tv Government Access Programming SFGTV July 15, 2018 3:00am-4:01am PDT
>> chair peskin: thank you. can you please call the next item? >> clerk: item two, this is an information item. >> chair peskin: good morning. >> hold on, we will get that turned on for you in just a second. you are good to go. no, you are not good to go. >> i am. >> chair peskin: sorry about that. >> that's all right. it happens all the time at this eac. we have a new microphone system and it bedevils all of us. good morning. we have -- i am drawn to larson.
chair of the citizen's advisory committee. i will be presenting the report of the june 27th c.a.c. meeting. although we adopted a motion of support for the expansion design work, we continued a later item on adopting a motion of support for the pennsylvania alignment as a preferred alternative on the approach to the dt x. this was primarily because the -- c.a.c. members thought they would have to know the possible locations of any rail yards that may need to be relocated based on the alignment. before, recommending approval. there was renewed interest in learning why a seventh street alignment of the d.t.x. and the downtown transit centre had been rejected years ago. therefore the item related to the pennsylvania avenue alternative will come back between -- before the c.a.c. to explore those issues further. moving on. moving on to item six,
allocation appropriation requests, and response to a c.a.c. member about any lessons from damping applied to the b.r.t. project, we had replied because of the experience, the work was divided into two projects. one contract for the underground sewer water and fiber-optic cable work and another for the surface signal and paving work. during public comment, there was objection voice to the knee b.r.t. seeing that the original project called for light rail and notch the current b.r.t. plan. among the other items, c.a.c. members also expressed interest in and an approval for the balboa park station improvement plan request. noting, in particular, the redesigned passenger drop-off area that can also be closed and use for public events during low traffic times of day. in response to public comment about better integrating the m. line terminus with the b.r.t. station improvements at balboa park, the staff noticed there is
a current neighbourhood transportation improvement program for district 11 looking at that issue and others at the san jose intersection. and staff said they will continue to confer with s.f. m.t.a. during the design phase. regarding the emerging evaluation report, item nine on your agenda, the approval of the report, that there was discussion of the envelop -- to newer autonomous technology like drones. they noted that they were working with them to -- in regard to sidewalk robots and in regards to autonomous vehicles with passengers. a member pointed out that the federal aviation administration would need to be consulted about drone technology which further illustrated that the many different authorities with -- with jurisdiction over the term autonomous vehicles. >> chair peskin: thank you.
is there any public comment on the c.a.c. report? >> good morning jerry peskin and directors. i hope you had the opportunity to read the mail i sent you yesterday. before i start, i am on record as saying multiple times that the tac a.c. is the best one i've ever come across in the entire bay area. >> chair peskin: do you hear that mr larsen? >> i would also like to extend my thanks to mr larson for allowing the more than two minutes to explain what the issues are with a seventh street alignment. and wrapping up, i'm going to summarize the contents of my e-mail. first of all, the seventh street alignment was never presented to the peer review panel as an option. actually, one of the senior members of the panel reached out to me after i spoke to them and
said you know if you had known it more of this, we may have come to different conclusions. in regards to the 2011 -- i will make it all very simple. we know that they are 30 feet wide. they attempted to push a 44-foot wide single tunnel in that alignment. guess what? it was rejected. that is the point where i decided to get involved. my proposal is very simple. it is two separate proposals. the outer diameter is 27.5 feet. it gives you two and a half feet space. it works. the reason why we cannot vacate to the yard, and we need storage, is that because they did not comply with the conditions of our grant in 2,008. there is enough capacity to get trains in there and that is what they stow in the yard.
the last point, as if you look at the complete picture, i don't know if you had the time to look at the video, and you push this through a simulation to understand why you do not need access in and out of the trance bay. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. is there any additional public comment on this item. any questions from commissioners? public comment is closed. to mr larson, we look forward to the planning department and staff further briefing you on the pennsylvania alignment and options for 8-yard at your july meeting. we will take this up again when we reconvene in september. if not in late july. next item, please. >> clerk: item three. approve the minutes of the june 26, 2018 meeting. this is an action item. >> chair peskin: is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to approve the minutes?
on that item, a roll call, please. [roll call] >> clerk: we have approval. >> chair peskin: all right. the minutes are adopted. next item, please. >> clerk: item four. state and federal legislation update. this is an action item. >> chair peskin: mr watts. good morning. >> good morning authority board members. i have board members. i have a few information items but there are two bills for your consideration for positions recommended by staff. i would like to remind you of the situation where we are in the legislature right now. they took off on summer recess last friday and they return
august 6th. they will wrap up they are two your session at the end of august. so we have a very compressed timeframe staring at us as we move into august with a couple bills we are following that will be very active during that timeframe. in addition, to let me me just jump to the two bills that are recommended in your pockets. the first is senate bill ten 14 by senator skinner. essentially, the bill is -- has a goal of setting targets to ensure that tmc fleets become zero emission by 2030. the authority did take a support position in june but subsequent did there have been two sets of amendments. the first set of amendments were advocated by dnc companies and we allow them -- would allow them to count miles on scooters and bikes share programs towards the reduction targets to the companies.
the staff was originally intending to come before you both -- with a support to seek amendment position to reinstate the prior language that focused simply on the t.n.c. passenger vehicles. the second amendment came last week after the board packet was posted. it would require the resources board to evaluate the role of using public funds to incentivize t.n.c. drivers to purchase zero emission vehicles. as a consequence of those developments since the last time this bill was before you, staff and is now recommending a seek amendment position that would states that t.n.c. drivers should not be prioritized for public and scented funds. in addition, the other bell that is before you today is senate bill 1328 by senator bell. this bill deals with an extension of the road user charge technical advisory
committee. it has -- currently, that tac has a life until 2019. they completed the main objective of what it was put into law for and that was to develop a pilot program. it was administered by the administration and they came to a conclusion that there is a feeling that the administration on the legislation and the extension of the life of the t.a.c. would allow a more in-depth review of the potential for mileage-based revenue complexions. >> just a point of clarification, that bill is actually not on. >> chair peskin: i was going to say, that is not on the agenda. only skinner, if amended is on the agenda. >> my apologies. i'm sorry i went on and on. >> chair peskin: it's ok. >> i was looking for a clue but i didn't catch it. >> chair peskin: we are not allowed to vote on it because it has not been publicly noticed. >> that is my fault.
i apologize. >> chair peskin: and no worries. >> updates on bills with physicians that you have taken, there's been a couple of bills that are moving. for example, 2865 by mr to. it was amended in june to add an option to ask the bay area infrastructure financing authority to be available to operate lanes in the future should the authority ever go down the pathway. you would have 12 alternative approaches using the authority and the bill now or they would add it as an alternative. that bill is an appropriations committee and staff and your consultant are working on meetings with the staff there. in addition, and other bell that was supported by the authority is three want to fly -- 3124. it would provide a statewide basis authority for bus systems to use three rock instead of two
rock bike racks in the front of their buses. that has passed and the governor has approved at. it is now in law effective, january 1st. moving on, there was one measure that was opposed. that is 2989 by mr flora. that bill deals with an electric scooter regulation. i'm happy to report that they abandoned that all regulatory scheme and substituted a simpler bill that deals with the requiring helmets on e. scooters. it was subsequently amended again to add in some authority for use on certain highways that had different speed limits. twenty-five or less or 35 or less under certain conditions. that says that the bill stands today and it no longer regulates electric scooter industry. it authorizes instead -- or requires helmets in certain restrictions on where they can go.
>> chair peskin: weren't helmets already required under state law? >> it was unclear. it is believed not to. in the first set of amendments, it did mandate helmets and the second set included that it only applies to users under the age of 18. it was a surprise to me. i assumes that helmets were required but they were not. >> chair peskin: thank you. >> finally, i just want to point out the repeal initiative was certified. it is pretty recent news. in late june. subsequent to that, the secretary of state has designated the measure as proposition six. staff has indicated they would like to come back and seek approval to oppose proposition six on first reading at the july 24th meeting. that is just a little look
ahead. i have two pieces of budget news. when it was signed on june 27th, the trailer bills were approved as well. it includes two provisions that will be of importance to the city and the counties around the bay area. it would allow cities and counties to borrow from internal city or county revenue streams and reimburse themselves with the funds. it is -- i it facilitates and accelerates the ability to put projects and bundled the money that would otherwise go she would have to wait a while for it, you know, a thorough revenue stream to be relied upon. in addition, for self-help counties, there was a provision that limits the administration portion of the cost that cal tran charges for the work it does for the up at ten%. that was well strategized by the self-help county coalition.
with that, i will breadth -- bring my presentation to a close. >> chair peskin: thank you. are the questions from commissioners? >> good morning. thank you for a briefing with me on my staff yesterday. i am grateful. in san francisco, bike share and scooter miles are travelled -- it only accounts for 3.5% of the total vehicle miles travelled and i don't believe this is a high enough threshold for us to consider changing, well, we have changed our position and i am grateful that you have changed the recommendation to the t.a. staff. i wanted to say that the goal of the legislation is to establish greenhouse gas emission baselines for t.n.c., but i do question that if the 3.5% really is significant enough to portion of travel miles for us to move
our position. instead of working with the companies to reduce their emissions. i have a series of questions if i could. >> i get a pay increase and now i am a better employee. >> so i will direct my questions not only to mr watts but to the t.a. staff that is sitting behind me. first, what is a definition of the vehicle that is being used in this legislation? >> this is skinner 1014. >> this skinner 1014. there is a definition of the vehicle. i'm curious to know. i want to make sure we are working from the same page. as you find your answer, i will find some more stuff. >> the definition of the vehicle and a merriam webster dictionary is a machine that transports
people or cargo. it doesn't really explicitly -- it is not an explicit motor vehicle. what is the harm in county bikes and scooters? >> thank you for the question. amber is looking for definitions. the intent of the bill is to reduce motor vehicle emissions for the fleet of t.n.c., rather than all vehicles. so vehicle trips by bicycle and scooter, we believe that while our vehicles are not meant -- where we are not just were not originally meant to be the focus of the bill's p3 as you look for the definition, i'm curious to know which cities in california have the biggest or the largest
active transportation program. >> goodness. i'm not sure. we have the most robust market for scooter and bike share in the state. i would venture to guess that is true although i do not know for sure's b3 do we know where the percentage of the total vehicle miles travelled -- of vehicle miles travelled through these active transit programs? >> i do not. we do not have specific road share studies but we know it is a very small fraction and i think the three% figure is not too far off's b3 i understand that you are not really -- i understand they are not the focus, but we are only talking about 3.5% share of the six ent in san francisco. >> this is a policy call based on the principle if we would like to like -- would like the bill to focus on motor vehicles. >> you might have the definiti definition. >> i do. what they are looking at is the% share of files completed by qualified zero emission means
including miles completed by vehicle, walking, biking, and other modes of active transportation and a zero emission vehicles. the intent is to not just have bicycle sharing and scooters, but also to think about being able to count the walking that the passengers do to get to shared passenger vehicles. i think it really is the focus on what do we want to see with the passenger fleet. it is a simpler way to look at it and a way to make sure that the targets are consistent and focused as the numbers of these other various modes evolved's b3 again, i understand bikes and scooters are not the focus of the legislation. i am just thinking then there is perhaps a room where we can make an amendment or some kind of support for this legislation that expands and helps -- help our situation in san francisco. for us, it is not just about cars. it is also about bikes and scooters and what other future technology is out there.
>> chair peskin: if you can reiterate where the rub is relative to the recent amendment, which really relates to subsidies of lift and goober driver vehicles with public dollars. as that correctly. >> that is correct. it had been intended to be part of the prior set of amendments, but it was separated out. as you look at a bill that is in print now, it stands out and the focus was on incentivizing's b3 my apologies. staff didn't share with me the subsidies yesterday. >> chair peskin: i don't think the rub is around the way we are looking at them. it is around subsidies for private, for-profit t.n.c. drivers. >> through the chair, i think that's correct. the original version of the bill was introduced and it included
30 million-dollar a year subsidy that wedge go to word assisting t.n.c. drivers in purchasing electric vehicles. that was subsequently removed. at that point, that is where we move support of the bill. this doesn't introduce that subsidy back. it doesn't -- it does introduce language asking or requiring the state to work with the t.n.c. and other stakeholders to evaluate incentives that could be provided. it produces an opportunity and a framework for providing subsidies in the future. i think that was the reason we were moving towards a simple seek amendment position so we can address both of those amendments in discussion with the author. >> chair peskin: thank you's b3 thank you. >> chair peskin: all right. is there any other public comment on this item? seeing and non, public comment is closed. is there a motion to move the
recommendation to support senate bill 1014 we made by commissioner stephanie and seconded by commissioner tang. we have a different house. could you please call the role? [roll call] >> clerk: we have first approval. >> chair peskin: thank you. next item, please. >> chair peskin: item five amended 2015 allocating 19.9 million in prop k. funds for two requests with conditions and
appropriating $600,000 for one request. this is an action item. >> good morning commissioners. i'm the deputy director for policy him programming. i will be presenting this item along with my colleague. i will first outline the strategic plan amendments that are required in order for the board to consider the allocation of funds to three of these requests. actually, yes, it is 23 requests. we are recommending amending the strategic plan baseline that was adopted by the board in may. in order to program funds in fiscal year 18 and 19 when the board adopted the baseline, we said that the programming for the downtown extension and the category that is for this funding, we were still finalizing some numbers and letting a few of the studies make their way through the board including the tunnel studies and some risk analysis. we are now prepared to recommend an amendment to put
$10.3 million in fiscal year 18, 19 and that would fund a request from the trans- bait joint powers authority for about $9.7 million and a 600,000-dollar request from the transportation authority to participate actively in this work to advance the project to 30% design. they will not get the project to 30% design but it will certainly advance a project along the way. the other strategic plan amendments that is required for the allocation today is the transit program. this would advance $190,000 over the next three years for the shop around shuttle, van gogh shuttles and the taxi incentives programs. you have heard a fair amount about this request. this is the lifeline transportation program funding proposition k. and also the caltrain vehicles and guideways amendments.
it provides the san francisco share of the caltrain member contribution from san francisco to their capital budget. this year, they will be requesting $7.5 million from each of the members. we are programming the funds in this fiscal year now concurrent with the strategic plan amendment and caltrain will come before the board in the fall to request the funds. the overall impact of this amendment, or the grouping of these amendments is an increase in financing costs to the program of less than one% over the 30 year expenditure plan. it is just about $9 million. in light of the full program. i will just quickly go over the taxi program. if you have any questions, kate is here from the s.f. m.t.a. but the allocation is consistent with everything we have heard over the last few months. and it provides an shuttle program for folks who are going to need assistance getting to grocery stores, also to recreational type activities. as well as a taxi incentive
program. $300 a month to incentivize what we anticipate will be a ten additional ramp taxi -- taxis. which are a minivan type of vehicle. $300 a month to incentivize state procurement at another $300 a month to help with the operating and maintenance costs of outfitting the vehicle in that way. now i will bring my colleague up. >> hello. on the deputy director of capital projects. i'm happy to discuss the downtown extension, 30% design. the requester funding is just under $9.7 million. it is for our continued efforts on the preliminary engineering side to look at value engineering concepts on the culling options and make sure that we also look at the project delivery and funding plan for this project. as you all know, we have a long ways to go to deliver this project and it is important to
look at the delivery mechanisms and look at how we can best deliver this project and come up with a full funding plan. this is a partial allocation for engineering. the design is going to take close to $200 million as you can see. we will match this with our money and this is a plan for this amount. the thought process is that we want to get going and continue the synergy that we started as we move forward as a result of the peer review order that we just completed. in that regard, we will work hand-in-hand. when i say we, i mean the transportation authority and our expert so we have who are ready to move forward with working with the engineering team to look in particular, like i discussed before, at the intricacies of the tunneling, the project management and delivery structure here in particular. that is 600,000-dollar request for our continued efforts in that regard. >> chair peskin: any questions from commissioners? is there any public comment?
>> how did you guess? anyway. a couple of things i want to touch on. the full board has not yet made a decision on the pennsylvania avenue alignment. >> chair peskin: that is true. >> my understanding is you will two weeks from now on the 24t 24th, in the afternoon. my expectation is you will actually approve that alignment. in other words, this $10 million or whatever application is premature. because my expectation of the point of it when you approve pennsylvania avenue is you will combine, essentially the two projects, separate projects into a single project. therefore, the engineering, whatever that is, should consider the entire alignment from 22nd street all the way up to trans- bay. one project. the other thing i want to touch
on is that of that $600,000, it is totally inadequate. you have to consider increasing that to a minimum of $21 million. otherwise, it will be minimal the amount of work that they will do and you will find it very very difficult to find top class, you know, work as engineering firms willing to get the work done. trans- >> chair peskin: thank you. thank you. public comment is closed. if you could come up, mr cordova, and respond. are we putting the cart before the horse, number 1, and in so far as, no expense to you, phase one was, how should we say it nicely? a little over budget and a little behind schedule. and oversight, we all agree is needed as you move forward.
is a $600,000 enough money for you to provide oversight surveys two does not end up as embarrassing as phase one? >> chair peskin. quite -- great questions. first off, not to the cart before the horse in that regard. the pennsylvania alignment, for everyone's clarity, it is a separate and independent utility. it has to do with the more southern portion of the project and how we tie in, in essence to the beat -- dt x. as it is right now. the currently planned. so it has definite independent utility, in that regard. the board and the staff are working towards getting the federal record a decision later this year, in the fall. so i think we have very positive energy in that regard. as it relates to our oversight efforts, i like to err on the side of trying to be as judicious as possible and in terms of what it will take to do that, the $600,000 is primarily
here for the next effort on our part. there is significant additional oversight that will be needed as we move forward through the project. i did not think it was appropriate to ask for that right now. >> chair peskin: so you do anticipate coming forward for additional funds next year? >> potentially -- potentially, more than likely. one hundred%. >> chair peskin: anything you want to add to that? >> good morning. i want to thank the board for their support of the transit program. as i mentioned before, i will repeat it again. face two will be different in phase -- then phase i in that we will do it with partnership with the staff and the city and county of san francisco, as well as caltrain and a high-speed rail. this would be a collaborative effort. i agree with eric and that when we move forward, we will need more peer reviews and we will be calling for the t.a. staff to help us with the peer reviews and experts.
we need to double, our results. at the end of the day we have a project that we all stand behind and we all support. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. any questions or comments from commissioners? seeing none, is there a motion to amend the 2019 strategic baseline and allocate the $20 million in funds for the two requests? seeing no motion, -- motion made by commissioner breed. is there a second? seconded by commissioner cohen. on that item, same house, same call, the item is approved on first reading. next item, police. >> clerk: item six. allocate $2.4 million in sales tax funds for requests for conditions and appropriation of $854,000 in prop k. funds for one request. it is an action item. >> chair peskin: .
comments? >> yes, we are representing this morning -- we are recommending five request for a total of $3.3 million in prop k. funds. as you may know, this past month, the project reached a major milestone with the fta releasing the record of decision for the project. this means we can start working on design and construction. this request from the s.f. m.t.a. for $1.4 million will start the construction on phase one of the project which goes from market to stallion. we will install fiber-optic conduit along the corridor. it will be installed through the utility contract, and this will allow for a signal priority along the corridor. this work precedes our surface improvements which we will deliver after the underground work is done. construction will begin in late
2018 the project will be open for use in 2021. a second request related to the project is an $854,000 appropriation request from the t.a. to cover some of the additional costs that we incurred in the environmental work. there was additional grounded supervision with fta to finalize the eis document. we are also responding to public records litigation. this work will help us complete the environmental phase for the whole project. both phase i and phase two. the third request is $700,000 from barth to design a multimodal transit hub and public open space at the balboa park station. the plaza includes redesigning the vehicular access to san jose
avenue and close vehicular access to geneva avenue, addressing some of the safety concerns there. this would also provide amenities to the public. this has been part of the balboa park's eac work and it is coordinated with s.f. m.t.a. and the san francisco mayor's office of housing and community development. the design would be completed in december 2019 and the plaza would be open for use in december 2021. the fourth request is to design and install conduits for a new intersection. this is a high injury location. this $150,000 from s.f. m.t.a. will cover thei the design costd the installation of the condui conduits. it will be done together with the paving project from san francisco public works. the conduit installation and paving work will be done by did -- summer 2020 at the new signals will be installed in the following years. the final request is $200,000
from the s.f. m.t.a. for the application-based residential street traffic program. this is to cover the planning phase for fiscal year 2018, 2019, which of the application was passed this june 30th. the funds will allow s.f. m.t.a. to evaluate up to 100 of the applications and prioritize them based on demonstrated speeding problems in a residential streets. once the applications are prioritized, this will cover the conceptual design of up to 50 of the locations. planning will be done by june 2018 and the access will be available in march 2020. with that, we can take questions. >> chair peskin: are there any questions from commissioners? 's or any public comment on item
number 6? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to allocate the a for mentioned $2.4 million in prop k. sales tax funds and appropriate 854 thousand dollars in funds made by commissioner cohen. seconded by commissioner steph ie. on that item, same house, same call. the item is adopted on first read. clerk seven -- >> clerk: . clean air programs and projects. programming 388,00024 projects. it is an action item. >> hello, commissioners. the transportation fund for clean-air programming is funded by a surcharge collected by the dmv on motor vehicles throughout the bay area. this program is administered by the bay area air quality management district and its intent is to achieve emission
reductions from motor vehicles by funding the most cost-effective interventions. sixty% of the program is administered by our district and 40% is managed by each of the counties on a return to source basis. the transportation authority is a designated manager for san francisco and reprogram between 700,800,000 in funds each year. for fiscal year 2018-2019, we have $764,000 available, and we received six applications requesting $1.2 million. we want to program four projects for $388,000 and placing the rest of the funds in a reserve that we will program following a second call for projects. in order to select the projects, we first applied the district's a lipid -- eligibility requirements which include project types and if the project meets a cost effectiveness ratio which varies according to project type.
second, we apply the local expenditure criteria, which was approved by the board this past february. this includes prioritizing projects according to the project types, and based on the cost-effectiveness of emissions reduction and project readiness. the four projects we are recommending funding for our the ones you can see on the table. i will go into a little detail for each of them. the total is $388,000. the first one is the emergency ride home program managed by the department of the environment. it encourages commuters to use modes of transportation by getting a free or low-cost ride home and cases of emergency. the grant includes outreach funds, targeting businesses and commuters, and updating communication material and processing reimbursement requests. the second project is a bike cage at thornton hall that would
provide 118 bicycles with secure parking. this bike cage will have 24-hour access for students and university staff who will have 24-hour access with their campus id card. of the cage also includes a basic repair tools. the other two projects are alternative fuel infrastructure to provide fast chargers for electric vehicles. the first one is to install two fast chargers at the car share parking spots. this would be the first all electric car share vehicle option in san francisco. the department of the environment is partnering with e. b. -- t.v. go, the operator of these fast chargers, as well as with the planning department to identify two car share locations that would have these vehicles. this project requires a policy
waiver to allow the chargers to be dedicated to the car share vehicles. currently, they have to be publicly available. the company, as the operator, would match this grant with 55 -- $55,000. the second one is to install fast chargers at grace cathedral parking garage. this will be available 24 hours, seven days a week and to charge members and visitors and employees of the church as well as patrons of surrounding businesses. the two projects we are not recommending our the dynamic carpal pickup curbs. this project did not meet the cost-effectiveness ratio requirement. and the second project we are not recommending funding for is affordable bike memberships for state students. between ccac and the board --
and to be consistent with past board directions do not fund public funds so we are not recommending funding at this point. >> chair peskin: thank you for that. >> at the next steps will be to issue a second request for projects. we would bring a recommendation to the sea a.c. in september and to the board in october. funds must be programmed by november 2nd to meet our district's requirements. >> chair peskin: . is there any public comment on this item. seeing none, oh, come on up. sure. >> i'm sorry, i see you have a card. my apologies. >> no worries. good morning chair peskin. i am the new mobility policy director at transform. we have been working for the past two decades advocating for
transit rich, bicycle -- by cabal and transit rich areas. it is unfortunate to see the removal of a bike share access for low income s.f. state students in this proposal. i would argue it is one of the best investments with demonstrable results that you can find. early on, advocates in this region were concerned bike share expansions would bypass the needs of low income communities of colour. we were upset at the insufficient outreach to businesses and residents. as a result of our advocacy, some of the city and their dedicated funds to equity outreach went elsewhere. our leaders knew the mess we were walking into. a great deal of our outreach last year was damage control for bike users. despite the fires that you as supervisors and your staff continue to put out on bike share in san francisco, despite the difficult conversations with hundreds and hundreds of low income residents at risk of displacement in this region, i am happy to report that the
company is leading the nation, not just california, the nation with the highest proportion of low income riders on a bike share. twenty-one%. funding equity access programs for this community brings options. san jose, because it is outreach on campus, 70% of their writers are low income. san francisco did not have the same amount of outreach on campuses and is at the bottom of all bike share cities right now with 16% low income riders. i urge you to include funding bike share access and investment in our students who are hurting in this area with immense displacement. please consider reviving -- revising it. >> chair peskin: to wife your comments. is there any additional public comment on these items? seeing none, public comment is closed speak to i just -- >> supervisor cohen: i just want to echoed the sentiments from the public comment.
i'm supportive of their four projects that have been recommended for funding. i do want to raise a little bit of concern about the recommendation to remove funding for up to 400 san francisco eligibility students. the granta students are those that suffer the most and who have the least resources available to them. these students qualify for free bike share. along with 150 free yearly passes and 300 single month passes for students who are not grant eligible. this pilot program was approved by the ccac to -- and initially recommended for adoption by the t.a. staff and the transportation service at the san francisco state university showed that nearly half of the students gave -- got to the campus by many mobile or b.r.t. and the percentage of students who arrive on foot increased by
42% between 2008-2014. i think that we should be supporting students, particularly in that last mile that gets them to class. so it's my understanding that the school has already begun working with motivate prior to the company being acquired by a lift. at the end of the day, i think i am in disagreement with penalizing college students by taking the funding back. i understand that with everything we do, we set a precedent and we are trying to lead and teach companies how to be better. but i think we should be rethinking the position. i ask that we consider it. i understand that the chair has made the request for it to be
consistent with the pots four policy directions regarding using public funds for t.n.c. i feel like we should consider making an exception in this case on this project. i think that we could be removing barriers to active -- activate transportation for young people, particularly at one of the least accessible college campuses in, quite frankly, one of the most, if not the most expensive city in the world. i would ask for your consideration to add the program back and take our total from $388,000 to $400,000, which is a modest increase for the pilot program to really support active transportation for college students. i could ask a question if you
give me an opportunity. >> chair peskin: of course,. >> supervisor cohen: until very recently, these bike share companies were owned by public companies. i was wondering, to the staff, how do you draw the line for support of public companies? i think that is where the rub is. we don't want to penalize the students. we also have to run a city. we don't want to be lenient to private companies that are, quite frankly, benefiting off of our public right of way. maybe you can answer that for me. >> hello. that is a great question. the air district and the regional level and also of the state level has a history of funding both public and private entities in order -- in the spirit of improving quality for all. so whether it is improving
trucking fleets, or rebates for your private vehicles, or funding at the emergency ride home program, or funding bike share, public and private entities are eligible, in particular, for the funding source. so, i don't know where you draw the line. from a staff perspective, we look at eligibility from the grant guidelines. >> supervisor cohen: i understand it is a grey area. if we are drawing the line eligibility and that is their policy, these are students who are definitely eligible. i would like to amend item seven to return the go bags. is that ok? spee when you are welcome to make a motion. >> supervisor cohen: ok. i would like to make an emotion to amend item seven to the project process recommended for the funds.
>> motion made by commissioner cohen. is there a second for that motion? seconded by commissioner kim. let me explain to you, and i think commissioner cohen indicated part of it and it is set forth in the resolution as to why in my capacity as chair, consistent with the number of votes that this body has taken after the acquisition by lyft thought this was inconsistent of previous actions and asked staff to set forth in the resolution and remove that. i appreciate the comments of the public commenter and commissioner cohen. respectfully i want to suggest why we might not want to go down this road. they are a company with a valuation of $7.5 billion. there acquisition of motivate is
reported to be about $250 million. we know, because our staff has done the work that they will not to reveal to us. they will not share any information with us. we have looked at terabytes of data showing that they have added, at peak, up to 26% of the congestion in our downtown core district three and district six. we know that a disproportionate amount of moving violations come from t.n.c. quite frankly, if they want to have a business model where they incentivize low income individuals, i welcome that. as a matter of fact, is there somebody here from lyft? is there someone here from the department of the environment? you would be the ones who would
administer these funds. we have not gone to them and said, hey, do you want to, out of the goodness of your heart, in a public spirit, age or information with the t.a. and with the s.f. m.t.a. wheat do you want to start reducing the on street impacts that we are having? do you want to offer low income individuals at san francisco state a discounted rate? i don't think that public dollars should go into that. this authority has not thought that. that is why we voted last year to restrict funds from the guaranteed ride home. not to go to t.n.c. i don't want to penalize low income students at san francisco state but i think they have the wherewithal is a $7.5 billion company to do that. i respectfully would oppose that motion. let's see where the votes are out.
advertisement. and eventually, capitalize on that free advertisement to have other people essentially pay for the services. so my question was in considering offering initially $56,000 to lyft, do they have a matching fund in this? do they have anything that they're putting into this? >> so the grant is going to be administered by s.f. state and there are discounted memberships for low-income people, $$5 for the first year and then $60. so we would provide the subsidy for that discounted membership.
>> supervisor yee: where does the funding go? >> supervisor peskin: are you saying it would fund the $60? >> correct. >> supervisor yee: so it goes to s.f. state? >> yes. s.f. state would administer the grant and either provide the subsidy to the pell grant-eligible students or on a first come-first served basis. >> supervisor yee: is it a one-year grant? >> two-year pilot. >> supervisor yee: two-year pilot. is there any way we could build in some conditions for the pilot, if it goes through that -- well, let's back up a little bit. if it's a two-year pilot, what is the intent after the pilot? >> so this grant is tied with the expansion of the bike station so the intent of the pilot is to encourage students to use a new alternative that
will be provided for them. >> supervisor peskin: didn't the contract that the m.t.c. enter into require not only subsidies to low-income individuals but geographic equity as well? >> i'm not aware of that. >> supervisor peskin: i believe it did. >> this grant will not subsidize the operation or the expansion. what it's doing is covering that extra $5 or $60 that a low-income student would have to pay. >> supervisor peskin: are these all pell grant recipients or just part of them? >> for the most part, pell grant recipients, but we would have to work with s.f. state it make sure there are enough students eligible for this. last time we chatted, they said that we could find enough pell grant-eligible students to cover the full grant.
>> there are requirements about geographic equity. i don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but it does require them to expand into communities of concern. >> supervisor peskin: my point being, they're supposed to go there anyway. commissioner yee? >> supervisor yee: well, i guess if there were -- if this contract were allowed, can we put some provisions in there to ask the company to -- if not during the pilot, after the pilot to provide some additional funding for the same students? >> i would defer that to ms. laforte. >> um, sorry. technical trouble.
we can certainly include that condition and work to negotiate that. the agreement is -- the funding agreement that we would have would be with s.f. state. >> supervisor peskin: not with the department of environment? >> no. not for this grant. so to condition future funding from motivate to support -- we can express the intent or the -- yeah, it would need to be between s.f. state and motivate as far as an agreement for a future funding from motivate for this project. and we can include that. >> supervisor peskin: i would very much like to hear from lyft motivate and maybe we can provide them that opportunity at our next meeting, if that's acceptable to the members. commissioner yee, are you finished? >> supervisor yee: yeah. and i would support continuing this item to hear from them. >> supervisor ronen: i would
also support a motion to continue. i think this would be a great opportunity to -- for lyft to step up and provide this benefit to students that deserve it and need it. and i think they should do that. i just -- by way of example, on valencia street, where we've been having nonstop difficulties with the bike lanes and pulling over into the bake lane, making it very dangerous. i sent a letter to lyft asking them just out of goodwill and the fact that they're contributing to this problem, to geo fence and make sure that their drivers were pulling on side streets. to my great surprise, they took the letter very seriously. they answered it and they did, in fact, not only do that geo sensing, but they're sharing data with us about how that pilos