tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 15, 2019 3:00pm-4:01pm PDT
[gavel] >> good morning. welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority meeting for today, tuesday, jun. our clerk is mr. alberto quintanilla. mr. quintanilla, could you please call the roll. >> commissioner brown? >> brown present. commissioner haney? haney present. commissioner mandelman? mandelman present. commissioner mar? >> present. >> missioner p.e.s.? >> commission ronen?
commissioner ronen present. commissioner stefani. walton present. commissioner yee? yee absent. we have a quorum. >> thank you, mr. quintanilla. colleagues, our board president, commissioner, supervisor norman yee is representing all of us today across the street at the earthquake safety fair, the department of building inspection has put on. so can we have a motion to excuse commissioner yee, made by commissioner mandelman, seconded by commissioner brown and take that without objection. next item, please. >> clerk: item 2. citizens' advisory committee report. this is an information item. >> mr. larson. oh, mr. larson. >> hello. thank you very much, chairman peskin, as well as members. i'm the vice chair festival community action committee for
transit authority and i would love to give you a quick brief from the meeting on the 22nd of may and try to correlate that also with your own agenda that was going on. so to start off, i'm going to get the right page. consume. thank you very much. we had a number of action items, pardon me. and the first one was a action item which was your number 10, to adopt a motion of support for professional services contract to the top-ranked firm for the downtown congestion pricing study. we had previously awarded $150,000 to initiate the beginnings of the study. and this is for the more technical equipment. so we did a thorough questionnaire in regards to
that. also on the agenda, that we were going on, was adopting a motion of support for the proposed fiscal year budget for 2019-2020. cynthia fong, our deputy director of finance and administration, went through a complete review of, you know, like our kind of financial standings right there. and there was some conversations about the 30-year kind of public-private partnerships and concessions arrangements that were going on, which to the members of the committee felt pleased with the understanding of how that operates. it was something unique generally in terms of like private-private. we wanted to kind of discern is this something that public or private is under, overstepping in certain areas. we felt very satisfied with the answers that came through. in regards to -- also we had a motion of support for the
allocation of a little over $4.6348 -- 4.6 million pdr in prop k sales funds. and also request for $100,000 prop a funds. these were specific to aversion planning along the great highway, as well as in regards to work done on ocean beast with the wastewater facility treatment plant area. some other key areas was also adoption of motion of support for the approval of the 2019 prop aa for recommendations. it was just over $4.1 million. this is item number 8. we had a unanimous approval of this. specifically, you know, looking to see if we could go ahead and actually chairman larson was hoping to split the prop a funds between the three programs. and that was, you know, replied as an affirmative, which which
were really happy about. and also number 9 on your agenda, we had unanimously -- except for one abstention, unanimously approved a motion of support of the clean fund air program and projects, which is going to be item number 9 on your agenda as well today. we are very excited to continue to work in the efforts in that area. the one area that i'd like to highlight, this is like a point of contention, but we did go ahead and separate out in one of the contracts -- which one is it? in regards to bart specifically. there was an award where we were noticing that they had a 50% increase in service-related costs. and normally these bart-related for an open station, whether they're go ahead and making
improvements to it. normally only seeing essentially an inflation of 20% costs when you have an open station. so we were asking for, haney, is there another bart station project somewhat equivalent to this, that we might be able to go ahead and compare it to. subsequently justify why there's an over 100% increase in these sort of service costs, related to that project. so we pulled out that piece of the funding for that bart-related area. and subsequently had to ask bart to come back at our next meeting, at the end of this month, to go ahead and review with us, either comparison projects or help further justify the override in costs. that's the report for the cacta. >> thank you, mr. klein. are there any questions for the c.a.c.? is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, thank you very much for your report. mr. decosta. >> thank you.
>> commissioners, it's very important when the citizens' advisory committee gives a report, that everybody pay attention. and initially the few minutes that the gentleman was giving you the report, people are not paying attention. even right now there's a side bar conversation going on. i think this is disrespecting the constituents of san francisco. don't expect us to respect you if you cannot respect us. now having said that, i'm noticing that the report is coming from the citizens' advisory committee are not like the reports that used to come before. and i've been there from the inception. what's this that the citizens' advisory committee just gives a commentary on the ordinary
agenda items, that are going to take place today. i think the citizens' advisory committee should really focus on one or two issues where they can make improvement to the congestion, to the carbon footprint, stuff like that, that benefits the health of the citizens of san francisco. so i know there was a long potrero where astute citizens, who wanted to join the c.a.c. were deprived from joining the c.a.c. [bell ringing] they did not want any static coming from astute people. so you are rubber stamping now and gives commentary on the agenda items and that we have to listen to, we want the citizens' advisory committee to really take one or two issues that benefit san franciscans. thank you very much. >> see nothing other members of
the public for this item, public comment is closed. [gavel] mr. clerk, could you please read the next item. >> clerk: items 3 and 4, consent agenda, item 4 was approved at the may 21st board meeting and now being considered for final approval. staff not planning to present on the iteming but prepared to present if desired. if a member objects, any items may be considered separately. >> is there any public comfort on item number 3, the approval of the may 21st minutes. seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. and on that motion, made and seconded, roll call please. >> clerk: commissioner brown? >> aye. >> commissioner haney? >> aye. >> commissioner mandelman? >> aye. >> commissioner mar? >> aye. >> commissioner peskin. >> aye. >> commissioner ronen? >> aye. >> commissioner safai?
>> aye. >> commissioner walton? >> aye. >> we have final approval. >> thank you, next item please. >> clerk: item 5. seeking final approval on firstance. state and federal legislation update. >> pinch hitting for mark who sends his regrets he cannot be here today. i'm going to go through in a little bit out of order, first giving an update on four bills that we have previously taken positions on, that have been moving forward. on the. the first is assembly bill 1605, which is the bill that the transportation authority is sponsoring, regarding the reservation program on lumbar street. i just wanted to report it has cleared the assembly and will be heard tomorrow in senate -- governments and finance. so we're prepared and working with the committee to move that forward. the second bill, senate bill 59, this is a bill to establish a
working group to develop statewide policy on autonomous vehicles. just wanted to report that we had been working with the author at the request of commissioner yee to get vision zero related language as one of the principles and that has happened. so we're thankful to the author for consideration. senate bill 127, which is senator wiener's complete streets bill, that would require bike and pedestrian consideration on state highway projects. this had been stalled for about three months and we're happy to report that it was amended and is now -- it's cleared the house -- i'm sorry, it's cleared the senate and is in the assembly right now, with a few amendments, but it's still something that worth supporting. and then finally senate bill 1552, this was senator bill sponsored by m.t.c. to redistribute the active transportation program from senate bill 1, to give more
delegated authority to the regions, that bill is now dead. there is opposition from the california transportation commission and so the senator has pulled back and is no longer moving forward this year or indicated next year as well. and then moving to table one, which is new position, one bill on there proposed for watch. this is senate bill 277, also senator bell. this is related to the senate bill 1 local partnership program funding, which provides about $200 million a year. right iterations of the program directed the vast majority of it to self-help counties raising the funding, their own local funding for transportation. however, it was directed this time to the t.t.c. this bill would instead go back to prior iterations and direct annual appropriations, directly
by formula to the local participating jurisdictions. so we're watching that. it's -- lots of conversations happening around it right now. and we'll keep you posted. and then assembly bill 1112, this is a bill you heard about last month. we are asking for an opposed unless amended, last month we adopted straight opposed position. right now ssmta, is working with the cities of los angeles, santa monica, san jose and oakland with the author to try to incorporate some of the changes to the bill that they're interested in seeing. and so with an oppose unless amended position, we will maintain our opposed position until some point in the future, if the assembly member is willing to make the revisions that are sufficient to meet our
concerns. we would then remove the amend position. it would turn it into a watch position. so with this bill, it basically states that regulating shared mobility is an issue of statewide concern. and, therefore, applies a number of different restrictions on local regulation to the bill. and structures what expectations are for shared mobility operators. there's two main issues that we share with ssmta about the bill. the first is the restrictions on local abilities to regulate if the program, with respect to parking requirements, with respect to equity requirements. on june 3rd, the author did introduce an amendment that went in the right direction. but didn't go far enough. and so the cities and us are working actively with the author to try to address the additional outstanding concerns. and are hoping to make progress over the next couple of weeks. the second main issue is regarding data and what we are
allowed to collect from the shared mobility operators, mainly we really want to be able to get the information that we need to look at how they're complying with our current regulation, as well as giving us the information we need to continue to evaluate these new modes and what -- how they're performing on the street. so it will be -- it was suppose to be heard today in senate transportation. it's been delayed until june 25th. and the oppose unless amended position will give us the opportunity to kind of show good faith with the author and continue working for amendments. the author is very interested in not having public sector opposition to the bill. so this will give us an opportunity to continue working with the incentive of removing our opposed position. with that i'm happy to answer any questions. >> so before i open up to public comment, after expressing
displeasure and disappointment in our local assembly delegation, thank you mr. fitzgerald rodriguez for quoting me as being disappointed insofar as our local assembly members voted a.b.1112 without consulting us. apparently the position that we took showed up on their desk after they took the vote. but i was subsequently contacted by assembly member chu, who indicated that he would work with the sponsor friedman to effectuate aforementioned amendments, which i appreciated and welcomed and encouraged. so i just want to update my colleagues and staff and the public on that. are there any members of the public who would like to testify on this item number 5? i have one speaker card alita
dupree. >> albert? >> clerk: commissioners. do you want to talk? >> i have one name in the queue, you can come. anyone who wants to follow mr. da costa is welcome to do so. >> good morning. chair peskin. i'm alita dupree for the record. i can't say i've ever been to the meeting. i can't say i have ever met any of you. i am a user of shared mobility. i come here and stay often. i'm a person of modest means. a disabled u.s. army veteran of operation desert storm. i use shared mobility because it is one of the many tools in my toolbox that i have to navigate in different communities with the various challenges that i have. consequently, i am a supporter of a.b. 1112.
i feel the need to have statewide standards. we've had many questions to have federal answers on most challenging issues, not going to mention specifically. so to me, just as bicycles and skateboards and automobiles are able to traverse municipal, county and state lines, so should these shared electric bicycles and scooters, which i use, that help me to get to and from public transportation, especially in times of difficult frequencies of associated public transportation. to me i am concerned about what i call the constructive denial of service. i see the arbitrary limitation of these mobility services, that only hamper those of us with challenges and disabilities to navigate. [bell ringing] i have had good conversations with these scooter operator.
and nevada just passed a.b.4le 5, a landmark statewide scooter bill with minimal opposition. i ask that this city help and remember those of us who have challenges, who need these services. that's why i speak to you today. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, what i want to bring to your attention is that long before the bills go through the motion in sacramento, that we have a mechanism on our site, s.f. gov, to the public can give their input. now what we have here is that this so-called representative in sacramento have no understanding
that this is the city and county of san francisco. even your supervisors don't take that seriously. this is the city and county of san francisco. at one time san francisco had jurisdiction, not only in san francisco, but going all the way to palo alto. you all haven't been given an orientation on that. so in the past, those members in sacramento, that represented san francisco, not only represented san francisco, but they also went beyond the region. having said that you heard the president say that the guys in sacramento initiated something and only after initiating it, brought it to your attention. shame on whom? so we have this so-called
consultant and they have a role to play. [bell ringing] they have to follow the bills and they have to see how it impacts the constituents. so what we had today was somebody saying something of what happened in sacramento, but we had the president of this commission bringing it to our attention, that we were not consulted. so pay attention to that. thank you very much. [bell ringing] >> next speaker, please. >> thanks. i thought we had submitted a speaker card. so i don't usually like to read from notes. because time is limited and i have a lot to say, i'm going to do that. i hope i don't speak too quickly. i'll read some prepared notes. first of all, i'm rob schwartz. and i'm the owner of san francisco bicycle rentals. you might automatically think that that disqualifies me from offering a neutral perspective on this assembly bill. but i hope you'll think
otherwise after i share my thoughts. we think that this is clearly a poor piece of legislation, which actually undermines that which it says it's trying to support, an effective and efficient by bike-share in service to the environment. san francisco has 40 bike rental shops and it's a unique market. we not only pay taxes, create jobs and pay rent. here's the key thing, we serve 3,000, 4,000 tourists a day, otherwise take bikes out of the city and out of circulation to enjoy the most popular bike ride in the united states. we have worked very closely with the ssmta. yesterday i met with paul from the mayor's office and something that san francisco has instituted from the very beginning, i stood up when bay-area bike share was introduced eight years ago, we support the bike-share system, because they, from the very beginning, used a variable pricing system. which encourages short-term use of the bikes. the average user of the bike-share system uses them for 25 minutes.
however, 3,000 to 4,000 tourists a day take bikes out of san francisco to sausalito to enjoy the ride. those bikes do not come back. they're taken out of circulation. so we've crafted a policy, which is not only in use in san francisco, lyft currently uses it, jump and uber do not. [bell ringing] this bill is supported by jump and uber. they it's important that that policy stays as is, as recommended by the ssmta. as recommended by the mayor's office. that will allowed bike-rental industry to continue to exist, not only for our benefit, but for the benefit of the residents of san francisco. so we can serve the 3,000 to 4,000 bikes, which otherwise are taken out of circulation. it's going to require more bikes, more congestion, et cetera. [bell ringing] we tracked a win-win solution. if this bill is not amended, it's not going to work out as intended. so thank you for your good work. >> thank you for your testimony. seeing no other members of the public on this item, public comment is closed. [gavel]. do we have a motion to move the
staff resolution adopting a revision to the current oppose position, to oppose unless amended -- motion made by commissioner safai and seconded by commissioner fewer. colleagues, we have a different house roll call, please. sorry. commissioner ronen just left my eyesight. i know. same house. same call. [gavel]. the resolution is passed. next item, please. >> clerk: item -- chair, i think commissioner and stefani and i had comments. >> a motion to rescind the vote, he coulded by commissioner fewer.
colleagues without objection, my apologies. >> i was only going to speak up to say, you know, to thank you for representing us. i didn't actually see that story. when i was briefed on this bill, it seemed like such a completely horrible idea. i couldn't imagine anyone on this body supporting it. and i was surprised -- i'm now surprised to hear that our legislators had voted for it. as i think about the increasing list of areas, where the state legislature has decided to preempt local action, whether it's to protect renters or stop speculative evictions or allow us to charge reasonable rates for telecom and wireless in area after area after area, big industries, go to sacramento, get themselves special protections and prevent localities from passing common sense regulations, to actually manage issues that are near and dear to the hearts of our constituents. this is -- this bill appears to
be squarely within that unfortunate tradition. and we should be doing everything that we can to' pose it. i can't imagine the situations in which this legislation could be amended, that would make it something that i would support. but i think this is just a terrible, terrible idea. >> thank you so much for those comments, that i embrace and concur with wholeheartedly. commissioner stefani? >> thank you, chair peskin. i also agree with those comments. first of all, i wanted to thank the t.a. for everything they've done on a.b.1605. then, of course, express my dismay as well at a.b.1112 and thank you, chair peskin, for speaking up. i think in an industry where we, you know, all the time we tell people we can't do anything about the number of t.n.c.s on the streets, because of state regulation. and then you see this. now we're not able to do anything about the number of scooters on the streets if the state takes it over. i think, you know, with our vision zero goals and everything that we've been seeing with pedestrian and cycling
fatalities, if we lose control over our ability to regulate scooters, it's just again tieing our hands. in an industry that's routinely asked for forgiveness and not -- we would absolutely lose control here. again thank you, chair peskin, for speaking up. >> thank you, commissioner stefani, for those comments as well. seeing no -- my apologies for calling the vote without calling on you, colleagues. a motion to pass the resolution we previously passed and rescind. seconded by commissioner fewer. same house, same call. the resolution is passed again. next item, please. >> clerk: item 6. a public hearing. adopt the proposed fiscal year 2019-2020 budget and work program. this is an action item. >> ms. fong. >> cynthia fong. this is the second look of the
fiscal year '19--'20 budget. last month i came with the executive director and presented a detailed review of our budget. just to recap what's happened since then. we have total revenues of $148.5 million. we expect $110.9 million of that to be coming from sales tax revenue funds. we have -- we're expecting total expenditures of $275.8 million, of that $242.000005 million of that is christmas eve projects. that's spent on items such as the overhaul of the light-rail vehicles, central subway, new and upgraded traffic signals and much more. since last month, we have no changes to the budget. we have also checked in with the controller's office to check if the sales tax revenue are up to par to what the estimates are as well. and they are. with that i also like to add, in
order to fund the $275 million of expenditures, we're utilizing the remaining bond proceeds, issued from the november 2017 sales tax revenue bond. with that i'm happy to open this to any questions anyone have. >> thank you, ms. fong. colleagues, are there any questions for our chief financial officer. commissioner fewer? >> yes. thank you very much, chair. i just wanted to emphasize that on page 51 here, attachment 1, under the plan, act of congestion management, about the downtown congestion pricing study. i'd like the pricing study to also include the impact on small businesses in commerce and those areas. >> yes. >> okay. that was an affirmative yes. really there any members of the public who would like to testify on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] and that is a hearing.
and now we need to adopt the proposed fiscal year 2019-2020 budget and work program. >> could i please also -- thank you, chair. could i also please add in the work plan also access to public serving entities such as hospitals. thank you. >> yes, we will take care of that. >> okay. >> with that do we have a motion made by commissioner fewer, seconded by commissioner brown and colleagues we have the same house. same call. [gavel]. the item is passed. next item please, mr. quintanilla. >> item #. allocate approximately $1.8 million in prop k sales tax funds with conditions for four requests and appropriate $100,000 for prop k funds. >> the floor. >> good morning, commissions. anna la fort, deputy director for policy and programming at
the transportation authority. before i begin, i just wanted to clarify a statement that was made by the representative from the citizens' advisory committee about the two bart allocation requests. just wanted to clarify that the high percentage was for construction management or soft costs, costs that are related to the oversight that is done of the work that is performed. and so it wasn't a percent of an increase in a cost. it was actually a cost that is relative to a construction contract. what we typically see in san francisco, the 15% to 30% of construction management costs as a percent of the construction cost estimate for the contract. and in this case, we saw ranges of between 50% and 60%. just wanted to clarify we have received information from bart staff, as of this morning. and we will be reviewing it and expect to present the two allocation requests next month to the board.
so the first request that is before you today is for the great highway project. this is a revised scope of work for the erosion repair and drainage work that needs to be done to preserve the existing roadways. initially public works had been working to reconfigure the roadway into one northbound and one southbound lane. and that scope is no longer advancing. s.f. public works is not able to access a federal grant and revisited the scope and the needs of the project area and have revised the scope to implement elements before the next rainy season. so a lot of these improvements will be going in this summer. and we'll maintain the existing configuration of the roadway of two northbound and one southbound lane. and it will allow for preventative measures to be installed to help to preserve the public utility commission p.c. infrastructure that is below the roadway. it will -- i will say that it will temporarily preserve the
existing configuration, so it doesn't abandon the southbound lanes and it doesn't prevent the future closure of the southbound lane. and that's required to implement a recreation and park department south ocean beach multi-use trail project, that we expect to start construction following this project and with completion next summer. the next request is the first of three neighborhood transportation improvement program requests. this is the first of two from district 7. these are projects that were identified during commissioner yee's participatory budget process, earlier this fiscal year. the locations are shown in the enclosure to this item, in your packet, and for folks watching at home. and so these are various different traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures. we expect that things will be -- all of them will be open for use by the end of calendar year
2020. this is adding to the general fund money that commissioner yee has put on to these projects to round out the funding plan. the next is the second district 7 end tip project. and this is for feasibility study to determine a preferred alternative of installing a bike lane, bike facility around lake merced park. the first option that will be explored is extending or rerouteing the existing multi-use trail and to make it designated for bikes only. and so the other option is to actually putted facility on the street, on lake merced boulevard and connect to existing bike facilities on john muir drive. so we expect a final report with recommendations. the next request is a district 6 neighborhood transportation improvement program project. and this is to construct
improvements. these are some of the quick and effective measures at five intersections, as recommended in the transportation authority's vision zero ramp intersection study. and this will improve locations that are reflected also in your enclosure to your packets. so you can see the specific locations on 7th and 8th street. these are the on-ramps and off-ramps, where city streets and state facilities meet. and the last of the requests today is for the administration and the ongoing program support that transportation authority staff provide for the neighborhood transportation improvement program. this is work that we do every day to support the projects that folks are interested in advancing and exploring how to scope them. the list -- there is a list in your enclosure that gives the status of all of the end-tip projects that have been funded to date, as well as the end-tip
planning program guidelines. and just to highlight that any project has to be eligible for prop k funds and we're excited to start the next cycle of the program. and with that i can answer any questions and project managerses are here. >> thank you, ms. la fort. are there any questions from colleagues? seeing none, i just do have to say, mr. ramos, even though all of these are worthy projects, it just pains me to give an agency money when this body, in a different incarnation of the board of supervisors unanimously voted on something that your commission cannot find its way to do. but i -- that needs to be kept separate and apart from all of these worthy projects. but i had to get that off of my chest. are there any members of the public who would like to sneak to this item? please come forward. seeing none, we'll close public comment.
[gavel] a motion to allocate the $1.88 million made by commissioner mandelman, seconded by commissioner walton. roll call, please. >> on item 10, commissioner brown? >> aye. >> commissioner fewer? >> aye. >> commissioner haney? >> aye. >> commissioner mandelman? >> aye. >>s commissioner mar? >> aye. >> peskin aye. commissioner stefani? >> aye. we have first approval. >> next item, please. >> item 8. vehicle registration fee funds to five project. and amends the plan. this is an action item. >> mr. pickford. >> good morning. prop aa was approved by san francisco voters in 2010. it generates revenues from a $10 vehicle registration fee to fund transportation improvements, compared to prop k, revenues of about 100 million ad year. prop aa is pretty small,
$5 million a year. to help the small program have a big impact, focused on quick to build projects, and neighbors all around the city and fund design and construction. while prop k includes 40 different categories, prop aa divides funds between three categories. street repair, safety and transit reliability. and over the 30-year life of the program, there's mandatory split of 50% for feet repair and 25 -- street repair and 25% each for the other three categories. for 2019, our call for projects, which we released in march, we received six applications and received six applications requesting nearly double the amount that we had available to fund additional project. we're recommending the release of the prop aa capital reserve and programming funds from a completed sfmta project. i'll go over the evaluation
process. to evaluate and prioritize the applications, we -- criteria including program-wide criteria, like whether it can deliver projects quickly, as well as category-specific criteria, such as in the pedestrian safety category for projects on the vision zero, high-injury network corridor. high priority is given to project readiness. since the amount available in each category is to ensure fund split that i mentioned, between the three categories. for instance, in street repair, we had some unprogrammed funds from our previous call for projects. that's why there was substantially more available in that category. now i'll go over the projects. the geary boulevard would resurface 28 blocks between van ness and masonic. as part of the larger phase one project. the requested funds would cover a cost increase from updating construction cost estimates and funding gap from shifting funds within that project. and the project is estimated to
be advertised later this summer. and open for use by january 2022. the second paving project is richmond paving renovations, which would resurface 20 blocks of residential streets in the richmond. the list of potential segments is included in your packet. and public works anticipates that construction would start in spring 2020, with all of the segments open by june of 2022. and the pedestrian safety category, 5th street quick build is a vision zero high-priority project, that would implement quick and effective safety measures on 5th between townsend and market. improvements include upgraded crosswalks, advanced limit lines, protected bikeways and bus boarding islands. and to accommodate these improvements, a travel lane and some parking would be removed. sfmta anticipates completing construction by december of this year. in order to fund additional projects and with the limited amount of funds available, we're recommending partially funding this request. and sfmta will fill out the remaining funding gap with general funds.
and prop k from the pedestrian safety category. we have place holders programs specifically for vision zero projects, if they would desire to go that route. the next pedestrian safety category project is the hairball interchange. these funds leverage previously -- district 9 and 10 end tip funds to construct a wider path for cyclists and pedestrians, adjacent to caesar chavez. prop amp a funds would cover the cost increase over the project, due to public works discovering the need for a large retaining wall when they started designing the project. with these funds, they anticipate this project to be open for use by march of next year. and then finally in our transit category, we're recommending funds for the 3rd street transit and safety project, which is near-term phase of a moving forward project to reconfigure traffic and transit-only lane on 3rd between townsend and mission. the project would help to
relocate bus stops and upgraded crosswalks and speed up the 8:30 and 8:45 buses. and sfmta anticipates being complete by june 2020. for this one also recommend partial funding due to the request exceeding the amount available in this category. sfmta will update construction cost estimates when they complete design in fall of this year. at that time they'll consider identifying funds from the lower priority projects or requesting to fill any gap with prop k funds. and/or modifying the scope to simply move forward with the project, with independent utility that uses the amount available. and finally, we're not recommending funds for the sfmta accessible pedestrian project. it provide -- they're certainly important, but the project scored slightly lower in the criteria. primarily because it didn't leverage other funds. we will definitely look forward
to working with sfmta to try to identify funds, so that these can be implemented. with that i can take any questions. >> thank you, mr. pickford. why don't we combine this with the next item, which is also one that you're going to present. so mr. clerk, would you call item number 9. >> clerk: item 9, approve the fiscal year 2019-2020 transportation fund for clean air program projects. action. >> mr. pickford. >> me again. the transportation fund for clean air is funded by a $4 vehicle surcharge on registrations in the bay area. and will fund transportation -- or projects that improve air quality by reducing motor vehicle emissions. so 60% of their funds collected stay with the air district and are devoted to the regional projects. 40% are returned to counties with the transportation authority administering the fund here in san francisco. reach year we program about $700,000 to $800,000 and this year we had $733,000 available.
we received applications requesting about $870,000. so the air district establishes requirements such as the eligible project types and definitely meeting their cost effectiveness ratio. and so every project has to meet those requirements. however, the air district's policies don't prioritize individual projects. so we have the -- the board has adopted local expenditure criteria for san francisco, that do prioritize applications by a project type, emissions reduced, readiness, projects are expected to be completed within two years. and you can see on the slide that zero emissions on vehicle projects are first priority, followed by shuttles and alternative fuel projects. so for this year the board also adopted three new criteria to prioritize projects that show community support, such as being in a plan, that benefit communities of concern and for categories where nonpublic
sponsors are eligible, such as zero emission -- such as alternative fuel projects, that they show an investment from the entity. so of the requests we received, recommending fully funding two and partially funding the third. first step is mixed-use fast charging. so this project would have e.v. go, a private entity working with s.f. environment to identify sites for at least four 23569 chargers and mixed-use buildings. your packet has a memo from e.v. go detailing factors they consider when citing the chargers and how they plan to work with people. they shut prioritize underserved locations, assuming all of the criteria such as availability of power are met. next is a project from bart. early bird shuttles run two early morning shuttles before the rail service starts. the first one is a map here, the first one goes from the transbay terminal express to the airport. the second follows the normal bart stations within the city.
and these funds funds are levery a good amount of regional bart funds. i do want to point out the service began in february. so these funds continue for an additional two years. and then the final request is short-term bike funding. which is installing 1300 bike racks across san francisco. our recommendation to partially fund this, due to limited funds available. but the project is scalable and we will work with sfmta to supplement this with funds from prop k or other sources. we wanted to point out that sfmta plans to use revenues from the scooter share and bike share permit process to fully fund this project. with that i can take any questions on either of the last two items. >> commissioner haney. >> thank you, chair peskin. thank you for this. my questions are on a couple of projects in item 8. so you said that for the 5th street quick-build improvement, that we're going to be funding
part of it. but that may is funding the rest of it. are they funding the full requested amount? is there already confirmed? does it have impact on the timeline of the project? >> yes. we haven't finalized the exact source with them. but we have the option between general funds that are controlled by sfmta or they are welcome to request prop k funds. last fall when we adopted the five years of programming for prop k, we included some place holders for vision zero projects that might be a good fit for this project. but it would be an ongoing discussion with them. >> so we don't know yet? i mean, so we chose it much less than the full amount that was requested. so it's unclear whether they're going to be able to find other sources? >> we have discussed it with staff, with sfmta staff. and we feel confident that the project can be fully funded between the options that are available. >> is there something you'd like
to add? >> i will comment that we are in discussions with sfmta about the request for prop k funds for the quick and effective program of projects. and i do believe that 5th street construction is in that group of projects that will be presented to the board, within the next month or so. >> got it. okay. and for the taylor street project, my understanding is that there was some delay in programming of funds for that as part of the taylor street project. do you have any information about that or exactly the timeline will be there? >> was that for 3rd street? >> maybe it wasn't in this set. was taylor street project one of the ones in this set? no. okay. i'll follow up on that. >> yeah. we're happy to follow up. >> thank you.
>> all right. is there any public comment on items 8 and 9? >> greetings, chair peskin, alita due bree for the record. i can file a speaker card, if so needed. this is very important work. much of it is very relevant and personal to me. i do support the adding of street furniture, so that way i will have more places to park and lock the various shared mobility devices that i use. it's no phone trying to hunt for them. so we should be putting street furniture all over the city. i am a frequent user of bart. and while i do not ride bart in the off-hours, i do support the early-bird express, because i never know where i'm going to be. and so i need to be able to
cross the bay or to move down the main line in a timely manner at any time of day or night. so that's especially important for me as a person with challenges. i think it is important to expand our charging infrastructure. and while i do not own a car, there are many who do. i hope a day when really all cars will be electric and i know what it's like to suffer charging deserts and range anxiety. so this will help a very important subset of people who do need cars and who are doing their part in helping to clean the air by buying electric cars. [bell ringing] we have many of them. so this is a start. we must do more. let's at least get going with this. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public for items 8 or 9?
mr. da costa. >> the, commissioners, what we have here is three presentations, with pots of money. my question is very simple. our city has a budget of over $12.3 billion. and i think it's high time for the san francisco county transportation authority to do an audit on those streets that give the city a lot of money. and get nothing in return. and we had a gentleman making some presentation, but he's alluding to like in one pot of money there's no money. prop k has more money. so when will we learn to focus on our corridors, our important
corey core -- corridors in the city, more commercial corridors that give millions of dollars to the city and get nothing in return. nothing in return. and one of the projects hasn't been mentioned here, but if you go to san bruno, for the last four months now, they're trying to do something with the lights. and i doubt one of you has gone over there and looked at that project. [bell ringing] and we know that when there's an emergency like on howard street or folsom street, we say, okay, it's an emergency. we should do something. so i'm looking forward to the s.f. county transportation to
having a small team to go and look at this corridor and come up with a better plan. [bell ringing] you should have more money. but i don't know. why we are not spending the money in the right way. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public here for items 8 or 9? seeing none public comment is closed. [gavel] is there a motion to move items 8 and 9 as presented by staff? motion made by commissioner mandelman, seconded by reabilan. and we have a different house. roll call, please. >> on item 8 and 9, commissioner brown? >> aye. >> brown. commissioner haney? >> aye. >> commissioner mar? >> aye. >> commissioner ronen?
ronen isn't here. commissioner walton? >> aye. >> commissioner yee? >> aye. >> commissioner we have first approval. >> next item. >> clerk: item 10. award a one year and six months professional services contract to nelson nygaaar consult and associates for technical and communication services for the downtown congestion pricing study. this is an action item. >> mr. dental post. >> good morning. collin dentalpost. senior transportation planner. this is the next step in the downtown congestion pricing study, which you last saw on item 4 in february. at that point you'll recall that you sent us forward with a $500,000 prop k appropriation, to get the study started. that's part of the same $1.8 million total budget that we continue to work towards today. we're also still working on the final pieces of that budget.
we have m.t.c. planning to, through the bay area toll authority, contribute $400,000 in toll funds in juul. and then also we're waiting on some developer funds to round out the budget. we're still working with the same scope of work we had before and also the 18-month schedule, which upon contract approval, would bring us to planning to complete around the end of 2020. we -- in that scope of work, covers several different key elements. the outreach and stakeholder engagement piece. the program development, working on how we're going to look at different scenarios here. and the technical analysis to support the work and i'll highlight here that we appreciate commissioner fewer's comments here and certainly want to look at the access to small business and medical facilities, as part of this work. we issued for the consultant
piece of work an r.f.p. in april and we received five responses. the panel, which consisted of staff from the t.a., as well as sfmta and 34678t.c., narrowed that down to three to interview. and all three of those firms did meet or exceed the 14% d.b.e. goal that we established. there were three central criteria that we were looking at, as a panel. one is whether the teams seem to really understand the objectives and what we're trying to accomplish with the study. the second was what their approach to managing and the technical analysis in the study. and the third one was what capabilities and experience they're bringing to the table. based on those criteria, we recommended awarding the contract to nelson/nygaard as the top-ranked firm, based on several different strengths that they brought to the table, including having a really strong project manner, really a tight
interweaving of the different work streams, the outreach and the technical analysis, with a real focus on equity. and also bringing a bench of experts to the table, both with local expertise as well as experience working on congestion pricing studies and a number of other cities as well. so based on that analysis, we're recommending an award of the contract and also nygaard and also authorizing the executive director to authorize terms and conditions. i wanted to correct one item from the c.a.c. report. the c.a.c. did not approve the item. the item failed on a four yes, four abstain vote at c.a.c. with that i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. any questions from members? seeing none, any public comment on item number 10. see nothing public comment, public comment is closed. [gavel] is there a motion to award said contract, made by commissioner yee, seconded by
commissioner walton. colleague, can we take that same house, same call? [gavel] the item is passed on first read. any introduction of new items? is there any general public comment? >> joe peskin and members, alita dupree for the record. with general public comment, as i learn more about what you all do here and is relevant. i'm looking for a city that will be active in innovation and the management of congestion, that we will continue the work of putting in the bicycle lanes, the green lanes and the red bus lanes.
not only am i a user of shared mobility, but i am also a user of muni, i pay $39 for my monthly mass and rode -- monthly pass and rode the subway over here. so i am concerned about congestion. our biggest problem in this community is simply the shared ownership, -- i'm sorry, it is the ownership and operation of single-occupancy, private vehicles. and there are always be some of that subset here. that is our largest issue to tackle. traffic enforcement is essential. our problem is not the shared mobility scooters, because we have accountability. i have a nevada driver's license, that i not put at risk. i wear a helmet, because i choose to. [bell ringing] but there are some who ride
skateboards on sidewalks and who ride bicycles against the traffic. we should all have a focus here at this agency on the obedience of vehicle and traffic law, which is basically standardized throughout the state and federal as well. so let us have our priorities in order. what is paramount is a safer san francisco. thank you. [bell ringing] >> thank you for your comment. and your participation. colleagues, seeing no other members of the public for general public comment, public comment is closed. [gavel] and the t.a. is adjourned. [gavel].