000 residents of this island, who when moving on to the island will now what the rules are, unlike the current residents who moved on under a different regime. i would have a potential issue with that. the last thing we want to do is take money that would be used to ensure the ferry -- i said this when we approved treasure island that we need a blood oath that the ferry system would be consistently good and reliable and to me, even though a lot of people will take buses the ferry will be the most efficient and easiest way for people to get into the city. and so i just want to be very careful and not be -- i don't want to dismiss -- i guess i have a different perspective
6:35 pm
than commissioner kim on that. you know, i know there is a pretty significant range of on-peak and off-peak pricing. the other piece of this is that he isly especially talking about 20,000 residents and the more those residents who have cars and driving regularly, that puts a lot of cars on to the bay bridge. and that is pressure and congestion on the bay bridge, and i know that we're in discussions with the mtc and we don't necessarily have agreement. the mtc want a cut of the tolls because we're using the mtc's bridge. it's not unreasonable that they would ask for a portion of that. i think that they would like our tolls to be higher than they are from the conversations that i have heard. because they view it as it's going to start putting a lot more cars on to the bay bridge. so i want to make sure as
6:36 pm
we're making decisions and modeling around the tolls that we're taking the big-picture into account. that, to me, is very, very important. >> thank you. i do want to -- while i'm here at the mic to recognize our partners, bob beck is the director of tihda and we appreciate his longstanding leadership and partnership on the project and mtc and bata and caltrans with the bay bridge and the future ramp operations and the metering. we really have been working very well and continue to collaborate with muni and the parking and transit start with ac transit. thank you. >> >> commissioner christensen? >> i think my colleagues covered most of my questions. i just wondered a small thing. to what extent is non-residential traffic being considered? entertainment? hotels?
6:37 pm
restaurants? gatherings of any kind? i know in district 3 transit is planned 9-5, monday-friday basis, but we have fisherman's wharf and is it possible to predict at this stage what the other uses might be and what they might require? >> we know what some of the uses will be. and there are planned to be uses on the island that will generate recreational visitor trips, hotel, convention centers and there will be destinations on the island like an urban garden and bikeways on the island that we do think will generate a lot of visitor interest and visitor trips. we do need to have the transit services that support the visitor trips, as well as the residential trips. we expect resident trips will be the majority of travel. but we do also expect visitor
6:38 pm
trip-making. and especially to take advantage of the bike paths, and open space that will be there. the tihda board members have given us feedback that certainly supporting the ability for folks to take their bikes on the ferry over from san francisco to the island, to enjoy the open space is something that we should consider and account for, plan for. >> at this time, why don't we open up public comment. good morning, becky, current resident and i have to say that the plan came from a long way
6:39 pm
from where it started. originally it was just going to be the residents that had to pay the pricing and everything. so they have moved from that and we do appreciate that, but as supervisor kim said, when there is only a small percentage of time that we won't have to pay to get on and off the island, it's very frustrating. one of the things that the current residents have said that they would like to be grandfathered in. that came up at our last community meeting which was the biggest attended community meeting in a long time because it was around the transit and congestion pricing. so there is concern by the current residents that we're going to be the ones that have to pay for everything. as supervisor wiener said, a lot of us have been out there for a long time and lived one way. and why should we be the ones that have to pay for everything? like this weekend, there is a
6:40 pm
major event, the gaelic football national thing and something next door was saying this is a perfect time when they should be paying for some of the transportation stuff. so they have moved from just residents paying for it, but the only problem also is that they are only looking at low-income people getting a break. there are some households that won't be low-income, that are low-income. i mean, i live in a household where three people are all retired. but we're in a market-rate unit. so somehow that has to be looked at also. i look forward to keep working -- they have heard it from me and it was nice that they heard it from other residents finally, too. thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public?
6:41 pm
seeing no further -- oh, if you would like to speak, please just stand up and line up. >> i'm going to try to speak quickly because i usually get cut off at 2 minutes. good morning commissioners and thank you for hearing my comments. my name is jeff klein, 16-year resident on treasure island. this toll proposal to looked at the treasure island transportation implementation plan and i must voice strong objection to the authoritarian and punitive approach of the entire transportation demand program proposed in the titip. most of us because it's based on market scarcity mechanisms, whether that sarsity is pre-existing or create order imposed by tiida, timma or the project. this approach seems to be all stick and no carrot and may be
6:42 pm
a better fit for singapore than san francisco. it will effect in create an exclusive, electronically gated-community to serve as proof of concept for a distopain future and one that continually transferles on our constitutional rights. i'm opposed to the tolling proposal because it's not equitable in regards to equal treatment or accountability. the program raises serious privacy concerns that could delay implementation with expensive litigation. the privacy -related issues have yet to be addressed. according to ceqa findings, california environment quality act findings in the environmental impact report in 2011, even if the entire package of proposed transportation impact mitigation measures were implemented and you didn't approve it, by the way. it will not reduce congestion
6:43 pm
to tolerable levels. those are the ceqa findings. it's wrong to limit public use of public good s such as roads and bridges. for example, the toll is unduly punitive for existing tiresidents, and according to the timma survey, they have shifted to 60% riding muni. while the toll proposal epts lower household rates for hypothetical population of tiresidents in aggregate, it ignores the fact for the numerous low-income residents who need to drive, actual transportation expenses will rise sharply and will continue to rise creating a disproportionate economic hardship. i have two more pages -- i cut it down to two pages. i have a 7-page letter. you will get it. >> what i would suggest that you give us a copy of that and all the members will have it. >> i will be consulting with
6:44 pm
privacy -- legal experts and constitutional law experts as well on this issue >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so you can either email that to us or give us the hard copy. is there any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [ gavel ] . mr. clerk, can you please call item no. 3. >> item 3, introduction of new items, this is an information item. >> are there any new items for commissioners to introduce? seeing none, can we move on to item no. 4. >> item 4, public comment. >> so item no. 4 is general public comment. if you would like to speak, please do come up. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ] we'll re-open public comment. there is really no order. just come on up.
6:45 pm
>> we only have two minutes? >> yes. >> my name is bety mackey and i'm a resident of yerba buena island. the timma current plan for charging tolls to the residents is an extremely burdensome -- well, it's a big burden to all of the residents there. and it's unfair because we were not made aware as a community of the survey that was released in the fall of 2014. when i found out about it in 2015 and was in contact with rachel hyatt at timma, she generously offered to open the survey up to yb residents. this is another typical example of how my community is left out of all of the decision-making that goes on with any of the future planning with yb and ti. so i want to make you aware
6:46 pm
our community is a generous mix of people. we have guys out there who drive work vans and they are in those vans alone and their job is installing home security and other types of systems. they work super early in the morning to very late at night and often cannot make these meetings, even when they are held in the evening. so the interest in skipping us in the vary were never served. plus we have large families with children that go to multiple school and need cars to take them here. i myself work from home and although i love taking muni and public transportation, it's not always an option. if i have is to see a client in the south bay or sacramento, why should i be burdened with having to pay a toll to leaving home? so i'm asking you to please consider that the survey was incomplete, and that it's going to be a heavy burden on the middle-class group, who if they continue to live out here,
6:47 pm
we have been consistently overlooked. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other members? >> may i? it's a different option. >> that is fine. this is general public comment. >> right. well, just want to say the last point i wanted to make on congestion toll, it's economically perverse. you asked about pricing. if it's successful this reducing driving on the bay bridge by residents, then revenue will go down. since the toll is based on nixed or actually increasing revenue goal, the toll must go up. worsening the disproportionate impact on residents. the estimates of the program and net overhead revenue will optimist and will be the first
6:48 pm
federal highway administration-approved congestion pricing project that generates surplus revenue without first adding more capacity. the original 2011 tiida plan was to provide residents to use ramps from 6-9 a.m., 4- 7 p.m., six days a week, 30 toll hours a week to create a disincentives for residents to use their cars for "commute trips." now the resident toll proposal is expanded from 7-10 a.m. and 1 12 toll hours a week and reducing driving for commute trips, since currently proposed hours of tolling are increased by 373% and all the extra hours of tolls are during non-commute periods. this seems to be the plan to punish those work and working-class drivers and
6:49 pm
disincentive or barrier to continue living on treasure island. it yielded a net social benefit of minus $11 million. if it meets the optimistic projects, only 10% of the budget will be generated. the experience with pricing projects have shown that most of the reductions in congestion and pollution tend to disappear after a few years and in the long run the laudable goal of reducing greenhouse gas may amount to only green washing for ill-conceived generating scheme. >> thank you, mr. klein. >> is there any other members of the public that would like to comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. >> mr. clerk, any other items? >> item 5 is adjournment. >> meeting adjourned, thank you everyone good morning today
6:50 pm
6:51 pm
6:52 pm
6:53 pm
6:54 pm
6:55 pm
6:56 pm
6:57 pm
6:58 pm
6:59 pm
7:00 pm
23, 2015. welcome to rules committee of san francisco board of supervisors. my name is john avalos joined byicatey tang and to my left by mu lia cohen. the clerk is [inaudible] todays rules committee is graud cast by sfgtv staff. thank you for your service. madam clerk can you share your announcements
7:01 pm
>> please silence cell phone squz electroning devices. complete speaker cards [inaudible] will be on sept 8. >> okay. very good thank you madam clerk if you can-please call item 1 >> item 1 is hearing to consider finding one maybe [inaudible] children youth and families over site and advisory committee. there is one saet and 7 applicants. >> great, 1 seat 7 applicants. we look at this as a challenging exercise how we find one qualified candidate out of several qualified can dts for one seat but we'll do our best. we had a number of people who presented before and may be here. why don't we go down the list. first up is molly words. if each candidate
7:02 pm
wants to share a couple minutes of their interest in the seat and what they would like to accomplish on the seat. >> my name is molly [inaudible] and i am a person who grewp in san francisco and currently live in san francisco and the executive director of a organization called, raising a reader, which operates in the 3 county san francisco alameda and con trucasta county. i'm thrilled the childcare planning and advisory counsel put forward my name to serve on the over site and advisory cancel for children and youth programs. i have years of experience in education, in youth development, youth workforce development and building community coalition arounds youth outcome. i worked at united way for several years managing children and youth programs and making
7:03 pm
grants to organizations in the bay area and for the last several years have been the foundsing exectival director of raising a reader in the bay area. my experience spans in working with children and youth in their families from birth now through young adulthood. i also have experience working on collaboration and capacity building for organizations and knroe the roll of the oversight and advisory committee is not just about manpageing the resources of the department of children youth and families i making sure those are spents on the most pressing needs fl youth in san francisco, but that also that that committee works with the service provider working group, which i think is a critical part of the legislation in which i'm really excited about. in my experience you need the whole community to work together to keep an eye on the current
7:04 pm
needs so i'm proud to serve isthis capacity. >> thank you and thank you for your work with raising a reader, great organization. i have done in the past a little work with them but most of all with having 2 kids reading is like one of the big est thijs we do as a family. it is amazing how it helped with my kids development in so many ways so thank you for your work on that. no other questions from the committee we can go to the next applicant, thank you. >> thank you >> patricia seeingal. she was here and presented before. gretchen aims. gretchen. >> good morning. hello again. i spoke last time about my qualifications. just want to
7:05 pm
say i respect whatever decision you make, i know it is a difficult decision, there are lot of applicants. i'm interested in serving on the commit a because early childhood is a little underrepresented [inaudible] and not as much of a priority area financially yet that is where the children start. knroe there a lot of us here to compete for this one position, i'm happy with the choice you make but one thing that may set me aside is i'm a passionate advocate for children and youth having worked with youth and teacher squz families director. i bring a great deal of sus temiccology and studying to get my doctorate at mills call squj teaching at san francisco straight state. there are
7:06 pm
teachers in my classroom at state and one thing i'm hopeful about if i were seated on the position or the committee is i could use my civic participation to model for my students at state and show how government is working and use that as a learning tuntd as well. i know authority candidates are qualified but that is something that is maybe a little different about me. >> thank you very much. okay, next up i think tracey brown is not going be here today. let rr go on to luis [inaudible] >> good morning supervisors. good morning supervisor kate tang and john avalos. what i bring to had table is awareness of [inaudible] today in most of
7:07 pm
the communities many youth and children families are it was a challenge to back3 4 f1 to the community my fathers was
7:08 pm
modered. i was thankful to receive the [inaudible] in the past i helped me become the man who i am today, completing the masters degree at the university of san francisco. my undergrad is child psychology understanding the impact of program youth and violence. i think it is a important topic to be addressed is that voice or those victims of crime is not somehow not being brought to the committee. it is something that needs a lot of awareness and education. i also want to talk about the residency waver that i see on the agenda. i didn't leave san francisco by choice. i'm ainate native san franciscan and born and raised in san francisco, unfochinately i can't live in san francisco. we see that a lotf w xhern and youth and families having to migrate to other counties because they can't afford to live in san francisco. that
7:09 pm
impacts the youth and the way they identify themselves. are they seen as san franciscans or are there waver forms they have to go through to feel like they raback home. i commute every day to san francisco for hour. [inaudible] i invest time in san francisco by attending the university and schools and work for the district attorneys office. if given the opportunity i'll work hard i be a strong voice for those victims of vimes as i see myself as a survivor, >> what neighborhoods have you lived in san francisco? >> i grew up in the mission and hung out at park and rec on [inaudible] they used to have a
7:10 pm
boxing club. my son hangs out at the youth program. at one point i would catch the 54 and 9 to bay view and come back to the mission district. grew up on army street, but hung out at [inaudible] my focus has never been on the specific district. i worked at the boys and girls club at [inaudible] i worked there for 5 years. the kids come down to escape the violence. i'm fochinate and interview these young mens who are victimoffs crime not becoming pertrairts of crime so i see both asspects. i'm a conflict mediator and [inaudible] victims offender dialogue so see if we can find [inaudible] between those 2
7:11 pm
communities. >> thank you. next up, andy tang. >> [inaudible] supervisors . thank you for this honor to present in front of you for the seat for the dcyf over site and advisory committee. as someone who has spent 21 years in the [inaudible] complex, i know the first hand of the detrimental pipeline from the immigration to the school to the prison and deportation pipeline. i expand [inaudible] but what i found myself is that when i got my education. when i was able to learn how to read and write and got my ged and college degree in prison it created a opportunity for me to accept the
7:12 pm
responsibility fl my action squz have remorse for my victims and the harm i committed to family and victims. as a rument i decided to dedicate my life to serve as youth children z families so they don't have to fall in the same steps or fall through the cracks like i did as a immigrant to the country. since 2007 i have been worked in community youth center of san francisco starting as [inaudible] and a case manager. now, i am a project director for community youth center and luckily i move forward for the [inaudible] throughout the years i have been working in the city of san francisco. i serve the most vulnerable population not only for the asian population but for all population in the city of san francisco dealing with violence
7:13 pm
prevention i street outreach and dealing with services for the perpetrator as well as the victim. i gonet how many times i went to general hospital to help victims identify bodies or how many funerals for the african americans shot down due to thoracism we still experience today. i don't know how many times i talk to the families and parents who lost the son squz daughters and they are crying for a systematic change. dcys is a organization that is the leading for efront to help support the children youth and families to insure everyone in san francisco to be able to provide the necessary services they need and continue of service that they need. so, as someone who has come up as a immigrants all the way to right now to dedicate my life to service of youth y have the
7:14 pm
experience and ecperatize to be able to be on this committee and the reez is because i'm a visionary. i have the vision of creating a branch office in the bay view hunters point because of the lack of services to the [inaudible] and also there is tension between african american and asian communities so as a result i want to create a program to promote racial harmony by creating multiyouth leadership programs and second, work with partners on the grass root level and community based organization of law enforcement to create the culture programs to celebrate culture as a means to celebrate culture. i created [inaudible] to allow residence to learn about everyones cultures and identity so they can live next to each other. i also created the bay view youth summit. for the last 4 years the young people
7:15 pm
have youth driven [inaudible] to talk about issues that directly impacted them. i created the api [inaudible] in the city of san francisco where api organizations be able to engage childrens and families to come together and talk about cultural comitant needs and challenges they experience qu the main stream media doesn't know or main street population don't know. out of the 58 thousand people in the city of san francisco, 45 percent of the asian population are in the ucsf school district and 33 percent are participants in the dcyf budget so we see we have to have representation from the asian population to be able to provide that cultural [inaudible] to continue to support the vision of dcyf. if i get appointed i would bring 3
7:16 pm
thing tooz the committee, number 1, you have unwavering commitment to be able to work with people to insure there is a continuous service. number 2, i bring my experience as someone as a immigrant all the way to a service provider to be able to engage not only the api population but all communities in the city of san francisco. number flee, the relationship i built over the years is something that you cannot just ask anyone to come to the city of san francisco, you cannot just build that in a year or 2, but what is importance is i have frust from the community and demonstrate myself. i think i am a qualified candidate for the position. i think that were thorough and appreciate your service in san francisco and think you have
7:17 pm
great things to bring to the body as do all the other applicants here. next up is ingred [inaudible] >> good morning supervisors. my name is ingred [inaudible] and i'm here to give background as to why i want to be on the dcyf oversight and advisory committee and know you have a hard choice this morning because you have talented and qualified can dts for this one seat. people like molly [inaudible] who works tirelessly on raising a reader. i respect the fact that you have a tough choice, but i give you a little background, i live in the outer mission and i currently oversee pr scol for all at first 5 san francisco. first i could be considered a
7:18 pm
native of san francisco. i was born in elsal vudor and came to the country when i was 3. i attended pr school in the mission along with my parents who actually had esl classes in [inaudible] community center. 2 decades later i came back and directed the same preschool program i attended, head start program and yfs able to gain so much knowledge and experience working in back in my community and this is where i believe i had a epuffany of working with children and families, especially immigrant families and being laser focused on racial justice. the first in the nation funded by local funds and so now 10 years later
7:19 pm
the preschool initiative serves over 4 thousand children impt i am a key architect for the city [inaudible] as well as the states qualityerating and improvement system. like many can dts here i'm also a fearless champion for children, but spingely for children of color and immigrant children because these are the vulnerable populations we know they have least access to high quality early learning experiences mpt i'm also a clab rairth. i believe in collective impact and think this sth way of the fuch squr the only way we can get our best thinking, a collective thinking to tackle societies difficult challenges. this is the only way how we can create the most impact around our fundsing decisions and our policies. i always looked for partnerships especially in communities where we know we
7:20 pm
would have the most impact and that is communities of color. to attest to that, every head start program and every state pr school program participates in proschool for all which is a testament that the vulnerable and low income children are participating in learning programs. when i started at first 5 we had a low percentage of preschool children among african american and latino and now we have 80 percent attending high quality preschool and being laser focused on the most vulnerable population is how we advance mptd these are a few examples why my commitment and my passion towards this work and anything i do i do it heart and i know i can bring unique contsbution tooz the committee. i'm committed to our children. i want every child especially
7:21 pm
those most in need to have access to high quality experiences beginning at birth and now with prop c going all the way through age 24, which is wonderful in terms of providing wrap around service. this work is personal to me. i grew up in the mission and live in the outer mission and have 2 full grown daughters. they are wonderful and talented but i was also a single parent and they are these amazing [inaudible] that i'm very proud of. now i have 2 incredible grand daughters i'm proud of. i know i can lend this perspective and experience and able to contribute to the oversight committee. this is the voice that i would lend to the group, so thank you. >> thank you very much. so, there are no other applicants for the seat so we can open the
7:22 pm
up to public comment. >> [inaudible] >> hi, i'm sandy blackman and the executive director of childrens counsel and the chair of c pack in 2015 and so i'm here to urge you to appoint somebody who has experience and
7:23 pm
deep knowledge and experience working with families with young children in san francisco. when we heard-when we went through the hearing for seat ton, the first time you chose alson suzuki who brought that perspective and there are 3 aket percent of 0-18 year olds or 0- 5 think it is important perspective to bring to the oversight committee and there are at least 4 qualified can dts in the group that you are considering who bring that expertise and experience. ingred who you heard from, maly [inaudible] gretchen and patty seeingal. who want to take one brief moment to just talk about patty seeingal and express her disappointment she wasn't able to be here today due to illness and remind you patty soolife
7:24 pm
long advocate for children and families having founded childrens counsel or childcare switch board is a first child care resource [inaudible] someone who got funding under jer a brown in the first administration to create that across the state. create childcare resource and referl across the state. she is a life time advoqut for families and childrens and would very much like to serve on this committee if appointed. so thank you very much. >> thank you. we have been here before. my name is molly brown and director with gnaw [inaudible] and the coach for the children and youth fundsing coalition. thank you for your patient and consideration and
7:25 pm
persistence throughout the process. we have 5 nominees before you and let you know we endorse all 5. we think they bring a lot of tal tonight the table and your task is to try and find the right balance of candidates. i want to remind who we endorsed and that is gretchen [inaudible] we think they represent the best of what the city has to offer and would appreciate your support. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> [inaudible] work with children for [inaudible] i had a little girl that learned to clean walls and clean dishes and cook and she was only 1 years old when she did that and
7:26 pm
[inaudible] foster mother. the paperwork that they want me to do, they can read so they didn't consider that so that was in 1983. i love children and [inaudible] and sing songs. [inaudible] i want to know if i can try to get [inaudible] for some of these projects to help out with children. [inaudible] different angles in
7:27 pm
expressions with children and people that are not [inaudible] with children. they have to remind them what type of person they are and talk to the children about how the organization is and how they -explained it to other people so you know exactly what to say in [inaudible] and how they [inaudible] and their expressions and this is very important with dogs and animals and trees and [inaudible] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is [inaudible]
7:28 pm
executive director of community youth center of san francisco and the committee member for the api counsel. i speak in support of [inaudible] for seat 10 position on the dcy oversight council. i have known [inaudible] and i met him in [inaudible] bringing his group up young asian and [inaudible] visit a program called ed squire and he is the only one that is bilingual and [inaudible] about if they make any wrong choices they will walk down the same path as him. we ask to keep the communication and witness his dedication and [inaudible] when he was released in 2007 and hired him as a outreach worker for committee response network for asian pacific islander committee. [inaudible] he
7:29 pm
works 9 to 5 and 9 or 24/7 to help out families and definitely i will see him a big loss for leaving dyc as the project director [inaudible] had however he will be in a different position and [inaudible] for the national highlight and continue the work [inaudible] great asset to serve for the city and county of san francisco as the dcy oversight advisory counsel. thank you >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> my name is [inaudible] the organizer of [inaudible] i believe all the applicants are very well qualified. i know 3 of them, patty seeingal, [inaudible] gretchen aims, but we can only support one person so today i'm here to speak on behalf of patty seeingal and
7:30 pm
sad she can not be here. it is very difficult to get a doctors appointment. i have known patty for 20 year jz the founder of the organization i work for, parent voices and i wirk with parents with young children moving from welfare to work and the edge patty gives you is she is just retired so can give 100 percent time. i know the others here are very well committed but that is the edge patty gives and patty has proven just how capable she is in representing the low income families. parents love here. i have a petition here. i think i providing a copy to supervisor avaloss office and letters from parents and will give it to you. patty is a retired grandparent and she has dedicated more than 40 years of her life speaking for young
7:31 pm
children needing childcare. children can not speak for them sevl squz we should look at the committee and see where we need the representation. 35 percent of children 0-18 are in the age range and believe patty will represent the low income well. >> thank you very much. seeing other members we'll close public comment and we'll decide on the item. so, i had originally had all these seats up, the board appointed seat for the ovsight and advisory committee early june. at that testimony we had reviewed many can dts themselves before here and we forwarded alson lee suzuki to the full board and forwarded my comments at the
7:32 pm
time is i wanted to support tracey brown and there was a real responsibility that alson lee suzuki's application wouldn't qualify because she is a part of a orgz that received fundsing through first 5 through dcyf and that is under the rules of who is on the committee and would not qualify her and that was determined she isn't qualified based on the rules set up. i indicated at that testimony if alson lee suzukeee was not going to be able to serve, that i would work around supporting tracey brown. that is where i would like to be able to support for the oversight committee. i would like to put it out there that is my first choice for the seat based on the qualifications and also what i
7:33 pm
indicated in june. colleagues i hope you might able to consider tracey brown, she soostrong candidate and has years of experience serving in non profit organization and children and fam ilies in the mission and has children across san francisco and raised children in the city and knows about the life cycle of services and be a strong candidate for the committee. >> thank you very much chair avalos. i was one of those who recommended alson lee suzuki and sad to hear she can't qualify based on the constraights placed by the memberoffs the committee. i remember mrs. brown and have no issues. when i supported alson suzuki i was considered
7:34 pm
diversity on the committee and taking a look that folks we appointed throughout the board so one person that stands out today who would be able to fulfill that is eddy [inaudible] and based on my smeerns working with him i believe he is wonderful candidate. we have to answer questions about the funding and serving as a cyc consultant who received funding through the city. i'm also bias to [inaudible] had a great conversation with her. i think everyone is very qualified, those were 2 people i'm leaner towards but happy to find a consensus with this committee. >> thank you. supervisor cohen >> not sure if we'll have consensus. i want to acknowledge being a representativeo of the bay view valley neighborhoods allows me a opportunity to work with many
7:35 pm
of the applicants before us both directly and hands on and indirectly. also i want to acknowledge i spent time serving on the first 5 board so had a great opportunity to get to know and understand the leadership within that organization as well the volen tears and staff members that work to provide quality preschool for everyone. i'm here today to support luis [inaudible] i think that i like the element of having a latino voice on the body and also very interested and attracted to the fact he is a native san franciscan. with that said, it is a very difficult decision to come to particularly because i have worked clously with eddy and know him in a very i think deep way. i probably know better than luis quite
7:36 pm
honestly. i have come to weigh this option and think luis brings a insight and cultural awareness that is report to the advisory oversight committee. there it is. >> okay. sounds like we are deadlocked. so, what i would like to be able to propose-i didn't hear anyone supporting tracey besides myself and i also am pretty much torn between luis [inaudible] and eddy zang both of whom i believe will be great people with very similar backgrounds to serve on the oac. and um, diversity was
7:37 pm
important to me and thought with the seats up by the board of supervisors, there was a lack of someone preserving from the latino community with bilingual spanish and from the asian community who spoke cant neez or mandarin and that is still lacking and that is the seat that is lacking. the mayors office is past the deadline sfr making their appointments for this body. it is unfochinate. we thought we could look at the overall diversity of the mayor's appointments were to compare to and make a decision on and that isn't the case. even though it is pass thd legal deadline the mayors office is waiting to see who we appoint before they decide. i expect candidates who are not necessarily appointed today whos names are in the mayors office have a chance to be appointed by the
7:38 pm
mayor as well so whatever we don't decide today can be accomplished in that office and that is up to their decision making. what i'm in a round about way of doing, i will support mrs. zang and my appallgies to mr. [inaudible] who i believe served san francisco very very well and continues to do so and who i have known for a long time for his work in the community as well. it is hoard hard not to support you luis, but i do want to support eddy moving forward and that we might [inaudible] we have a motion from other committee members i'll be happy to support that >> i apology earlier that i would be fine supporting [inaudible] given i think as supervisor cohen mentioned the
7:39 pm
experience with the and back ground with [inaudible] violence prevention. i'm okay with mr. aroacha or mr. zang. i want to ask the city attorney to answer the question about the funding provided to cy c and if that poses a conflict >> cyc, if dcyf is a funding decision maker for cyc then yes, that would be a conflict. i think that is the-i think the issue here is timing, is that right? >> from my understand i think that mr. zang is going to be serving on a fellowship. i don't know if we wanteds to come up but based on the application information i saw he is on board as a consultant
7:40 pm
and not full time employee. >> yes, i'm transitioning to my fellowship from the [inaudible] foundation so i'm a fellow beginning sep tember 1 so that is in line with the beginning of the oversight committee, the actual beginning of the at that point in the meeting. >> and then i think i saw something that said you remain on board as a cyr consultant- >> the conceltant comes from the general fund i believe. correct me if i'm wrong. it isn't dcyf money it is general fund money. >> not funding that is a grant
7:41 pm
from dcyf to cyc. >> no it is the fund raising done through gala and donations and it is a very small percentage-i'm only doing 5 hours so it isn't that much money. i'll show why i want to be a consultant because i help build the brarch office in the bay view and we just now built a foundation to create services out there so i don't want to just leave like that, i want to be able to make sure there is a transsquigz help so that is why i'm willing to be a consultant otherwise i would just focus on my fellowship. >> thank you. >> deputy city attorney john gibner, the test for qual fiication doesn't turn on whether a particular counselrr
7:42 pm
is paid through dcyf funding it is are they employee who receives dcyf funding and it sounds here mr. zang isn't a employee but a consultant hired for a handful of hours for the organization so that isn't a conflict because he isn't a employee at the time if he is appointed in september. >> thank you for the clarification. >> there is something i want to acknowledge, when we think of early childhood education we think about women. i think naturally because of being mothers and stair typically being considered to be more of the nurtureing of the 2 genders, i am excited that both luis andiedy are interested serving. i know these
7:43 pm
gentlemen and they are excellent fathers and family men. i can support eddy at the time if it will bring consensus around this deliberation. i'm relucted to support in this role because i'm selfish skn want him to continue what he is doing in the bay view. he provided a fantastic service to not just bay view but also visitation valley and been a liaison connecting the youth around cultural awareness and bringing them to democratic process how local government and non profit works intersects with being a young person growing up and creating a strong sense of sieving par pisitation. supervisors why don't we make a motion to
7:44 pm
recommend eddy shall face zang to this body. also i think-do we need to take a motion for residency waver? okay. so, there is 2 motions i would like to put out there. if we can agree on that. >> i second that motion. >> we are unanimous on that. the motion-go ahead. >> the motion-[inaudible] the motion is to support eddy zang for the seat on the seat 7 on the oac for dcyf and ifcludes a residency requirement and we take that without objection. congratulation jz thank you everyone for your intrest in serving and your work. >> yes, please keep up the good work. >> next item, please. >> item 2 is a hearing to consider appointing one member
7:45 pm
to the bicycle advisory committee [inaudible] there is one seat and one applicant. >> this is a committee report. is mr. wells here, mr. paul wells? >> thank you very much. thank you supervisors tang, avalos and cohen for previous consideration and the opportunity today. i am long time cyclist in san francisco resident of potrero hill for quite some time. in my media career we have done things in the city for bicycleing and that includes the great san francisco bike adventure, which was in the early 90's sponsored by then krqru now alice and [inaudible] we went across the
7:46 pm
city. this predates crittle critical [inaudible] biceling around the city back in south of market when soma was filled with freight train tracks i had my rear bike go into the track and it made a left. i torn my rotator ruch going to bicycle to work day and had a back and knee operation so i'm not on my bicycle but besides the reasons for joining the bicycle advisory committee i also hope to get back on my bike more and lose weight. i'm really pleased at the growth of safe bike lanes or designated bike lanes in the city. the painting of them in green. i'm in contact with bert hill the
7:47 pm
chairman of the committee and put me on the monday night meeting and agenda so get to meet everyone else and hope to listen and see what the agenda is and how people take positions with my other representatives. i'm very please today represent district 10 and also want to thank lisa and summer and an dria bruce in your office for your help in getting this moving, so we can do it before the summer is out and it will start raining and won't be on my bike so much. >> we hope it starts raining. >> yes, i hear-bicycleing to work is something i have done. it is curt tailed by a few mishaps. i remember bicycle coalitions coexist early sloge squn would as a member of the committee take a balanced approach. we do need to
7:48 pm
coexist. a bicycle can be just as dangerous as any other vehicle. pedestrian, bicycleest and people in motor vehicles have a shared responsibility to obey traffic laws. we are very laissez faire about bike squz there isn't a bike requirement knowing the rules of the road for bicycleest. i have seen in the latest bike coalition news letter which i receive, they are up in arms about the changes in the park station police department in what they are categorizing as a crack down on bicycleest and this is the very thing my experience with all phases and different non profits and phases with city government and people involved hope come into play and help out and mateigate and
7:49 pm
find some sort of cohesiveness and a middle ground between divergent parties so we move forward because as we move forward and more people take to their bikes we'll have to have more responsibility taken about where the bicycles are going, how they are going and on all phases of it. hopefully i can get some sort of agreement in that regard, but i am very please today join the bicycle advisory committee so thank you. >> thank you very much. supervisor cohen >> thank you very much. i hope you consider supporting me as i support mr. paul wells. he is a constituents and came before the 3 4 f1 i would like to
7:50 pm
7:51 pm
send this as a committee report. >> we can take that without objection. congratulation. >> item 3 is hearing to consider one-person appointed to park and recreation advisory committee. there is one seat and one applicant. >> like to welcome up mr. mu scobeian. i bow know better than that. >> thank you. hi supervisors. my name is dens maus scofeian and served as district 5 representative since august 2011 on parks and open space.
7:52 pm
i was nominated by the sierra club and renominated a second time by supervisor breed. i live in district 5, in fact i was born and raised and still live in district 5, so 2/3 of my life in district 5. instead of maybe telling you what my qualifications are maybe i should tell what we have done and experienced in the last 3 years or so y. have been a strong advocate for parks particularly open and free access to the park squz that isn't always successful because as time goes on given budget constraints and other policies more and more space is based on reserveations or fees. i also spents a lot of time urging along with colleagues pritorization of acquisition funds into those districts in san francisco that have the greatest needs because they have the least amount of open
7:53 pm
space with the most glaring example is district 6. in 2012 i pushed hard for playground funding, at the time there were 30 playgrounds on the listment we got 15 and a half million dollars and that is expected to fund 6 so there are 24 more that will languish until the next time we do this. that means they fall behind and a concern i raised is we figure a way to use the money so we improve more playground in each round rather spending so much on each one so it leaves so many behind. in any case i pushed hard for more money in the campaign to get more money for mu claren pack and we were successful getting 10 million for mu claren park. >> i appreciate that >> i thought we have a 317 acre
7:54 pm
park, it is like the biggest in the city and named after mu claren and it is neglected for decades so hopefully thal money will bare fruit. back in 2011 [inaudible] recruited by planning to work with planning department on the recreation open space element to try to create consensus among a whole series of commenters so we formed a group with all these diverse commenters and in a period of 2 years produced a side by side comparison and 95 page document we gave to planning and a lot of the amendments we made were adopted and did improve the roads even so we didn't get everything we wanted. we were not able to
7:55 pm
eliminate all the [inaudible] we were tibel achieve significant improvement to the general plan. in septumber 2013 harvey rose issued [inaudible] prozac you are not able to complete your abigations under the charter because the department failed to produce the 5 year strategic plan and other plans it is obligated to so i was assigned to chair, a working group and we did an assessment of that audit and prozac supported the final report and then early this year, it was last year rather, this year, we learned that in fact rpd had come up with a strategic plan to get harvard business school to do 6 months of probono work so
7:56 pm
prosc, signed me to the working group and extendsed that to prozac and came up with a list of proposals and over a course of time in meet wg the department heads we were able to make a considerable number of amendments to improve this so all that is a consequences of the last period of time during which i had the pleasure, sometimes pain work wg lot of people trying to figure out how to improve our park system and how to improve the management. there are a couple areas i still focus on and want to tell you what those are. i'm concerned there isn't sufficient funding from the general fund for had park cyst squm insufficient funding for maintenance in general the attitude there last decade or more is maintenance is very difficult to pay for so if we
7:57 pm
let facilities detearierate we replace with bond money because bond money is used for capital funds and brick and mortar and get a new futill silty. i think the general attitude is we should put a lot of money in to sustain what we have rather than just do what we have done in the past. those are ongoing pictures we are pushing and that is a lot of support in prosc for that. i appreciate being able to continue and need your support to do that. >> thank you. i and prepared to support you when we come to a vote, but thank you for your service on prosc and your contributionerize significant in terms of the committee and reck and park. >> i'm prepared to support mr.
7:58 pm
dens-i have fond memories of working with him when i was first elected back in 2007, there was a item that was my first contentious issue we were dealing with on the board and think it had to do with [inaudible] fees. we ended up being on opposite sides he was very very very gracious to myself and niece and think my sisters came out and gave us a tour and spent time with us and explained his perspective as well as the coalitions perspective. since then we have been on the same side of issues and different side of issues but one thing i appreciate the most and think this is a true hall mark of leadership is there is a level of respect to respectfully disagree and dennis embodies that. i have come before the
7:59 pm
prozacs committee and think you were against us for that as well. >> i supported you on the [inaudible] and on 900 [inaudible] >> the point i was trying to make is we walk a similar pathway of want toog see park squz open space maintained across the entire city not just on the west side but also the entire city >> absolutely >> that is-our paths may diverge every now and then you have been a gentlemen and a true leader and i applaud you for sticking to your values sometimes when it isn't politically expedient and have a tremendous amount of respect for you in the work you have done and happy to support you
8:00 pm
today. i hope we can move this item quickly and get you back to where you belong. >> thank you. can i just throw one observation? when kimble, which is located on steiner and -just south of geary, which it was redone, the field was redone, that was used by the youth in the area and didn't know much about it and had tolearn more mptd after the field was redone and field access was becoming reserveivation base i got complaints from the neighbors the kids couldn't go on and drop in. drop in play was i think a big thing because i grew up that way. we didn't organize it, just a bunch went and played softball or basicalball. we haven't been successful in that because the
8:01 pm
revenue first model that the parks department adopted since 2010 means generation of funds that comes from reserveivation and over 50 percent of all the funds coming through reserveivation and fees come from soccer and that is what happened at kimble. we were not successful to change it but i was concerned about that thing. it happened in the mission district when someone showed up and the guys in the afternoon play pick up soccer and were told you have to pay a guy 5 or 10 bucks otherwise they couldn't play. it created a outrage. those are the kind of things i think are mistakes and can be corrected but we haven't been successful because of the issue of revenue. that is just my share. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, we can open for public comment. any member of the public like to comment? please
8:02 pm
come forward. >> good afternoon commissioners. supervisors. i know this is one person for one seat but when a good person steps forward is t is important to say good thipshs about them. i worked with dennis many times and have found him to be one of the main champions in city operating in sit ahall making the city beautiful and keeping it beautiful and not letting it slide including open space of course. the other thing i found really important about dennis when i worked with him in the past is he is very no nonsense. when you advocate a issue you can be hypobolic but when dennis was in the room adviceing me what i was working
8:03 pm
for in city hall policy he know the law and policy and history so well he was with a very no nonsense way tell me what is up and that kind of knowledge is extremely valuable and speak tooz the need to reappoint him. i also want to chime in support of emphasis and comments-naomi cline wrote the shock doctrine when whereit talks about how you can create a false crisis in federal government and local city programs by not funding from general fund and faxes taxes and that allows private entities to come in and take a hold of public spaces and it is crucial to keep dennis fighting to get things properly funded so we don't have to keep turning to private parties to fund our parks, that isn't a good direction to go. thanks.
8:04 pm
>> thank you, next speaker please. >> hello i'm sally johnson and think that parks should be organized and [inaudible] the trees and flowers [inaudible] people who love the park and to get money to [inaudible] to play in. [inaudible] which
8:05 pm
make it more beautiful. i do like bicycles [inaudible] i got hit by a car and got some money for that and that helped me out. my mother took most of it. there again, everybody get rich off me and don't get nothing. i hope this don't keep on going and there is some kind of line [inaudible] i would think that mathematical procedures and [inaudible] how it is all kept up is really
8:06 pm
important. thank you >> thank you very much and seeing no other members of the public we'll close public comment and this item is before us. i'm in support of mr. [inaudible] >> excellent, glad to hear that. sounds like we are on a consensus and like to make a motion we move forward mr. dennis mu scoffian >> i second that. >> as a committee report. no, we just move forward. >> okay. we take that without objection. thank you. next item, please >> item 4 is a hearing to consider appointing a member term ending march [inaudible] to commission on the [inaudible] there is one seat and one applicant. >> thank you just [inaudible] reverend hope. this is a appointee for district 11 seat and supportive of a [inaudible]
8:07 pm
is not here today so but representing her is reverend hope and we'll open public comment for her to speak on mrs. [inaudible] behalf >> thank you for the courtesy. she apologizes she is on the east coast tending to her 86 year old mother and thank you supervisor avalos for make tg possible for us to engage [inaudible] as a lead organizer for a multigenerational ages place network in the outer mission district. in a short period of time she organized a program which has a 3 time a week vigious exercise class which is so popular we vawaiting list. [inaudible] decluttering work shop. free audiology test in english, chinese and spanish. pot lucks and entertainment as mixers.
8:08 pm
people getting to know their neighbors and this reflects the rilsh diversity of our neighborhood. a program on will, trust and advanced directives. she teaches computer classes so seniors dopet become isolated because they don't know how to use computers and other devices. she has a arts and crafts and oral history video going. there is a upcoming work shop on utilizing device frz medical alert devices following a terrible situation where a participant fell in the basement and cracked a known in her neck and she also-that is probably enough accept to say this innovative aging and place model is operating for a mere
8:09 pm
40 thousand dollars. the entire city should be taking a look at this. >> thank you very much and it is amazing the community connectors program. we just started last year and patty and all the other volunteers who have worked on it have done amazing work. i was so impressed to go there and see how much of a difference all the elderly folks who were there talked about how it made in their life and then talked to the volunteers and they said how much it is meant to do the work as well. some said they are were so much more healthy and a lot of the volunteers were seniors too. i'm supportive of patricia [inaudible] on her work and know she was be a exceptional person on the commission. this
8:10 pm
item is open for public comment. any other member of the public like to comment? seeing none we'll close public comment and make a decision here. colleagues i would like to move to support patricia [inaudible] as the district 11 representative for the commission on aging advisory counsel >> second. we both second. >> okay we'll take that without objection. before item 5, i would like to take a 5 minute recess, just a quick break and then we'll be right back. we are in >> >> okay, back from recess and madam clerk can f you could call item 5. >> motionordsering submitted to the voters [inaudible] renewable green house gas energy to provide information
8:11 pm
regarding leckric power and [inaudible] election to be held november three, 2015 >> this is for the november ballot and called the korean energy right to know act. it does 2 things, sets a clear definition what we mean by clean energy consistent with state law and lets the public know how much electricity comes
8:12 pm
and e or clean pow r3 4 f1er us clean, green renewable we are consistent with the legal definition in state law. the ballot misher will informerate payers how much of electricity is coming from nuclear power. when san franciscan choose their energy provider we can make a informed choice about where the electricity comes from. we know all most a quarter of pg and e lickticity
8:13 pm
comes from nuclear power plant. this shows pge and e is committed to nuclear power. today we have a technical amendment to site code section 399.30 that guvens san franciscos electoral production. this makeatize clear san francisco will comply with state law in how we describe electricity as clean, green renewable and green house gas free. we have staff presentations today from jason freed as well as the sfpuc clean power sf director michael himes and [inaudible] from the department of environment and
8:14 pm
[inaudible] is also here from the department of the environment. why don't we go next to staff presentations unless the committee members have comments to say? seeing none we'll go to mr. freed. >> mr. freed if you talk about the ballot measure and the impact on clean power sf program and also how the pg and e measure put out by [inaudible] would impact clean power sf. >> happy to do so. jason freed extech officer. for the past 6 years and have helped to [inaudible] hap tee make comments today about the 2 measures or the one measure in front of you today as well as the measure in front of the voter ozthen ballot. first off one of the things i wanted to bring up is go solar sf is a
8:15 pm
clean green renewable program by pretty much every definition you have out sthr. we have 3500 roof tops 11 mega watts occur because nof good fram. under the ballot measure you have you can consider that a clean green program, g [inaudible] under the ibew measure the roof top solar isn't considered clean and green because [inaudible] do not fall under category 1 especially residential roof tops. not through the fault of pge or the residential yurz but the meters are not of the grade and quality you need to get the category one certification restrictive in the measure but not restrictive in this measure. if cca takes over and run a go solar program it woulden be able to call it a clean green source. some other
8:16 pm
things to keep in mind when dealing with energy, it is a complicated issue, that is what i learned over the last 6 years and had the staff who gave me a good education how to understand all these issues. whether you get a example of the [inaudible] you have-you need to make last mr minutes decisions. you shut down the power generation and replace it something else. you may need to go out and use a category 3 renewable energy credit in order to get that generation to be state compliant under renewable standards. [inaudible] all of a sudden we vashort period because of the emergency situation where we can't do that if you want to take a example of consumer information, if you go to the overhead, this is pge power.
8:17 pm
these resourceerize green house gas free and renewable. the nuclear large hide roand renewable is clumped in the definition of green house gas free or renewable and that is because what the state law allows. nuclear and hide rowere not considered renewable by state standards. let's say we take [inaudible] under the measure we would only be able to say we were 22 percent green house gas gree or renewable and can't take cred further the other 32 percent pge takes. whaum a consumer perspective when you show a bill to them and what the ballot measure does is say you need to present things the same way pge does. we could present under the ballot measure to be voted on, we would present this same
8:18 pm
chart and say here is your choiceism here is our energy mix and that is determined. [inaudible] or you can have pge mix and dpro you get the same definitions and expressions of what is going on and it is a good way fwr consumers to understand what is going on. if you have something restrictive we may not be able to call our energy mix the same. because of the restrictions in the ibew ballot measure so that is important to take into consideration when consumers make a choice is which choice do you they want. >> what is the impact be? >> you would end up a few more people choosing not to par tis pot because they get confused.
8:19 pm
they would stay with pge in realty based on everything we are looking to do is a greener mix and produce less green house emissions than pge provides. you would get people think they are being greenjure not and opt out of the program which impacts our ability to our buildout plan. the program is looking to have a light and dreep green program. we want to talk about it the same way pge is. the other part i wanted to add in here- >> how would that benefit pge? >> more people that choose to opt out of our program it means they keep those customers so it benefits them by having the generational line items stay with them. >> thank you
8:20 pm
>> one of the other things that potentially that i wanted to bring up, another example how things can get confusing, in august of 2013 we were on the verge of trying to get a program laurched, it does want but we were working with a energy provider who was going to offer us a mix of energy that was 25 percent wind, 75 percent large hide ronot frauj hetch hetchy. if you use the state standsered that is 100 percent ghg free. under the other ballot not in front of you today, the ibew one, you call that 25 percent ghg free assuming the wind came from category one renewable energy credit and that isn't a guarantee. they were talking about the fact we could have had 100 percent ghg makes and wouldn't be able to call it 100 percent ghg at that point. we
8:21 pm
wouldn't be able to call it renewable because the state doesn't allow large hydro renewable but call it ghg free like pge. finally i want to get into the-there was a civil grand jury report that came out last week that talks about clean power sf is long last. it does very good discussions about unbundled and bundleed and what it means. i energy you to take a look at it. one of the recommendations is that the local officials including the mayor put the weight of the office behind the program. if we don't follow state standards and restrict to firmer stance we gonet r don't put clean power sf on full legs. i encourage you to follow what
8:22 pm
the civil grand jury and that is you put the full weight of the board behind this measure and support it and happy to answer questions if you have them. >> okay, thank you. seeing no question here from the committee we'll go on to mr. himes. >> good afternoon supervisors. michael himes, san francisco public utilities commission. i'm just going to supplement actually the remarks that executive officer freed made. i thought his comments were spot on. earlier today in response to request by the department of elections, our department submitted a letter addressing the potential impacts of the proposed ballot
8:23 pm
initiative regarding renewable energy. to highlight a couple points from that letter that sort is a addition to the points that mr. freed made. first a observation about the potential impact of the measure is that it creates a new definition of renewable green house gas electricity that is inconsistent with state law. the proposed energy clean right act addresses the issue by tying the terms clean green to definitions in state law. mr. freed also referred to the issue around roof top solar and thought he captured that well. additionally, the proposed initiative has the potential to increase cost to a cca program
8:24 pm
without necessarily providing additional environmental benefits. the issue here really is how narrow it defines clean green renewable green house gas free energy and can potentially restrict the pool of resources that a cca program may be able to purchase from and provide affordable competitive product to san franciscans. finally, the proposed measure would increase program administrative cost by manitating notification requirements. under state law the city already has to notify customers a minimum of 4 times of the programs terms and condition squz the opportunity to opt out of the program and this measure would add an additional notification requirement. we estimated the cost of that program to be about 135 thousand dollars. i
8:25 pm
think those are all the prepared remarks that i have. i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have for me. >> okay. thank you and i don't see any questions. mr. rod riguez. after you can touch upon how clean power sf fits into had cities climate action plan. >> chair avalos and supervisors [inaudible] department of environment. thank you for the opportunity to share the departments comments about this measure today. first i would like to emphasize the importance of understanding sthra lot of clutter out in the market place when you think about going a supermarket or any store, there are many products that call them green.
8:26 pm
departments bring residence and businesses should have accurate #2346rgz whether it is the cremical make chemical make upf cleaning products and accht information about power. californias portfolio standard is the highest in the country mandating [inaudible] must be generated by eligible renewable resources by 2020. as we speak the california legislature is debating senate bill 350 which this board and the mayor indicated support for and that among other things increase the port forelio from 33 to 50 percent by 2030. the department believes this is a important ingredient for san francisco to reach as well as the state to reach its green house gas emission reduction
8:27 pm
targets as stated in the past. one comments on the proposed measure that the department did review penl impacts. if the voters prove the ballot measure and we believe the cost for the department is very minimal in informing the public of the different mixes and happy to answer questions as well as my colleague [inaudible] is here with us. >> thank you. supervisor tang >> i have a question that can be answered by [inaudible] or puc. first i'll say i'm a huge supporter of clean power sf and excited if we can launch this in the fall and think that both the initiative measure and ballot measure before us today are trying to achieve i think great goals which is inform our customers about where the true source of pow er is coming
8:28 pm
from. i think we all share the goal of providing 2 clee power the customers. one of the questions i have, i know go solar sf is sited as something that may not be included in the measure and the reference to category 3 for the general public, i know you reference california puc code 399.16 so under sickz 3 of that porz thf code, what are some of the other categories that would fall under that? for example one of my concernicize potentially we can go outside california, we could obtain power that is potentially not clean and green so wonder if puc or [inaudible] can speak to that issue because i think is valid one the initiative measure was trying to address. >> i'm happy to take a stab at that. so, under california state rules and the code that
8:29 pm
you cited the state created 3 sort of buckets or categories, we call buckets or proctcontunt categories. the first categories is a bundled renewable energy product. that means the purchases of the renewable energy acquired the energy with a renewable energy cred squt the underlying electricity prior to the generation of that electricity. it means the electricity was dlinch today the state of california. it doesn't mean the resource is located in the state, it could be located on the boarder, but under the law of category one resource has to deliver into state of california. product content category 2 is also resource that could be out of state but by definition has to deliver
8:30 pm
energy into the state of california and it can be formed and shaped thmpt idea is you can buy a predictable amount of energy according to demand needs and delivered to the state of california. >> what is in the actual code it says firmed and shape, what does that mean? >> the idea is renewable resources are extremely variable. you can't dispatch them is the term we use in the electric industry to meet demand in real time. specifically i'm referring to a subset of renewable energy but probably the most abundant and that is solar and wind. those resources generate when the wind is blowing and sun is shining. we all use electricity at various times of the day and when we turn on the lights we expect it to boo on.
8:31 pm
wind and solar may not generate when we need it. the idea-retail electricity providers have to match the sources of energy to the demand as close as they can in real time. we do that by arranging the energy with the grid operator. the idea of firming and shape sg you produce a specific amountf renewable energy and that energy is delivered into the grid but you can using all the resources in the grid shape it? into a profile that supports your consumers demand. the same amount of renewable energy is produced from that product as from the product content in category one product and the product conitant cat tent 3.
8:32 pm
renewable yeents are merely documentation that a given amount of renewable energy is generated and delivered to the grid. >> okay. so, then just going back to my question, for category 3 that is the only category where potentially we would go outside of the state unless it is on the boarder and delivered within california but that is the category where potentially we could purchase renewable energy credits? >> the category 3 are sort of the most liquid, they are the most easily traded. it doesn't have to be a out of state resource though. bucket 3 category 3 recks are also produced in california. the idea is that when you buy a renewable energy credit, you bought it separate from the underlying electricity. when i
8:33 pm
described category 1, by definition you have to buy the renewable energy credit with the lickticity. product 3, that energy can be sold to a 3rd party and acquire the underlying wenewable energy credit attribute. it is a way to address the varability of renewable and originally intended to spur the market for renewable energy. >> in what-i know we can't anticipate the future but in what situations would we want to utilize category 3? >> um, for community choice aggregation program, we are approaching resources today with a focus just on product
8:34 pm
content category 1 resources. product conitant category 3 is really sort of a resource that would allows us to fill gaps. i think mr. freed referred to emergency situations where we may a contract with a particular resource that for some reason goes off line but we were expecting and really needed the renewable energy to be produced to meet our overall content objectives. the bucket 3 resource provides flexibility in times where our product content category 1 resource isn't available and to fill in sort of the small percentages of renewable energy short falls that might occur because of a mismatch of supply and demand.
8:35 pm
generally speaking, under state rules the state rps is structured to limit the number of unbundled racks, it is capped. >> can you state for the record what that cap is? >> it is believe 15 percent of the rps requirement for the retail seller and think today that is in the range of 5 percent of the overall sales. >> okay. 5 percent. and i fully understand if we had to use category 3 and if it is outside california it doesn't necessarily mean it is unclean energy and that there are situations where we may need to utilize that. i think my concern just stems from i think what sparked the measure in the first place or what i believe
8:36 pm
to be one of the underlying reasons for the initiative measure is make sure it is truly clean power and we are disclosing the right information to the customers. my last question is just what steps can puc take as we launch clean power sf just to guarantee that it is clean power and that potentially wree not utilizing certain categories where we purchase renewable energy credits that may not come from clean sources. >> ya. well, as i mentioned before we rin the process now of developing a request for offers for our initial power supply for clean power sf launch and that request for offers will only ask potential suppliers to deliver the bucket 1 category 1 resources to the city to supply its cca program.
8:37 pm
under the program all resources that sell energy to resale seller have to be certified by the state and they also have to track the renewable energy credits they initiate with a state accounting system called regius. all of the projects and energy we transact with for the cca program are tracked in regius and we can retire certificates and account for specific serial numbers generated. when i talk about certificates these are category one resources. every bucket relies on renewable energy credits. that is the way that
8:38 pm
we are and all retail sellers verify they received what they need and we are also required to report that to the state so they can verify that we complied with the minimum state requirements. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you very much. so, we can open up the item for public comment. any member of the public like to comment, please come forward. >> good afternoon again supervisors [inaudible] eric burke representing san francisco green party [inaudible] and also san francisco clean energy advocates. so, specifically to what supervisor tang was just asking about, the key-we heard the details technically of what renewable energy credits are.
8:39 pm
the key with the measure being promoted by pge alleys is not whether renewable crediterize good or bad, the key is that ballot measure states that the sate city of san francisco can't buy those credits but pge. that is just ridiculous and think pge alleys putting this forward should think about what it makes them look to the public. let me get to the other important aspect of the ordinance ballot measure and that schnookler issue. i have done work on clean power sf for
8:40 pm
11 year jz a big part is knocking on door squz calling people on the phone and i explained this to thousands of people and the number 1 comment and get from people i have to convince is, i got the thing from pge and see in their advertising that they are the greenest utility in the country because they have over 50 percent green house gas free electricity. the reason that pge is able to get away with that is they claim nuclear power is green house gas free and clean. green house gas free it isn't true. anyone who knows the energy industry knows that a nuclear power plant because [inaudible] a lot of other inputs, even given
8:41 pm
nuclear power plant produces from 15 percent up to fifen 0 percent of green house gas emissions over the life time of a gas plant. the measure you have before you will make it so that the public is able to get a actual honest accountsing of what is clean and green and end decades pgebsing the public about whether it is energy-- >> thank you very much. any other member of the public like to comment? >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is hunter sturmen with [inaudible] we have 20 thousand members working for 28 different utilities in northern california. in san francisco it is pge and muni [inaudible] we are sponsoring the truth in
8:42 pm
energy initiative measure placed in the qualified ballot. frankly if supervisor or the chair had been interested be would have participated in the presentation and gave information about the measure. as for the issue in front of the committee today we have no position on this measure at this time because we understand there has been some changes and may be changes in the future. there are 2 aspects that need to be changed and strongly urge you to amend them. the first is the measure promotes the use of renewable energy certificates and they are a failure. it is something we oppose frd years whether pge uses them or smud or palo alto or any other energy including clean power sf. r they do not
8:43 pm
produce renewable and promote renewable projects. they cover dirty fossil fuel power with pieces of paper. that is a rec. this changes a calculation. state law is very clear and the measure in front of you is not. nuclear power ist norenewable, no one said it is renewable kwr no one want tooz relyoon it, but it is green house gas emission 3, the state of california says so it continues to be that way. it will continue to be that way until nuclear power plants are retired. we ask you to consider-- >> thank you very much. any other member of the public who would like to comment? seeing none we'll close public comment
8:44 pm
and colleagues i would like tamotion to have this very small amendment accepted into the ordinance and it is on page 3. it is adding the language, and resources set forth in the rps under public utility code 399.30. that will be the amendment. supervisor cohen >> i would like to second the motion if that was the motion. >> okay. thank you for your second and colleagues we take that without objection? the sponsor of the ordinance is not here, supervisor-prez president breed but we have pr visor
8:45 pm
wiener christensen and myself back the measure. this measure wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the ibw meser mr. sterns talked about that we talked about here in committee today. we would rather not have to go forward with it but we feel in order to protect the clean power sf program and be clear about the type of energy provided and what people who provide energy in san francisco should provide so there is consistency this measure is going forward with your support colleagues. like to motion that we move this motion to >> july 27 >> july 27, special rules committee meeting. >> it is amended to the monday meeting. >> okay. >> just to clarify on
8:46 pm
supervisor avalos amendment, i believe you circulated paper copies to the other members on the committee but to clarify the for the public, the amendment also strikes the words, and from large hide roelectric facilities including but not limit today the hetch hetchy facilities page plea line 12-13 and in the very last line of that section 2102, correct the typo changing, does to do. >> thank you for pointing that out. that is the amendment we have aurmd taken just to clarify. i did kind of make a motion so think have visor cohen may be seconding and supervisor tang. >> i'm fine with the amendment. i just want to make comments before we take the vote on the measure. i brought up the question that i did because ultimately i want to insure we
8:47 pm
are able to laurch clean power sf in 2016 and it is a competitive program where we offer rates and they crum petitive and we provide clean power. i don't want to do anything that would harm that launch so will support the measure but think there are valid concerns but today i'll support the measure before us. >> great, thank you. so, supervisor cohen. >> i don't have much to add other than i will support the measure today and seconding the amendment and i do think it is interesting one of the benefits of the democratic process is when a initiative comes on the ballot we have a opportunity to counter and offer different perspective but the thing that
8:48 pm
is consistent is it allowstuse talk and drill down to the issue. i think that if it were not for the measure that-the pge measure, the issue that mr. hunter stern spoke of, i appreciate the level of advocase and sounding an alarm to educate on your concerns. >> okay, great. so, we have a motion, seconded to move this item to the july 27 special rules committee meeting. continue to july 27. we'll talk that without objection. next item >> item 6 a ordinance amending the requiring the police and sheriff department to report data regarding detention and traffic stops.
8:49 pm
>> may i jump in? good afternoon everyone. i'm excited because today we bring forward before you a trangz apparent policy ordinance which is a ordinance which is a benefit to san francisco especially the minority communities as well as helpful to the sheriff and police department. i have several remarks i want to share with you this afternoon. so, the reason why i suppose this ordinance that will require both the sheriff and police department to collect data on race and gender and gender identity during traffic stops or detains for questioning or performs a consenseual or non consenseual search of a individual. this is a expansion of the information that the police department is
8:50 pm
already collecting and as of now the department only collects data on race, age, sex during traffic stops. what i'm asking and proposing is we expand the data to include detentions, search and gender identity related to complaint. the ordinance requires each respective department not only to collect the information but analyze and report the data on a quarterly basis to the board of supervisors as well as mayors office and the human rights commission as well as the police commission. this information collected will include a couple things. first, it will include the name and badge number of all officers involved. the result of the contact so for example,
8:51 pm
if the contact ended in a arrest, a citation or warning or incident report. there are 3 things that this ordinance focuses on in the spirt of preventing. we are look to prevent pretextual stops based on race and pretextual stops based on gender related characteristics. also reporting the use of force that the results yield in a unknown injury. over the last year or so we have seen many horrific events were police officers have been abuseed their power either killing or seriously
8:52 pm
injuring mostly african american or minority men. as we sit here today [inaudible] other men involved in the [inaudible] scandal still have not been terminated. african american are arrested 19 more times more often than any other race for drug crimes in san francisco. studies show transgendered people across the u.s. experience police violence than non transgendered individuals. a study released in 2015 by the national coalition of anteviolence program showed transgender wemb experience police brutlety of 5.8 percent greater. for transgender of color that is
8:53 pm
6.2 times greater. i use the data and information to anchor what i'm trying to accomplish here. i'm not making this up. across the nation there is a movement to reform police practice after the tragied and out cry we have seen in [inaudible] i'm glad we haven't seen this level of outcrine san francisco and think that speaks to our police department. in response, president obama convened the 24th century police task force that produced a report can w a number of improvements cities should make to improve police relations in the community. many task force recommendations emphasize the opportunity for police departments to better use data and tech naumg to build trust. the police data initiative is
8:54 pm
helping accelerate progress around data transparency and analysis toward the goal of increasing trust. these 2 areas within the initiative focusing on first, using open data to build transsknaerns to increase community trust and second, to create internal accountability and effective data analysis. at this time-at the same time i introduce this ordinance assembly woman shurly weber from san diego introduced a similar piece of legislation on the state level and made minor adjustments in this ordinance to reflect the language within her legislation. passing the ordinance will make us the first mu nis palties in california and quite possibly
8:55 pm
in the u.s. and reporting requirement of the law enforcement agency t. is trully my hope that the rest of the country will begin to follow our example. i'm proud to work community advoicates on the ordinance and would like to thank each of them for their input. first of all, the office of justice has been tremendous as is the transjendser law center. committee united against violence, human rights commission is unpair lled, the office of citizens complaints thrks youth commission and of course the sheriffs department and police department, we worked collectively hand in hand. colleagues you should have before you received the latest version of theords nns with additional amendments that we made. most of these are clean up language, but one of the most significant changes we made was to the gender identity
8:56 pm
collection section. this is a interesting prudickiment. in working in sth transgendered community and the police department they felt that requiring police officers to ask a individual for their gender identity would lead to more harassment so we said complaints filed or a individual self identifies a transjoneder and experienced bias policing based on that fact. i want to acknowledge 2 letters that we received from the youth commission and the new crimial justice task force thf bar association of san francisco which acknowledges the importance of data collection when it come tooz law enforcement and transparency in the respective departments. colleagues,
8:57 pm
passing this ordinance some of the goals we hope to achieve are reducing unintentional and disproportioninate numbers of detention, arrest and target of minorities and of the transgendered community. it also important creates a bench mark analysis of where we are with bias that may exist in the law enforcement department and hope of laying a path for the future we will begin to be free of these biases. introducing additional transparency and ofernsight to the police department and rebuild the trust the community has had in the law enforcement department by making this information available for the public to review by again, requiring quarterly reporting to the mayors office and board of supervisors and police compligz as well as human rights commission. avenue wn has
8:58 pm
their own biases and i want to gater the data to make sure everyone in san francisco has a safe place to live and thrive free of the unintentional targeting by officers. colleagues i hope to have your support on this item as it continue tooz move forward. at this time i would like to specifically acknowledge lutenent carl [inaudible] from the san francisco police department and ask him to come up to the podium to tell us more about the type of data that is collected and the new tech knowledge coming on line >> before you end i want to add a comment. for me when i saw supervisor cohen coming with this ordinance i immediately cosponsored and want to thank her for bringing this forward and think it is a useful tool
8:59 pm
for insureing police accountability and stronger community police relations by insuring transparency in the work that the police does and think it is one step and tool related tools we can use to actually build trust between police and community so thank you for your work on this >> thank you for your cosponsorship >> my name is carl [inaudible] my current assignment is a lieutenant assigned to the chiefs office. prior to this new assignment which started 4 days ago i was in crime analysis in the police department for a year and a half so it gave a opportunity to get to know what data the police department has and where does it originate from and what we can and can't dee for data collection. i just want to [inaudible] we have commander bob mozeer who is the command er of the metro division here with me today. after looking over the ordinance that
9:00 pm
supervisor cohen introduced we started to go through that and put together a quick team of people. susan merit who is the chief information officer for the police department as well as brad rusy who is kepty city attorney. the 4 of us have met and discussed exactly what information we are collecting now and what we would be required to collect pursuant to the ordinance. having done that, there is areas such as arrest which we already know the break down of race and sex of everybody we arrest. as far as use of force included in there, we know that already also so we don't need to change existing systems to gather that. as far as traffic stops