Building inspection and chris buck, urban forester with San Francisco public works and urban forestry. The Board Meeting guidelines are as follows. Turn off phones and other Electronic Devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. Appellants, permit holders are given 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with the parties must include the comments within the 7 or threeminute periods. Member of the public not affiliated with the parties have 3 minutes and no erebuttal. For jurisdiction, 3 minutes each with no rebuttal. The legal clerk will give you 30 seconds warning before the time is up. We have a new commissioner ms. Tina chang appoint and approved by the board of supervisors, but she is not sworn in, and therefore the board has a vacancy and three votes are required to grant an appeal or jurisdiction request. If you have a question about rehearing or rules, please email and regarding public ak ses and participation and every effort is made to replicate the inhearing process. To enable participation, sfgov tv will have the ability to receive Public Comment for each item on todays agenda. To watch on tv go, to sfgov tv cable channel 78. It will be rebroadcast on friday at 4 00 p. M. On channel 26. A link to the live stream is found on the home wage of the website home page of the website. Public comment can be provided in two ways. Join the zoom meeting by computer. Go to the web at sfgov. Org boa and click on the zoom link or call by telephone 6699006833. And the enter the webinar i. D. 8 968 9666122. And again, sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming the phone numb barehand access instructions if you are watching the live stream or broadcast. If you call in and want to block your phone number, please dial star 67 and the phone number. Listen for the Public Comment portion for your item to be called and dial star 9 which is the equivalent of raising your hand so we know you want to speak. You will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. You will have two or three mends minutes depending on the length of the agenda in line with the speakers if legal clerk will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. Please note there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and livestreamed. Therefore, it is sprornt that people calling in reduce or turn off the volume on tv or computers, otherwise there is interference with the meeting. If any of the participants need a disability commendation, make a request in the chat bunks or email to board of appeals. And the chat function cannot be used to provide Public Comment or opinion. Now have we will swear and affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance. If you intend to testify and have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say i do. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth t whole truth, and nothing but the truth . Thank you. If you are participant and not speaking, put your zoom speaker on mute now. We will move to item number one which is general Public Comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the boards jurisdiction but that is not on tonights calendar. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on the item not on tonights calendar . If so, please raise your hand. And i see a caller whose phone number ends in 7008. Please go ahead. You are on mute. Try pressing star 9 or star 6. Hello. Can you hear me . Yes, we can. Welcome. My name is bob and i am calling to raise a very important procedural issue. Sir, is this related to a case that is on the agenda tonight . It is but it is a procedural issue which is separate from that case. So i think i would like to of course. Please go ahead. Thank you. Item number five is a very unusual item. In fact n my research i cant find any like it in previous board of appeals meetings. Sir, im sorry. If you are going to speak on item number five, you have to speak during the time the Public Comment portion of item number five. I will. But this is more general issue and that has to do with procedure. So i would like to raise it if i could at this time. You can if it doesnt involve item number five. If you are directing your comments to item number five, you need to wait. I will direct comments to item five when that comes, but the general issue is that this is a very unusual item tonight. Normally my research has shown that the board considers individual trees. Im sorry. I feel like you are addressing item number five. If you want to make general comments about an item not on the calendar, please do so. Otherwise, you are talking about item number five. All right. Let me phrase it slightly differently then. Individual trees as my Research Shows are usually considered at a Board Meeting. This is the first item, this is the first time that eight individual trees with eight im sorry, sir. You will have to save your comment for that item. You are specifically talking about that item. President lazarus . Do you concur . President yes, i concur and believe that is the case. Clerk i have tried im sorry. I will save my comments for item five. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Is there any general Public Comment . If so, raise your hand. Okay. I dont see any hands raised. So we will move on to item number two which is commissioner comments and questions. Although our new board member is not would you say, i would like to congratulate tina chang. I believe her swearing in is this friday on the steps of city hall, but due to covid, it is just for the supervisor and her immediate family. Congratulations. Okay. Is there any Public Comment on that item . If so, please raise your hand. Okay. Seeing that there is no Public Comment, we will move on to item number three, adoption of the minutes. Commissioners, before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the november 18, 2020 meeting. Commissioners, any changes, additions or deletions . If not, is there a motion to approve . Motion to approve. We have a motion from commissioner swig to adopt the minutes from november 18. On that motion, commissioner sant sant . Aye. President lazarus . Aye. Vice president honda . Aye. That motion carries. And im sorry. I didnt ask. Is there any Public Comment on that motion to approve . Okay. I will just quickly, so everyone said aye. No Public Comment, so the minutes are adopted 40. We are now moving on to item four this is jurisdiction request 209. The subject property at 1250 clay street. A leter from julia westerling and christina siadat requesting that the board take jurisdiction of Building Permit issued on august 28, 2020. The appeal period ended on september 14, 2020 and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on november 3, 2020. The permit holder is clay Hill Homeowners Association. The permit description is repair and alteration of existing east exterior wall, remove existing rustic siding and windows, repair existing wall framing as needed, existing studs and interior finishes to remain. New w60 fire resistance rated Property Line windows, new insulation, building wrap and rustic siding. No change to the building envelope. We will hear from the requesters first. You have three minutes. The requestors have requested their exhibits be shown since the time is short. Hi. Im christina. The clay Hill Homeowners Association is moving forward on the east wall project that was approved by d. B. I. And received permit on 82820 based on incorrect claim. This incorrect data claimed all three units involved do not have permitted win dose. This is false. I have window permit number 461466 issue date 63080 covering all three of the windows in question. Not only were permits approved with false information but the homeowners with affected windows were never notified before, during or after they were pulled. It wasnt until september 23, 2020 that i was sent a new set of blueprints with a memo from the architect about a revision only to 305 university who happens to be on the board. I was starting to get worried they were moving forward to install the smaller windows in the remaining two units which is julia and mine because the h. O. A. Went silent on me. In late september i learned the h. O. A. Had pulled permits on my unit in which i own without any notice at all. By this time the deadline to appeal a permit had long expired. They pulled permits based that windows werent permitted and without our permission or motefycation. I am wondering why we were never notified that permits were being pulled on the units we own. The h. O. A. Is refusing to go over the units for the win dose and the existing size, placement and type. Architect wants to alter my windows to where the blue tape is shown and completely eliminating the gorgeous view of the city and exposing in my shower, which you can see in the one. Julia is going to speak out in. Is going to speak now. Julia, are you muted . Sorry. I didnt realize i was muted. Okay. My name is julia westerling and tibble city should have notified us of this permit and may have been inadvertently missed due to permit application omissions. The image that you aring looking an is the a scale model that i built to display the changes that they are proposing. The black and blue tape represents the current kitchen and bathroom windows and the red tape represents the replacement. The exterior repairs depicted in the architects approved drawings which we received september 23 will require responding work to the units interiors. As you can see there is a tremendous difference in the volumes of the respective win dose. The requirement for mechanized exhaust is omitted from the permit, and the preapplication letter erroneously declares all of the windows in the east wall of 1250 clay are not original. There are no permits. Because this permit requires interior work as well as exterior, i believe we should have been notified. Thank you. That is time. Clerk thank you. We will now hear from a representative of the permit holder. Welcome. Thank you. I am representing the clay hill Owners Association who are the project sponsors for the project. Im sorry. Can you speak a little louder . I paused time. Restarting time. Thank you. Go ahead, sir. Sorry. Thank you. I representing the clay Hill Homeowners Association and the project sponsor of this project. To grant jurisdiction, the board must find that the city intentional or inadvertently caused the requestor to be late in filing an appeal. There are no ground for granting this request as d. B. I. Acted appropriately in approving and notifying for the appeal. The jurisdiction request is not based on the d. B. I. Process but on issues related to h. O. A. Jurisdiction and the personal and the requestors personal desires. Quote, we want to appeal the permit because we want to eare tan our existing win dose. The existing shiezs, shapes and must be noted that the wall and windows is the clay Hill Homeowners Association as described in the cc rs submitted in our response. Any disagreement with the project by the affected unit owners is not in the jurisdiction of d. B. I. , but within the h. O. A. Secondly t requestors claims that the citys process and the extent of the impact wasnt visible until a month after permitish shows and they were never advised by the h. O. A. Board and these are blatantly false statements. Jowl ya westerling was notified of the project in a meeting on december 12, 2019, nine months before the permit was even submitted. S and shawn lewis of unit 305 is an h. O. A. Board member who had to be recused from discussions of the project but was fully informed of the content and fact of the permits. In addition, there was a clay hill h. O. A. Board meeting on september 2, 2020 today where the project was discussed with the architect present. And two meetings privately with the owner of and both during the appeal period. The requester offered much detail about the content of the permit. However, for the record, i want to say that all three owners have been offered window layouts and locations that are similar to the existing, different from what was originally approved in further conversation. 30 seconds. The only change is the operability. Their requests offer reasons and they are avoiding the important issue of the h. O. A. That must meet the current Building Code or comprise the Fire Insurance policy. The bottom anded they hah hand provided no jurisdiction request. It is between the h. O. A. And that is time. Thank you. Thank you. We do have a question from Vice President honda. Good evening. The skwe, and obtained for the new windows permit, does it state that the windows were ill loel and never permits and is that a true and on unit 305 and we had asked d. B. I. For all the permit information and we didnt receive that one. It is correct that misssiadat has a permit from 1980, but in the and and we had distinctive discussions about the fact that permit said in 1980 said to enlarge existing windows. Therefore, mr. And would not be considered that and while and in the h. O. A. , you dont own the surroundings but just the air space in between. If the permit was issueded on the basis those were illegal win dose, maybe the permit was issued in error. I will check with the department further with that. Thank you. Can i add one note . Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We will now hear from the Planning Department. I will be brief because the Planning Department is not a party to this and we did not review the permit and nor would we be required to and separately noted the addition or subsubtraction and alteration of windows if they were we viewed would not require notification. This was not reviewed by planning or shouldnt have been and i defer to the acting chief building inspector duffy on this matter. Thank you. Department or duffy . The permit for the jurisdiction request for prior alteration and with windows on existing wall and existing studs and between yor finishing with the w6 fire resistance and new insulation and building wrap and no change to building envelope. And 30,000 and issued on 8282020 and with the Fire Department, d. P. W. And Central Department bureau. As you heard mr. Sanchez does, it doesnt go to the Planning Department. I dont think theres anything wrong with that. The notification from d. B. I. And we issue 60,000 permits per year if email one of the appellants, and we would not notify on this type of permit. We dont notify on all types of Building Permit. It is not possible to do that and not required by our code either. This particular is something we would notify. I did email the latter and let them know any work in the common areas and disturbing work and if lead paint or etc. Would need to put up signage t contractor put up signage. And obviously notification is required in the Building Code and that is more when the work is takes place. I did hear some reference to the windows changing in size. I do notice they appear to be windows that are now changing to fire resistance windows. And thats not something that d. B. I. Would have wanted or required. Its i am not sure, i would like to ask the in the brief i didnt see any preapplication letter that i could refer to and maybe i missed it, but it is not there. Sometimes we do what is called an ab009 for win dose and that is not part of the plan and probably we could if it was added and put that not a big deal to change and the ark tech would go over that session. 30 second. And changing in the size of the existing proposed win dose and i believe ap009 would take effect and it is a form we see and is part of the Building Code. Am available for questions. Thank you. We have a question from Vice President honda. Thank you, chief building inspector duffy. And thank you for explaining the notification process so that the appellants can hear that. First, since you mentioned the ab requirement, would that require new permitting and does that compile which could be an abole. There is a jus diction request and can he provide document nation that d. B. I. Not require that as part of the approval of it . And my understanding is that if you modify, ab009 and replacing inkind. And if you can prove that the windows were put in legally. For any change an and i believe 009 would have applied hoer unless they got the approval on the preapplication and thought that the preapplication process did not require during the issuance. Obviously they had a premeeting with d. B. I. After and during the permit process it was indicated the windows were illegal and not permitted. If that was the case when granting the derment, would that and that may have come up and very rarely do we get into wsh dewouldnt have the and you can and you would have assumed they were loelly. When the building got built and i am not shower, but occasionally we come across a couple of the appellants are welcome to bring this issue up with d. B. I. And open a complaint and investigate that. That could hold up this project if we did find there was some error on the drawings later that gets discovered even after this process and we definitely and people regard that issue, but it is not something we do consistently because we koent have the time to do that. Commissioner thank you for explaining that to me. I have a question for the councilman mo and the status of ab009 and if that was in your submittal . Yes, it was discussed in our preapp meeting and the problem is this building is not it doesnt have a suppression and and that was there and to intend the ab009. And not qualified under dbis rule. And does that mean you are not subject to ab009 . Your opinion . We cant apply it because there is no fire sprinkleers. Therefore, we cant use the a bshs 009 to just replace the windows as operable windows. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Proman. I think senator inspector duffy has a comment on that. I do have a comment on that. He is correct in what he is saying there and doesnt meet the full provision. It sounds like it is an insurance requirement i thought i heard in there about the size of the win dose. And obviously i havent heard of that scenario before in San Francisco, but there is a reason why they are making the openings smaller and putting in some sort of fire resistance. It sounds like its been guided by an insurance company. It is not a d. B. I. Action, but in reference to ab009 would not apply because you cant meet all the requirements. The architect is right in that. They were taking an operable window and putting in a smaller opening with some fire resistance rating that is not on the open of win dose and sounds like it is an insurance requirement. If your opinion, does it still require ab009 by chance . It doesnt sound like it. They are not they are taking a nonfire resistance window and operable window and putting in a 45minute rated window that would not meet with ab009 because it didnt because of the sprinkler requirement. It is a voluntary thing and obviously that got discussed at the preapp meeting. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you. We have a question from president lazarus. President thank you. Thing goes to mr. Duffy. If we do not take jurisdiction but there may be issues with the permit, there is nothing to stop the current appellants from reaching out to you and continuing discussion about the permit. Is that right accurate . If it would be regarding windows installed without a permit if it is warting sorry, if it was regarding an issue to do with not short on plans. That would be something we would look at and represent. It is not the architect to do anyway and we can look at the Building Code issues. And i think the bigger question and the question is if you have perfectly fine windows, why are you making them smaller and inoperable. That is more the issue and more a civil thing than thor building cold. We are not asked to look at the particular issues regarding the permit but whether the city caused the appellants to be late. I want to iterate that there was no notification and no scope of work from d. B. I. And is not required in our Building Code. Clerk thank you. We are now ooufing on to Public Comment. Is there anyone here to provide Public Comment on this matter . We do have someone. We do have a speaker named lorraine. Caller thank you for taking my comment tonight. I am related to christina. And so you are a family member. Do you live with her . No. And i think thats permissible for her, is that correct . Yes. Go ahead. Thank you very much f i just want to comment that mr. Pearlman is citing a formality and instead i wish they would open up dialogue and work directly with the homeowners to resolve this. This is stressful and affects three floors and the top floor is on the board, we dont have to change your win dose. The other two now have to change the windows and o if thern listening we probably wouldnt be here. Please raise your hand if you have Public Comment on this matter. This matter is submitted. Anyone want to start this discussion . After reviewing the brief as part of the homeowner, if i was the homeowner, i would be upset at the decrease in this window and this is beyond the purview of the body as you can tell by the questions i asked and pertaining to how they were obstained and the appellants will have the ability to reach out to the departments regarding information that has been brought forth this evening. Unfortunately in h. O. A. The walls and common areas and the air space in the middle is what is your space. There is no notification regarding the permit issue. Commissioner swig . I agree with commissioner honda. This is i agree that if i was a resident of this building and owner of a unit, i would be upset. But the criteria and this is an h. O. A. Issue. The criteria for the city and the city did not err and it reallessly a Homeowner Association issue. Do we have a motion . A commissioner honda. I will make a motion to deny the rehearing request as much as i dont want to on the grounds that the city did not err or abuse in issuing the permit. Clerk i think the correct standard, Vice President honda s denying the request on the basis the city did not intentionally or inadvertently cause the requester to be late in filing the appeal. Commissioner isnt that exactly what i said . Thank you. Clerk very close. O on that motion from Vice President honda, commissioner santacana . Aye. President lazarus . Aye. A commissioner swig. You are on mute. Aye. So that motion carries 40. And the request is denied. Thank you. We are now moving on to item number five. This is appeal number 20079. Save north Beach Village versus San Francisco Public Works Bureau of urban forrest yi. The subject property is 2700 pierce, 2536 greenwich, 2450 francisco, 2362vallejo, 23 orben place, 1932 pierce and 1885vallejo and 2165 jackson treat to San Francisco public works and tree removal order. Approval to remove eight street trees that are dead or in Poor Condition and require removal as part of the Management Plan for street tree sf. These are not related to development or infrastructure projects. Order 203876. We will heard from the appellant first. Okay. Lets i did see him here earlier. Mr. Carns . We cant hear you or see you. Hes on mute. Thank you. Can you hear me now . Yes. Okay. I would like to share my screen to show some pdf slides to start the time. Time is starting the let me go back to the beginning. Lets see. All set. Thank you. Time starts. Good evening. My name is lance carnest appellant in this matter and i thank you for hearing this matter tonight. So the outline of this presentation will be to share observations about d. P. W. And the subject order and prior to board of appeals. Observations include d. P. W. With hazard trees in place for months which contradicts the claim that they are a hazard at all. And d. P. W. Isnt following the rules especially regarding hazard tree written determinations. D. P. W. Is abusing the emergency removal procedure. On the first point, d. P. W. Leaves hazard trees in place for months, this contradicts the claim they are not a hazard at all. Under the and refer to it as the d. P. W. Code for urban forestry. Under that, a hazard tree is defined as any tree that poses imminent hazard to person or property. Keep that in mind. Imminent hazard to person or property. Here is this list of eight trees considered at the hearing and the result of that hearing is what we are here for tonight. In notice of the eight trees, this dates in the green box indicate the dates when they were posted. The oldest posted in march, april, may, june. The hearing sunt until october. Each hazard tree and in imminent danger was left standing four to six months and d. P. W. Isnt following the rules. The rules are a hazard tree, the director may determine that a tree is a haze ard and provided that feasible measures have been applied to abate any such hazard. And we have never in all our record requests, we never found a directors determination in writing that covered applicable measures to and a period of trees listed from the hearing and the only reason we got is they are and there a 24hour removal process in the urban forestry code. It comes into play here because we have at least one tree on the underlying order that was given a 24hour emergency removal notice. The problem is there is nothing in article 16 which talks about a 24 hour removal notice. The closest thing to argue 16 saws about that. Energy refusal and determined by the director the department may remove any street tree immediately and afterwards it can tend the reasons to nearby residents. This is not what d. P. W. Is doing. Hoer is a call from the d. P. W. Kwabs of all treed that were ever posted as 24hour removal. There are 300 of them since may of 2019 when this 24hour thing was invented. A number of trees removed since then was 162. Number of trees standing is 129. You have these dangerous trees out there and 129 of them. And here is a couple of trees that were posted as 24hour emergency removals in district two and are still in place 2 to 4 months later and means manife manifest danger and immediate necessity. And to the directors determination to why the trees were determined to be 24 hour, and we would know more, but there is nothing available. And more about 24 hour emergency removal notices through our Data Collection and through d. P. W. The numberover 24hour removal notices jumped up in june at 21, 20, and in july it jumped up to, what is that, 46. So in that period from july through october, 50 trees were you could protest those and 139 trees were posted and you cant protest this according to k. P. W. , article six has no provision for treating removals that cannot be protested. Here is the tree on the order that was removed three months before the hearing and at the hearing it was heard as a live 15day hazard tree. Why was it even there . Please uphold this appeal and require d. P. W. To do the following. Make determinations regarding hazard true and specifically putting into writing all requirements for all trees in the order. 30 second. Specifically to remove the country at 2362vallejo. And last, continue the disuse of which is not allowed under the article sf. Thank you. We will now hear from the bureau of urban forestry. Mr. Buck . Good evening, commissioners. And check that you can hear my audio. Yes, we can. Thank you. Thank you very much. And commissioners, the prujt of the appeal is the removal of eight hazard countries. Seven of those trees are dead. And one of the trees which i will go into detail on has cracks in it and cavities and decay and qualifies as a hazard. I will verbally go through what is contained within my brief to aand feeled by the appellant mr. Carnes. Then i will review some of the photos and images at the end of the presentation. Most of this is contained within the brief but it is good to step back and cover it. And one thing to clarify and the 15day posting notice itself. And we also try to explain the nature of the hazard on that notice. That ri vised the notices so perhaps instead of checking and if there is potential root failure or large davty or concern and what information makes it a hazard. If it is a dead tree and the only way to mitigate a dead tree is to remove it. We are always pruning trees when we can prune them to retain them and removal. We do have a bit of a backlog. The 15day removal notices, three will be protested and 15day hazard notices and my account and granted the clerk than out and 15day notices on them. And they are awaiting to be scheduled. I will point out that everyone has noticed 2020 is a bit of an unusual year. We didnt have hearings for three months. Many of the officers went to remote work and staffing had to be reviewed. We are an it will built behind with scheduling some hearings. Man city agencies are experiencing similar challenges. 24hour Public Notice and prior to emergency removal is not in conflict with our code. That is a complaint that the appellant filed recently and they were meeting if not exceeding the requirement as minority lined in our code. We have been providing notice ahead of emergency removals for decades. It is not a new process and the appellant asserts. Imagine if it was the reverse and imagine if the code said you have to post a notice ahead of time and we said, well, it was an emergency, we just had to do it. The code itself explicitly states in those times when we need to remove a tree to address manifest danger, we could remove the tree without any notice and put a notice up afterwards. You can support me when i say that the public does not like surprises and so decades ago public works has been posting those notices ahead if possible and it is not a new process at all. I will go to sharing screen. Ashould have put that the in the main body and i notice that some of that has to be redacted and i will keep that in mind next time. So the aeth subject trees and seven out of eight of them are dead. This is on greenwich street and this should be green. This should be broad leaf green and the branches and are starting to break apart and are brittle. This is what a dead ficus tree looks like on the right. A healthier one canopy wise on the left. This tree on the right is dead. It should look like the tree on the left. 1932 pierce street and the tree is dead. This tree failed prior to october 8. A hazard dead tree protested by the public and waiting for the schedule for the hearing it has failed. That is a concern. 23 orben place is a dead cherry tree and this photo was taken in june 25 and it should be 30 second. It is dead. Pierce is dead. I want to explain vallejo and the tree on the left was posted with a 15day notice in may and in july with a 424hour notice and we have two trees at vallejo and that explains the confusion. Public works believes that is a straightforward case. That is time. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Buck. Okay. So we are we have a question from Vice President honda. Yep. So mr. Buck, thank you for the excellent explanation. But looking at the trees, how does something lets just take and start with the first one. 2450 francisco. I still see foliage on the tree. If its dead, should tlnt not be any foliage on the tree . Sure. You are going to have a touch of remaining canopy and if it is a species we think as variable reactions and might come back, then we will point that out. Often what i am saying dead is the posting notice might have said dead, severe decline, nearly dead, or 95 canopy decline. We do note that. When there is a touch of foliage on that, we do try to speak to that. There are touches here and there of some canopy. And i can assure that the inspectors note the tree is 95 canopy dead. This is coming from someone who doesnt know what a blackwood acaia looks like and i dont have a reference. And next question is regarding greenwich, jackson, and greenwich and jackson. How did that happen . Have these trees been dead for a long period of time . I see the tree was bigger and i just see an absence in the coloration and is definitely dead no foliage on there. Does this just commonly happen or were they poisoned . Sure. It is actually and i wish i could go to the before times like my life and see the happy, healthy trees all the time and just see the dead trees everywhere. And sound like a movie, but i see dead trees and at any given moment in San Francisco of this size, there are going to be literally hundreds of dead trees. It is like painting the golden gate bridge. Its just something that occurs. I did take the time to put in more information because the aplant had requested for information. Some of the additional notes on those within the appendix was several of those species are really susceptible to root disturbance. I did note that some of the sites have recent sidewalk repair. It is just the species have a low tolerance. The coloration of the sidewalk looks like it is fairly recent. Several of these were due to recent sidewalk repair. Okay. And who determines whether its a 24hour hazard and then at that point if it is a 24hour hazard, does the director need to comment on each one . Great question. We have urban forestry inspectors. We have six inspectors and that is kind of an institutional name. They are certified arborists. And they are qualified through a lot of training with me and others to identify trees that are Public Safety concerns and the ard we talk all the time. You might ping each other and say what do you think about this . Is this a standard 30 day or do you see something more concerning to make that 15hour or even 24hour notice. We have that sort of process on a regular basis. And the second part of that question was what was the second part of the question . Commissioner does the director have to write a statement regarding each 24hour notice given . Correct. Understandably because of the sensitive nature of having to get to these things, we dont do an individual memo. Like i said, you will have hundreds of dead trees in in any city and even when you quote, unquote, catch up. So within the notices themselves, that serves as the determination. We generally keep the notices and we dont want the public and tree contractors running around throwing those around as a tree hazard. The notice itself is that determination by the director. It is not required that the director makes a comment on each 24hour notice. It is not practice for for a 24hour or 15day notice. That is what the appellant was stating and i wanted to clarify that. Thank you very much. That is all. Clerk thank you. We are moving on to Public Comment. And i see mr. Feinbaum. I believe you joined by phone and computer. Do you want your video to be shawn . Shown . Caller hi. Can you hear me now . We can hear you. Now we would like to hear your Public Comment please. Thank you so much. You have three minutes. I am representing the homeowner at 23 orben place which is one of the eight trees listed here. This tree was cared for by the homeowner for over 20 years. She is herself a garden consultant and did a wonderful job in caring for the tree. However, about three years ago there was some sewer work and the sewer contractor cut the roots of the tree and over the past two and a half or three years the tree garage kwully died and it is now dead. The home owner in this case, unlike the other seven trees, it is not one that is slated for replacement. And that is the issue. If this tree must be removed, and it is dead, if it must be removed, the homeowner wants a replacement tree. There were two reasons that the Department Gave for not authorizing a replacement tree. The first was that the sidewalk is too narrow and they cited the 7 1 2 foot requirement for trees to be replanted. But madam chair and other members of the board f you go around San Francisco whether you are on nob hill, chinatown, or nohe valley or the Lower Pacific Heights and in all areas of town the sidewalk is rarely 7 1 2 feet which would mean that many, many, many, many trees will not be subject to this board and board of supervisors to discuss. However n this particular case i went four blocks away at 1950 pine street found an exact same sidewalk width. That is 78 inches and the department replaced the tree. The a tree fell down in that location and the department replaced it and if it is a case and that seems to be a case of inconsistent lapcation of the regulations. If and will have a tree replaced 30 sektsdz. Second point i would like to make is they say it blocks the street light. Well, that is not correct. The treat light this is a small cherry cheer and this cherry tree dud not and that is not valid. Bottom line, we would like to see the tree replaced an be delighted to work with mr. Buck to find the suitable replacement tree if he feels that a cherry tree the not appropriate. Thank you. Time. Taungment. And we have two questions. One afterwards, Vice President honda. Commissioner swig, you are on mute. Have heard me say be claire and greatly aware of the charges of precedences and what that sets up in the publics mind. Since your mind is more nimble and less senior than mine, about six months ago and your boss may have been in the room, the physical room and eight months and have looked alt a small alley. And it was between pine and bush and could have been the acclaimed the sidewalk wasnt too narrow and the trees that were supposed to be demolishes and to set up precedent and overruled and ask that you have the trees. I just wanted to have this pertain and this is a digression and to discuss this late arenaed set a precedence call this out for replacement when the department doesnt want it to be replaced. Is this an apples to apples and have we done that already through the hickory street case . We have a directors orders and the planting and maintenance of trees and plant witness the public together and the public rightofway. And one way to use our colleagues vernacular with planning and think of the small allies and is a planning flowering, dead, cherry tree and that had a real challenge that is from the sewer work and the tree roots have been damaging the sidewalk. With the blame on planning and vast portions that were not laid out and we need some reasonable space for the trees to grow in the allies. The director specific guidelines says the sidewalk has to be p 7 1 2 feet wide and 6 inches include the curb. And in this particular case we are just not close to that. So to assure the customer and Property Owner that we will look into that, but precedents are challenging for us and went against our own planting guidelines. It is a big issue, but we believe that there are other models and has to be more like the linden street alley where it is a mixed pedestrian awed toe mix uses to create more room for the trees. We dont believer it is enough room to grow trees versus this situation . Hickory was not wide at all. And they are comparable and to have a 4foot at that time to travel and to meet the guidelines that. Reduces the opening for the tree sometimes only 2 feet or 18 inches and 2 1 2 feet. And that is not a lot of room for a tree to grow. The customer the right and we would not be replanting them. We hate to set precedent and i think i was actively sflofd setting that precedent and insisting on that exception on hickory. And so i would be hard pressed not to have you consider another exception possibly so we can talk about this later. Clerk a question from Vice President honda. Commissioner and although ewith did that on hickory, this case is de novo and whether precedent setting or not, we have the option on this case. And we have lots of areas diamond heights, i remember there is a big district off of ocean avenue. And that ethe sidewalks were narrow and is quite challenging when those urban settings were set up in the 60 eyewitness and 70s. They werent really thinking about trees. My question is that you mentioned the flowering cherry damages sidewalks. When i planted mine 15 years ago with the urban forestry, they insisted that these were not intrusive trees that would fwaj concrete, and mine are Pretty Healthy trees and yet to damage the concrete. Thank you, commissioner honda. Even the sunset in sandy soil where you would think roots go down, we will see cherry trees damage sidewalks quite a bit. It is really a challenge and in really every neighborhood. It is really hit and miss. Sometimes there is Something Different and with the you are gags in the front that in this case on an alley that wouldnt be the case. But it is years before that and everyone had always said never promise anyone that the tree wont do some sort of sidewalk. And if and when there is an issue and the good news is with street tree sf we will make the repairs at no cost to you. The only reason is that the roots would damage the block and the trees and the department assured me multiple times that this was a nonroot and that couldnt and if still on the line. Is that mr. Carnes . We are on Public Comment still. I am here to answer question if mr. Honda wants to ask. Commissioner the question is, did your client plant that tree and how many years ago or did she inherit the tree with the property . No. Actually, it is a little bit longer history. But that tree was planted by the city 20some odd years ago. She has voluntarily maintained that tree by pruning it and by fertilizing it and incidentally in this particular case there is absolutely and no evidence of intrusion into the sidewalk. Thank you. You answered my question. We are still on Public Comment next. Can you hear me . Yes. Welcome. I would like to make two points. And commissioners and you heard enough to know that article 16 is pretty flimsy. And the least the city can do and article 16 and section 802. And if you hunt through the records you will find all this in writing somewhere, they shouldnt be mad about multiple requests and nothing that allows the 24hour removal. 15 day, 20 day and emergency removals are the same thing. It didnt make any sense. The trees are a serious liability and are Still Standing months and in public being fuelled and rather than put these dree 2013s on the c calendars, we turned to other priorities and if it seems like ages ago, let et be a reminder to fast track removals for developers and not the city itself has deemed serious liabilities. I have had 544 to 577 and there is no reason it couldnt have done the same thing here. And another way to avoid play is not to have the request to follow the law what is required to be in writing and take out a reference to the tree and examine whether a smaller tree could be put in this location. And with the approach to planning and fast because we cannot continue to remove trees and not replace them. And a mere 6 inches. And could be replanted and sidewalk and accessible requirements maintained. Thank you. We will hear now from eve solomon. Ms. Sol man . Yes. Welcome. Thank you. Who does the replacing . Nobody lives in that house and is on the market far long time. Who replaces the tree . I think the bureau of urban forestry can respond during rebuttal time. Now is just your time to provide comments. Okay. Do you have anything further . Nope. I just want the answer to that question. Clerk thank you. We will hear from the caller ending 1970. To the caller in 1970. I am kathleen and i live in the building in front of where there is cherry trees. It is the end and because we are skirting to the property and had to replace a 4inch house it shall what do you call it . A house trap. That was in 2016 and the tree was slowly dying. And did and really need the tree on this tree. We have had and out of the street itself and and small, victorian. And the cherry tree wassed very healthy. Anybody could see there is no scarring or anything else from the tree trunk. It was well maintained. It was healthy up until the time of that work. It is unfortunate they had to cut the roots to do the work with 3x6 and put in the sidewalk and to do their work. I might be exaggerating. But it looked large. The so with more of the open area to it was more common diseases or pests. We had no problems. I believe everybody came in the fall colors and no problem with trucks because the tree would shape to allow for truck passage on the street. And two rows of branches and kept the country above our heads, 6 feet, and Something Like that. And so i would 30 seconds. And over the years on this side and and the opposite side and within the last two years is standing. Those are very large referred to as russian and i have heard them called very different thing. That is time. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here for Public Comment . Please raise your hand. If you are here for Public Comment, raise your hand on zoom. Are you there . I am there. Can you hear me . Welcome. This is the first time i have done a zoom meeting and with the request and from the tree and to find that mention and a with the sidewalk the same width on orben was replanted by d. P. W. With two examples and the pine street was recent and stands that this should be not through any fault of her own. Sewer work resulted in the damaging of the trunk of the roots and is more important that the tree will replaced. With the removal and there seemed to be inconsistencies as the trees described as hazardous and werent given a 30day notice and 15day defined as being in imminent daning arenaed left for up to six months after that notice. So that is hard to understand how it is an imminent danger and wait for six months and mr. Carnes said there should be mitigation and there were no mitigation recommendations made. So for both of those, it seems that the trees should not be cut down and the appeal should be upheld. Finally t procedure whereby all of the trees were lumped into one hearing. Maybe in the interest oflyness, each of the trees should be individually considered and i would like to ask that you reconsider 30 seconds. I would like to ask in the future you put individual trees slated for destruction on the agenda separately rather than conveniently lumping them into one particular agenda item. Thank you for your time. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. There any other Public Comment on this item . Okay. Mr. Nolte. Did you want to join by video . No, im all right. I want to make the point that d. P. W. Recently has been for the last six months or so lumping together trees within the neighborhood or an area and i think that the board should look at this behavior of d. P. W. As reckless because each Property Owner when you have eight, and at the same time this is hard for information on individual trees to be discussed and allow for time for the hearing on that. That is my comment. Thank you. Is there any other further Public Comment . A caller whose phone number ends in 3176. Please go ahead. All right. Thank you for taking my comment and 23 orben place. I lived there many years and enjoyed the tree. The tree and sidewalk and the pathway and and i have precedent already twice as noted this evening. And i believe that its necessary to have trees in the city and they should be replaced wherever possible. This cherry tree has a smaller profile. It doesnt branch outward or over the and my two cents is that i would like to see this tree replaced. Thank you. Is there any further Public Comments on this item . I dont see any further Public Comment, so we will move on to rebuttal. Mr. Carnes, you have 3 minutes. Mr. Carnes. Can you hear me now . Yes. And a few comments in response to mr. Bucks the determination for a tree says that the the with article 16 and that is just a rule. And he said that they didnt have written determinations and kept them under lock and key. I have made many requests and all i have gotten back is a copy of the removal notice. I believe that there was not written determinations unless the lock and key is something that the Records Department cant get into. Under 24hour removals they have been doing this far long time but the first occurred in may of last year. Before that they didnt appear. We did a check on these and the average amount of time that a tree that was determined to be what the recording is. And is manifest daning err as determined by the director and they argue that one of the trees stood 88 days so what the heck . Either it is a dangerous tree and cut it down or with other technically is 24hour postings cant be protested. So i think buff doesnt want them to go to a hearing. Lets see. I think the other thing that i was a little i suspected, and they have a detailed database and when they have a tree, we ping our neighbor in the office, around hey, you remember this tree . What is going on. They have complete records 30 seconds. Very complete records in the database so when you ping your neighbor and say what about this tree . Numerous arborists over the years have butt notes at the trees. I think in a general sense i think that that is time. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Carnes. Good evening, commissioners. Chris buck with Public Works Bureau of urban forrestry. One thing we will look into 23 orben with no promises but four or five callers expressing a desire to see that replaced. What i can assure you if there is our guidelines and these are guidelines and if you can meet all of them and you are one or two off and close enough where and the spirit of the guide can be met. You can err on the side of planting. That was the tree people and fee eat, sleep, live, and dream tree. My assurance to you that we will look into that at orben praise and if there is a way to justify it, great. The challenge is, of course, very difficult setting a precedent. The moment someone has something and Everyone Wants it. That is why we have written directors orders to be consistent and so the public know what is to expect. I am sure it is frustrating to see exceptions. Then just i do want to emphasize some positive things and every tree is healthy and happy. And we may never reach that point but we are looking at increasing transparency wherever is what i am hearing here tonight. I am trying to show how much were working with mr. Carnes and he has had many productive suggestions and we post them real time to match what is on site and something we didnt have just a couple of years ago. The notices are eare vise and a qr koez to get to the notification page. But there are some mischaracterizations and a question from a commissioner and how do you determine 24 hour, 15 day, and the what i am saying is you talk to colleagues for the reason against us at every step of the way. So these arent glib responses. We literally needs to poets post a notice that is the written determination. Despite the appeal, we want to continue to work to make improvements and the idea is to never that is time. Thank you. Thank you. You said you have stuff under lock and key. The appellant has requested is that subject to workers we and and thank you that is one thing i never drove through the rebuttal. The english major in me needs to stop using language like that. So what i am saying is these are notices that we have that are declaring a tree a hazard or 24hour knows. They need to be written on by the inspector and applied from conditions they say. And these we are not hiding anything and these are notices we put on the trees themselves. Nothing is lock and key. What i am saying is this notice that the letter has from the Directors Office is vrt important document and that is provided to mr. Carnes. When we post the notice in the rightofway, what we are saying is that is an important document. Thank you for letting me clarify that. I didnt did not use euphemism. I have two more questions about this. When the department makes a 24hour decision and to have the tree nodes to be removed and if you are not going to remove in it 24 hours, i think that the folks at the city and county should have the ability to appeal that process. The other question as mr. Cliff mentioned, we, unfortunately r the tree board. We hear a lot of tree cases. But we dont know the order they came. And what he had stated is how do you determine what comes before the body and seems like you are arbitrarily taking things out of orred arenaed not the matter in which they are being delivered to the department and should come to our board and it seems from what the system was a the developers case is more important and is able to jump the case. And asking you who makes that decision and what does and why isnt it in order . Great question, commissioners. And the question is kind of one of about how is there a hearing on development but there wasnt the hazard trees addressed. And what you dont have is as mr. Carnes may or may not know and not blaming if he doesnt know it. He is a member of the public. It is my job to know that so i can tell you this. We had a case several months ago where eight or so trees and six of them very large trees and bayview Hunters Point and george court and massive, eucalyptus trees and what is from a priority level preventing the greatest hazard. Those are what we have actively been addressing for hearings earlier this year. And i dont expect the public to understand or know that. I am telling you we have had a lot of hazard trees at our hearings in the last several months. The very first hearing we did we did zero development. And we had zero development and to send a signal we need to address Public Safety concerns. And the reason is to handle the records request and as an advocate. Tas lot worse to talk to the City Attorneys Office who says you cant have notices and trees out there in the public rightofway because of exposure to liability. We hear that and we want to remind everyone that we are not staffed like supreme court. This is covid. These are unusual times. We have three month setback and we have staff turnover and literally had to train new hearing officers. We dont expect the backlog to last. We cant. It is too much exposure land err on the side of greater notification and not think of 24 hours and those are the feedbacks for that and that is a great question and i want to assure the board that we are actively scheduling trees and the city and note that connecticut is 100 affordability. And the Mayors Office said address Public Safety. And that is were minding that and there have been large trees that we have removed already. And now we need to get to the smaller ones. Thank you very much for explaining that through and understand that when you get a call from the supervisor or from the mayor and changes directions. And not specific people and 100 of affordability is the rule of the land these days. Thank you very much. Thank you. I see that a member of the public raised their hand, but we are not taking Public Comment at this time, so commissioner, this mater is submitted. I do have a question probably addressed to mr. Buck. If the board decide you should take a look at orben, does the order need to be changed to reflect that it would be and is it not germane in terms of what it says in terms of replacement or no replacement. Thank you, commissioner lazarus. Good yes. And we could come back to you and i didnt realize orben was going to blow up and i would have had the exact measurements on how far short we may be. I am wondering if there is a way to and to follow follow up on that and maybe make a determination on the replantability of that site. Totally willing to come back to your body and speak to that. Allowing removal but returning to work out replacement satisfaction and two potential options and one is to continue the item and the other is potentially to condition the permit but i will let other speakers speak to that. Commissioner lazarus, and those are the two option. And i think conditioning will be the better option and we dont have to return and waste not waste, but use everybodys time on this one ie thaem could be dealt with otherwise. I want to comment because this should not be interpreted as a criticism for the department. I think that some of the discussion that were having tonight is pretty clear that if a tree is dead, zedded that it should be removed and certified for replacement. That is just common sense. I want to use common sense. And i think i get a feeling that some of the Energy Around the hearing tonight has to do with baggage that we have built up together over the last year or more. Due to the departments slow response to replacing trees when they are removed for whatever reason. I just want to state that and is going back to the famous 68 trees that remain and that most remain over many this is a buildup. I want to point out that the department has built up this energy with the public. As a result of the track record and model replacing trees. That is all. I wouldnt support the appeal because if the tree is dead, you replace it. And you retear it down and replace it. That is common sense. That is where this is coming from. Vice president honda . I am in line with you, president lazarus. I think that the trees brought before is to be in place and need to be removeed. And we have had multiple time where is this many trees have been grouped together for the public out there that thinks that we would have not and to grant the appeal and we have many, many existing conditions with and urge you to facilitate for them. And lots and lots of blocks with little bitty sidewalks and big trees in them already. So if the board doesnt mind, i make the motion to grant the appeal and condition the permit with the exception of 24 orben to be removed and 23 orben. 23 orben. And that the appellants work and the department in deciding what type of species will be planted in there. I dont think its clear that its feasible. Did you want to say revise order on the condition that the the public has urged to mention on what basis are you making the motion . That the trees to be removed. And to grant the appeal and on the issue and require that the tree at 23 orben place and to be removed and replaced. And if the trees to be removed are dangerous to Public Health and safety and are dead and therefore dangerous to Public Health and safety sant swig, so that motion carries 40. And that on clouds the hearing. And we will have five commissioners at the next meeting. Yes. We are adjourned until next week. Thank you. Thank you. Good night. Have a good evening. Good morning. Welcome to the San Francisco county Transportation Authority transportation meeting for tuesday, december 8th. Our clerk is brittany milton. Could you please call the roll. Commissioner fewer. Present. Chair haney. Present. Commissioner mandelman. Present. Commissioner mar. Absent. Commissioner peskin. Present. Commissioner preston. Present. Commissioner ronen. Present. Commissioner safai. Present. Commissioner stefani. Present. Commissionerruacommissioner. Present. Commissioner yee. Present. I will make an announcement about Public Comment. Public comment will be available for each item by calling 4156550001 and when prompted enter access code 146 4868433pound and pound. You will be able to listen as a participant. Dial star three to be added to the queue to speak. You will hear a message advising you have two minutes to speak. Calls will be taken in the order received. Speak slowly, clearly and turn down the volume of your television. 30 second lag time during the course of the meeting. That concludes my announcements. Go to the cac chair report. Mr. Larson, good morning. Good morning. Chair peskin. I am chair of the Citizens Advisory Committee here to report on the december 2 meeting of last week. The cac engaged in a relatively lengthy discussion of the tentative prop k allocation pending demonstration to you the Authority Board of a Business Case analysis to support the use of the joint Development Project delivery method. The cac members were interested in the proposed mix between low, affordable, moderate and market rate housing part of the request for proposals for this project. In addition, there was concern about reimbursing proposals up to 500,000, to which staff commented that with the delivery method under consideration a significant investment would be required from proposesors. If s. F. M. T. A. Would own the intellectual property that could be use full and incorporated into this or future projects. They had questions about the Public Private Partnership Model including risk allocation and Cost Containment strategies. The cac approved recommending the allocations with the amendment that there should be regular presentations to the cac on the Modernization Project as it progressing. Item five on your agenda today they were glad to see the buses purchased and this represented a commitment to restore neighborhood bus routes in the future. They questioned the timing of the ethe expenditure since ridep is low. The timelines for common requests as part of the item was so long. Not to be completed until 2022. A complaint shared by other members whose projects tend to be a little less complicated, more low impact. The proposal with the final report item 4 on your agenda is met with enthusiasm by the cac especially the route up to Hunters Point. Providing redundancy and more correct connection downtown. It was positive to learn the bayview has protected the most Transit Service because of the number of potential workers in the community and that community was hit hardest by the pandemic. With regard to item 7 the downtown study congestion study. The outreach on the new concept in the midst of pandemic. It shared the concerns of the puck oofof thepublic with the lt pricing in the em of the zone that might have to cross in and out frequently. In addition, the lack of data shown that could assist to determine boundaries was raised. The cac recommended approving the funds for additional outreach and studies. Also on behalf of the cac i would like to thank the staff of the authority to the big adjustment to the remote standards and maintaining the high standards in the work and information they present to us. I would like to thank commissioner yee for the opportunity he has given me to represent district 70 the Citizens Advisory Committee for the past six and a half years. That concludes my report. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Larson. Any questions or comments from members . This is not commissioner yee or commissioner fewers last meeting. They have one more which we will talk about next week. Theany members of the public to comment on the cac report. One caller. Two minutes begins now. Good morning. Just wanted to appreciate the staff for the detailed minutes that are more detailed than most policy bodies in the city and very helpful to allow me to make very brief comments on some of your following agenda items and i appreciate chair larson and cac meeting last week despite technical issues. It was a good meeting. I wanted to say thanks again. Thank you. Any other members of the public for the cac report . There are no more callers. Public comment is closed. Thank you, mr. Larson, thank you for nice comments about our great staff and with that, madam clerk, please call the next item. I would like to remind you if you are not presenting keep your camera and audio off. We can only allow nine items. Item 3 approve the minutes of the november 17, 2020 meeting. This is an action item. Is there any Public Comment on the minutes . No Public Comment. Public comment is closed. A motion to move the minutes from our last meeting made by commissioner fewer. Seconded by safai and seconded by fewer. Commissioner fewer. Aye. Commissioner haney. Aye. Commissioner mandelman. Aye. Commissioner mar absent. Commissioner peskin. Aye. Commissioner preston. Aye. Commissioner ronen. Aye. Commissioner safai. Aye. Commissioner stefani. Aye. Commissioner walton. Aye. Commissioner yee. Aye. There are 10 ayes. The minutes are approved. Next item, please. Item 4. Adopt the 15 third bus study time report this. Is an action item. Hugh, the floor is yours. Thank you, chair peskin and commissioners. I hope you can all see my screen now. No problem. This is the 15 third bus study. We did come before you in july for an informational update. Now we have done the last few items to complete it and are bringing it forward for adoption. I want to start by thanking commissioner walton for requesting this study, which is coming out of our planning and it was to look at a Technical Evaluation of bringing back the 15 third street bus to Service Given a number of Community Concerns that have been raised across a variety of forums about service on the t and questions about that and the ability of folks to reach downtown, in particular, from the bayview and Hunters Point. The goals of the study were about improved access to downtown. Wanted to make sure any serviced would focus on costeffective service. We reviewed quite a lot of work done previously plus our own work that looked at a variety of Planning Efforts in the study area. We did find and hear very clearly that there were a lot of concerns and interest in bringing back the 15. In the power presentation i gave a full rundown of the background data. Today i want to walk you through the couple routes that we tested and evaluated. Then i want to give you the high level findings. We looked at two possible routes, both would be express type routes. Both would serve downtown on third and fourth streets and run excess mission bay and dogpatch on third street. 15ax would be local on third street running down through bayview and into visitation valley. Then the other of which would be the 15bx more Hunters Point express to make the loop or routeing through the hill and Hunters Point for folks and as chair larson mentioned there is wide interest because of the general reduced level of accessibility from that particular neighborhood. The overall findings of the study were that each of these routes would add significant new riders to the muni system. I will say the evaluation for the study was based on our travel demand model and trying to get information about how ridership would look precovid. We were evaluating for the longterm and implementation questions were the seconded part about the Current Situation we are in towed. You can see the gold bar would be the new riders. Left side just the 15ax service. Right side you have both the 15ax and bx together, how they would perform. The shadings of blue are folks who wouldnt be be new riders, they would be shifting from other existing services. You can see there is quite a bit of demand for these types of services today. We also did a comparison to other express bus services muni operated in the past. In particular, just look at travel that is in the peak period and direction so you can see that both the 15ax and bx as am inbound and pm outbound perform similarly to the express bus services today. Lower than the most heavily traveled but more than quite a few other services operated prepandemic. Finally, the new piece of information that we did develop since we last presented to you was about the overall cost to operate the service. These costs are based on average operating costs for buses in the city so they are not necessarily a specifically cost for this service as much as general understanding what the cost might be. We looked at both all day service as well as a. M. And p. M. Only and peak direction service, as i mentioned. Then we also looked at operating costs on a perrider basis. The overall finding that is important is that these costs are well with in line with what m. T. A. Has today for other similar types of services or a little lower in some cases. Finally, i want to note that while we were conducting this study, s. F. M. T. A. Did see these findings and we worked with them and they convened a working group to identify route options for short term implementation. Their focus is as much on providing some of the addressing some of the particular issues around social distancing and need for service for essential workers during the pandemic. They saw real opportunity to use this study as a way to help address that need and to demand. The work of that group identified three options for short term implementation of the route. They did recently in the last few days complete a surveys and they have a preferred option which would route through the hill in Hunters Point and get Better Service from there directly to downtown and i do have sandra from s. F. M. T. A. Today to answer more specific questions if you have those questions as well. With that, that concludes my presentation. I look forward to your questions. Thank you, mr. Lock. Commissioner walton, do you have any questions. Is 15 is predominantly in district 10. Thank you so much, chair peskin. I want to thank cpa for the work on the study and thank m. T. A. As well for being responsive to what the Community Wants and to bring back a piece of history and culture and improving transportation in the district. This is something the community has been asking for for a long time. Thank you for the study. This is going to be something we are excitedded about in terms of the 15 day view Hunters Point express which should operate early 2021 during this pandemic. I want to let them know that we appreciate you for your response to the community. Thank you, commissioner walton. Any other comments from commissioners . Seeing none. Is there Public Comment on this item . Yes, one caller. First speaker, please. David. Let me run through my comments. Part of the trying this unreliable t line rail service. How is that a problem . I have no issue with the Pilot Project but is this the best time . Is there a timeframe and evaluation to determine whether to make it permanent . Does this echoir less service on other parallel muni routes . Did that mean duplicate service on third street. If vehicle availability is constraining factor does adding this Service Delay restoring other routes . M. T. A. Is looking to cut nonessential sources. They talked about laying off 1,000 people. Is this the best solution right now . How does this proposal relate to commitments already made regarding Transit Service to serve the Hunters Point Shipyard Development . Lastly, this would add an express service to that area at a time when most other express services are not operating. It doesnt pie appear richmond e coming back. The 7x at sunset are not expected to return. I would like to understand. I am concluding. I would like to understand why you are proposing a different operation. If it is to try it, that is fine. I wanted to raise those concerns. Are there any other members of the public for Public Comment be on item 4 . There are no other callers. Public comment is closed. Are there any final comments from staff . I dont have any further comments from our end. I do have sandra online, i believe. You want to say any concluding words about short term implementation. Good morning, board. Yes, this route is going to come into service as part of the january 23rd change, and some of the things that may being it possible. The day church route is going back to trains and that is making the new service possible. It is everything we are doing is temporary right now. We will do title six analysis march of next year and evaluating the route. Ridership will be part of that process. Basically, you will evaluate it two months in, is that correct . You are starting january 23rd and evaluating in march, it will be a very small data set. Correct but we are analyzing the entire system. Maybe given such a short period we give it another more lengthy period of evaluation about ridership and how it is serving people. That is the next time we take stock how the ride is performing. Thank you. Seeing no other comments from members or staff, commissioner walton would you like to move adoption . Thank you so much, chair peskin. I would love to move for adoption of item 3. Item 4. Is there a second to that . Second. Mandelman. On that motion made and seconded, madam clerk, a roll call, please. Adoption of the bus study. Commissioner fewer. Aye. Commissioner haney. Aye. Commissioner mandelman. Aye. Commissioner mar. Absent. Commissioner peskin. Aye. Commissioner preston. Aye. Commissioner ronen. Aye. Commissioner safai. Aye. Commissioner stefani. Aye. Commissioner walton. Aye. Commissioner yee. Aye. The item has approval on the first reading. Next item. Item 5. Allocate 16878202 in prop k sales tax funds and 234,005 in prop aa vehicle Registration Fee funds with conditions. This is an action item. Deputy director at the Transportation Authority. I would like to note that the s. F. M. T. A. Has requested to delay consideration of the replace 30 30foot hybrid motor coaches request until the january Board Meeting. This is to allow the agency some time to put together a very brief presentation on the financial benefits proceeding with the project now rather than later and also to justify why that project was a priority at this time. The revised funding request before you today is for 6 82,000 600 in prop k funds and the amount has not changed. With that we need an amended motion at some point. I am sure, chair peskin, you will guide that process for approval of requests that are proceeding. With that i will begin my presentation now. The four requests before you today, two from prop k sales tax, and two from the prop aa vehicle Registration Fee. District 7 is a Neighborhood Program funding request for implementing the priorities that emerged from the budgeting process that commissioner yees office undertook. The 132,000 in prop k funds to be added to general fund moneys ready to implement these recommendations on the slide in front of you. There are enhanced crosswalks and traffic calming and various other recommendations to be implemented with these funds. The traffic calming in excelling see or is a request to implement high priority measures that emerged from the communitybased transportation band done for the excelsior a year or year and a half ago. The various elements include speed cushions to preserve the neighborhood and residential feel of any of the streets in the area. The locations are shown in your packet that accompanies this item on our website. The page street neighbor way project is vehicle Registration Fee first request for improvements on page street. These would implement bump outs at six different locations, four of these buildouts will be landscaped with rain gardens to be maintained by the sfpac. It includes raised intersection of buchanan street, the first of its kind in San Francisco. You can see illustration on your slide. The project also includes some of the other recommendations to improve the safety in this area. This is near a school and various other public facilities. The s. F. M. T. A. Is ready to go with this project. 99 design. The m. T. A. Would hope to work to complete many of the improvements before School Starts in the fall. Given the vicinity to the schools. Conditions on the request. Next item is related to this request to fully fund the project including 1 million allocation of funds from the special fund from former central freeway parcels for this project. As of november 16, 2020, the market Advisory Committee approved the resolution of support for 1 million for this project. We will have a presentation on that next. The other condition is that these funds are on the construction support recommending this. This is additional funding above and beyond the 550,000 already budgeting for construction. M. T. A. Needs an updated budget. The high budget for this work is because of the coordination that goes along with the rain gardens and decorative asphalt and new type of media. It is th the coordination with e project on golf street. Last is lighting improvements. It is the design phase to install four pedestrian scale lights. This is an important pedestrian path across from the elementary close to the cable car line and the bus drops in the chinatown subway station. I can answer questions. We have project managers here. Are there any questions from staff . Commissioner safai. You are raising your hand . You are on mute. No, i dont have any questions. I wanted to comment on this. I want to thank the s. F. M. T. A. I know this money was from prop k two years ago. We went through community prophesies and i have been working aggressively with neighbors. This is one of the most sought after programs at the neighborhood level that i have been part of as supervisor. So many requests for traffic calming we had to compile await list so we can go back. One of the things we were able to turn on its head when i became supervisor rather than asking neighbors to do 50 plus one. We referred out to neighbors to make it proactive. To date we have done over 40 traffic calming speed cushions. 60 are in the queue. This is part of that. I want to thank staff for working with us and tom mcguire s. F. M. T. A. For working aggressively with us to implement this vision. It is something that has had an impact on our neighborhoods. Pedestrians feel safer. This is something. The magnitude what we do on a normal basis is small. Impact is significant. I want that on the record. Do we need to hear from mr. Pick ford . Mr. Pick ford will present the next item. Okay. Any members of the public to testify on this item . Commissioner preston, go ahead. Thank you, chair peskin. I wanted to comment on the part of this. I spoke on this project when we entered the funding request and i appreciate the description of the project that is laid out. This helps in terms of flowing traffic. In the section i sited for the firsted raised intersection in the city. This has many benefits for the community not just more safety around the Elementary School but also connecting john moore in a safe way with the park nearby. I appreciate this moving forward. I do want to thank some folks who worked hard for a long time on this project. Specifically, maria and mike from cta. Casey, jamie and mark from m. T. A. The entire cac including the vice chair henderson. We appreciate their unanimous support and the neighborhood association, walk sf and the Bike Coalition who have all advocated for these. It is going to promote safety in the neighborhood. Thank you for all of your work on it. I am delighted by the lighting. If you have seen this book that just came out. Much the first chapter is about three universities in three blocks. It is a neat little short read. It is about time it got decent lighting. Commissioner safai. This is one thing i wanted to get on the record. The only thing that has been a little frustrating with this process with traffic calming and i know s. F. M. T. A. Is listening. Is the conversation between the Fire Department, s. F. M. T. A. And final decision. One of the things in the notes because public works and Fire Department has to have public approval. Iit may not happen until spring of 2022. Fire department is more aggressive in responding. Implementation needs to move quickly. Spring of 2022 is not an acceptable time based on all of the work we have done. That is it. Thank you. Seeing no other questions from members, why dont we open up to Public Comment. Five callers on the line. Quickly on these items. I have asked if all of these Capital Projects are needed given the uncertainty of m. T. A. In general. I appreciate the delay of the 31st as the placement item that we will hear when in the future. They should scrutinies each request and decide which to support. Assails tax pro sees need to prioritize projects in the Strategic Plan to better align sales tax revenues with projections. I thank staff for hearing my concerns at the cac meeting and updating the contact information. I was going to comment on item 6. I will roll that in here. If octavia study is expected in fall of 2021, isnt this project premature . I believe that reducing travel options in paid salary in the lower hate that you restrict travel blog that it doesnt go through puts more traffic on open cremand concentrates more on open sell. That is my concern about the project. Thank you, caller. Good morning, commissioners. I am kristan lucky, senior organizer on staff at the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition calling on behalf of over 10,000 members to give strong support for this project. I want to thank commissioner preston and s. F. M. T. A. For leadership. We have been working on this for years. It has been great. We are continuing to bring pedestrian and bike safety. I am happy to see the funding request. It will complete safety on the corridor including the raised crosswalk. We are excited to see that. The first in all of San Francisco and i think they really have improvements. I hope to see this funding approved and i look for word to working with you to continue to reimagine this neighborhood street. Thank you for your time. Good morning chair and commissioners. I am bryan hoffman, walk San Francisco organizer. I am here to share the the aloe kateing this funding for the project from these agenda item as well as the next agenda item. We are grateful for the yearlong planning and outreach for the project. It is to identify and support this project. It is approved only in septembe. We know that it is not for everyone especially those walking. Each year we see crashes, people walking off for the real needs drivers in the intersections. Walk sf is ready for the rain garden at the crosswalks where crashing occur and to the citys first ever protection o on the intersection. It is for people all ages walking on the way to school, to play at the park or just on their way home or walking in the neighborhood. It is more than two years since approval. They deserve this project moved forward with four years left. Thank you. Good morning. I am the Environmental Equity Program manager at the green lining institute a nonprofit advocating for Racial Equity for 27 years. I am in support of continued funding for the congestion project. It is the most innovative efforts in equity. I have been particularly impressed by the degree of details and thoughtfuls partnering with Community Based organizations and posting cocreation and design worksion. It is preand post pandemic they have highquality despite the circumstances. It is written about and shared with other cities and country. We are interested in following this model. The project is getting a lot of attention around the country. It is very important to share the strategies in the best practices. It is a larger relevant to all Transportation Planning and decision makings. Thank you for your time. Thank you. That wases for item 7. Comment noted. Next speaker, please. We are talking about item 5 right now. Good morning, commissioners and chair peskin. I am vice chair of the market Advisory Committee and Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association employment committee. Calling with in youic support for the im provements. Connects schools, parks and housing. During this pandemic things have gotten worse because buchanan has become a cut through north south route. Cars can exit the freeway, come up and fly up buchanan. We a lot of stop signs there. This is very important to address this. Longterm the open cell issue is a chronic congestion problem that needs addressed along the entire length of the corridor. This is particularly burdened and causes a hostile situation on the streets. This is a very tent rich part of the city. The very dense part of the city with a lot of carfree households or carlighthouse holds doing the right thing but putting up with the chronic congestion. This neighborhood is what is needed and it is mitigation from the previous s. F. C. T. A. Study of octavia boulevard. I thank dean preston for moving this forward and please support the project. Thank you. There are no more callers. Public comment is closed. I suggest a few changes, amendments to the resolution. Why dont we make 16,878,202 should be 682600, is that correct . Yes, that is the correct amount. Elsewhere in the resolution where it refers to five projects it should refer to four. For instance where it says four of the five requests. It should say three of the four requests, right . Correct. Whereas on the first page refers to replacement of the 30foot hybrid motor coaches that should be removed . Yes. Okay. I would like to make a motion to amend the resolution as stated. Is there a second for that motion . Second. Seconded by commissioner yee. We can take that without objection. Then unless council disagrees with me relative to the rules of this body and if council does not disagree with me we can vote on the resolution as amended. Is there a motion on the amended resolution . So moved. Preston. Seconded by fewer. On that motion made and seconded. A roll call, please. Amended motion. Commissioner fewer. Aye. Commissioner haney. Aye. Commissioner mandelman. Aye. Commissioner mar. Marabsent. Commissioner preston. Aye. Commissioner ronen. Aye. Commissioner safai. Aye. Commissioner stefani. Aye. Commissioner walton. Aye. Commissioner yee. Aye. There are 10 ayes. The motion passes. Next item. Item 6. Approve 1 million in former central freeway parcel revenues for the page street neighbor way project. This is an action item. We are recommending the prop aa funds for the neighborhood project. In response to the request at the november 17th Board Meeting to ensure the project is fully funded we recommend the city use 1 million in revenues from parcels of land occupied by the central freeway once. In 1998 the San Francisco voters approved prop e to make the Transportation Authority responsible for the replacement project. In that scene was the development of set of projects intended to address the impacts of the new boulevard on traffic circulation. These projects which included sidewalk and bike lane improvements, streets, lighting were funded by revenues generated by the sale and use by the projects. They have been implemented. There is 7 million in parcel revenues. In 2019 the Neighborhood Program funds for staff to conduct a study to evaluate accessibility and safety and circulation around octavia boulevard. The study is expected to be done by fall 2021. You can expect to see the projects at that time. Meanwhile page street which would construct the safety improvements is ready to advertise for construction as soon as funding is secured. Approving 1 million would allow that project to start as soon as spring 2021. You also heard the market on octavia, the advisory commit fee unanimously approved Transportation Authority approve the funds. That is what we are recommending here today. I am happy to take questions. I know the project manager is available for questions as well. Any questions or comments . Thank you, chair peskin. To just reference my comments on the previous item. The two items overlap in funding the same project here. You know, i want to emphasize this is a real Good Opportunity to use the funds from the fund to help avoid delays on implementation of the page street neighbor way project. Also utilizing the complete funds when we have the recommends on the ongoing study on octavia to conclude in the summer of 2021. Reiterate my thanks to those i listed before and urge colleagues t to support this important item. Thank you. I did complete my comments. Are there other members to speak to item 6 . If not, why dont we go to Public Comment. Is there any Public Comment on item 6 which overlaps with the previous item. First speaker, please. One caller. Good morning again, commissioners. I am a Senior Community organizer on San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. I am calling to support this. As mentioned previously. [indiscernable] this would allow the s. F. M. T. A. To move towards construction. This funding approved i look forward to working to continue the work to prioritize those walking and biking on page street. Thank you for your time. Does that conclude Public Comment . One more comment. Good morning. This is Jason Henderson from hva. I want to reiterate that the s. F. C. T. A. Did a study almost six or eight years ago. It called out that page street really needed to be treated as a walkable and bikable street. Bikes need corridors, too. Please keep that in mind and please support this. This is exactly what the proceeds from the sale of the freeway parcels was meant for. This is spelled out in the market in oklahom in the octavi. Please support this project. Thank you. There are no more callers. Public comment is closed. Commissioner preston would you like to make a motion for the Million Dollars of funding. In my thanks to the many advocates and staff who have worked on this, i neglected to thank one very important person. I want to thank my legislative aid, Preston Kilgore in district five and who has been in regular touch with the various folks who i thanked previously, thank you for your work on this item. With that i would like to move that we adopt item 6. Is there a second . Second mandelman. Madam clerk, please call the roll on that motion. Commissioner fewer. Aye. Commissioner haney. Aye. Commissioner mandelman. Aye. Commissioner mar. Absent. Commissioner peskin. Aye. Commissioner preston. Aye. Commissioner ronen. Aye. Commissioner safai. Aye. Commissioner stefani. Aye. Commissioner walton. Aye. Commissioner yee. Aye. It has approval on first reading. Item. Appropriate 550,000 prop k funds for the downtown San Francisco congestion pricing study. This is an action item. I am a senior planner of the Transportation Authority presenting this item. This is an update on the congestion pricing study which you last heard from us in june about. Excuse me will you open up the window. We cant see it. It is not open to the fullsize of the window. Yes, that is better. This is prop k request. We have an update from the last you heard on the study back in june. We have a major round of Community Outreach, hearing some of the concerns that you expressed to us back in june whether we could do equitable outreach during shelter in page. We were focusing on reaching underrepresented folks. I have an update here. The goals of the study are to meet the 15 vehicle Trip Reduction weekdays. Looking forward to planning for as we recover from the pandemic and congestion is down. We are seeing it start to increase in some locations around the bay bridge. The goal is to get traffic moving when the traffic resoundses and ad vance equity. Along the lines of advancing equity when we started looking at data we looked at who travels downtown during the peak commute hours. In the bottom bar you can see the folks driving during those peak morning rush hours are disproportionate lehighe lehighr income. Those were less likely to be driving. Iin fact, all of the folks downtown only 13 were low income drivers. Those are the folks most concerned about protecting from equity as we think about policy solution. From the perspective of looking at drivers representing a quarter of the drivers. Half are in the top two income groups. The other thing we looked at that is a take away is that most of the vehicle trips were coming from within San Francisco. Whereas the quarter were from around the region. We need to address that threequarters come from San Francisco. We cant rely on a problem outside of the city. It is helpful to keep in mind the substantial number of vehicles downtown, 25 are the tmt vehicles. That is the significant reason congestion increased between 2010 and 2019. They are half of that increase. The outreach portion. The overall approach is focused on equity in underrepresented communities. We took the concerns along the entire process. We have been advised by the policy Advisory Committee that consists of half equity focused organizations. They have been meeting throughout the study process. We also have had another corelment procreation workshops for low income and communities of color and partner with Community Organizations to host the workshops where folks can come in and participate without equitable congestion that would work for them. Then the cohosts are the participants. We moved into those we were using a card game where folks could play with tradeoffs, fee level, discounts, investments that could develop an equitable program. We transition to remote version of the activity where we mailed packets of materials to people and folks could call in from home or in some cases hear it in Affordable Housing complex rooms. This is our deepest outreach with 160 folks primarily from lower income communities and communities of color. Beyond that, we also did a range of other outreach activities to reach more broadly. That included public meetings, stakeholder meetings where we spoke to 250 groups, that wases more than 75 in the districts across the city. We had a number of those in language as well. We had additional surveys and texting version for those who had less digital access. We got over 1300 survey responses that included in language Custom Service as we worked with stakeholder groups to distribute Given Community needs. Overall we goat quite a bit of feedback. There are a few different ways we let people know about getting engaged. We distributed posters and parking garages. We worked with media to get a number much media hits and in language advertisements to make sure we were reaching those communities. The feedback the top take away will not be a surprise. Congestion pricing is a range of opinion from strong support to keep concerned and varies from the neighborhoods close by within the zone. Chinatown, folks had concern. Folks in tenderloin attended to be pretty interested in th in te idea. Affordability and whether we could design a program that adequately protected lower income groups and maybe gave them benefits. If we could avoid harm there. Second was Public Transit and whether transit would be up to the task given sufficient options for people to choose. Also, the effects on accidents. Given the impacts covid had had and whether this would be another concern there. Benefits were potential to make travel easier and quality of life in the neighborhoods that are most congested. People most interested in prioritizing the outreach activities included by and large incomebased benefits. That would be exemptions, discounts from the actual fee itself as well as potential for transit subsidies. The revenues from the the program funding, reduced fares for low income folks. On investment they were interested in making the Transit System better, followed by Bicycle Safety for top priorities. In the input we developed a set of three scenarios we planned to analyze further in the next ten of the study. These are two scenarios given what we heard very focused on incomebased transit subsidies. We also heard interest in nonresident discounts in trying to balance with the funding. Another thing is whether the fee would be just charged to drive into the zone or a lower fee in both directions to driver it across in or out of the zone. We developed a set of incomebased discount that has a couple of variations across all scenarios we proposed full exemption for people in the low income groups and then the variation is among the next categories low to moderate income groups, the level of discount to that moderate income category. Given the need overall to reach that 15 vehicle Trip Reduction when we recover from the pandemic the idea is we would set the base fee for the higher income driver and the discounted as a result of that 15 given the different discounts ranging from 7 in both directions to 12 to 14 in the fee you were paying in one direction. On top of that we also have looked at other groups. Across all scenarios discount of 50 for disabilities. This would really only make a difference for folks in those high income groups because they wont get a full exemption on the basis of income. The balance together with the need based discount would be included. One scenario would make a difference for those hiring but fits in one of the categories. There is a daily cap. Those who make more than two trips for child dropoffs would not have to keep paying each time they cross. The proposal how to charge for uber and lyft. We would have the same level of fee so the same amounts apply. The fee would also apply for folks taking any trips within the zone as well. Lastly, custody is something in those discount packages. This means we could broaden or deepen the lifeline transit fare using the program revenue. The other element is refined geography. This would be adjustment to the boundaries we started with. We tried to develop the zone boundaries to follow the natural neighborhood boundaries. We are also including the most congested streets and the on and offramps so we wouldnt mover from just one location to another. Next step from here as i mentioned we plan to analyze the scenarios. We will share the results in another major round of Community Outreach to get more input as we move forward, final recommendation. This analysis and outreach will happen in the winter and spring we will return to you next year with a recommendation. Lastly, the actual prop k request in front of you today is for the same scope of work that we presented back in june where we did the contract amendment for the consultant contract. This is the prop k funding request to support that work. That is the same set of additional outreach that our policy Advisory Committee asked for early in the study. It included additional meetings and additional workshops. Those in low income communities and communities of color to accommodate ditoaccommodate the. As i mentioned we will bring that back in the spring. We also do now plan for the next round of outreach in the spring. Given what we learned from what we conducted in shelter and place. We will look at what the next round of outreach needs to look like to maintain the high level of engagement and reach the groups we have been able to reach in this round. We will look at whether some scope and schedule and Funding Options and Budget Options for the next round of outreach to try to refine that. Then we will look for external Funding Sources for that outreach work. We may need to come back to the board if necessary in the spring if we looked to figure out where things stand for that outreach. That concludes my presentation. I am happy to hear questions or thoughts you have today. Thank you for that thorough presentation. Lets open this up to members. Commissioner haney. Thank you, chair peskin and thank you for your work and the presentation. Can you describe in more detail the different options you are looking at for zone residents . In some versions they have 0 discount. Can you describe that a bit more since this is in my district . I will bring back up that slide. The idea here is we got varying feedback. Some folks want to focus as much as possible the different discounts that we are looking at on the income. There was also interest for those living in the zone having a look at what it would include to have a zone resident discount. Two of the scenarios. The one on the left and the right include deeper and broader incomebased 100 up to 33 for moderate. They dont include separate resident discount. The resident discount what that means you would be residents would get the discount that applies to their income group or disability for that reason. There wouldnt be a separate discount if you are a higher income resident. This middle scenario here on the other hand the income based discounts are not as broad. 50 discount at low and not moderate. 50 discount for zone residents. That would apply to every zone resident regardless of income level. Is that helpful . Yes. The idea here would be that if you lived in the zone and you had to take a trip outside of the zone, you would be paying in some cases the full fee . You are basically being charged to leave the zone and come back home. Obviously, the zone residents are unique and their continues originate within the zone. Everyone else is coming from elsewhere into the zone. They would be charged for basically taking the trip outside the zone because then they have to come home . That is true. Being a zone resident if there is not a zone resident discount or if there is a 50 and you are in a higher income category, you would be in the inbound scenario. You commute outside the zone and you would be paying if you come back in during the evening peak period paying that fee. If you commuted you could drive from somewhere with from the zone to somewhere else in the zone and not pay the fee. People in the zone would make those trips in private vehicle without incurring the fees. Whereas people outside would have to pay to come in but would not have to pay to drive elsewhere outside the zone. I am sure there will be more conversation and a lot of you have spoken to people in the zone who have a different view on that issue than people outside of the zone who might not be as concerned about people in the zone. I am sure there will be a lot of concern about people being charged to leave their homes and come back. The goal here, as i understand it, is to relieve congestion inside the zone, which would be mostly people driving into the area, not really trying to prevent people who live in the area from being able to move around, although obviously we would like to reduce their trips as well where possible. Can you go to the boundary slide. I dont have a sense from this slide where we are drawing the likely sort of impact zone. Is there a better sense of that or what the actual boundaries would be in i see the community of concern, of course, and the different transit lines. We are thinking that entire area there with the gray . Right. The proposal is that this gray line and the white would be the proposed boundary of the zone. We had actually started and this wases the recommendation from the 2010 congestion pricing study with laguna street as western edge of the zone and 18th street as the southern edge. That looked at a wide range of scenarios. We have done some official analysis as part of the study, also. There are tradeoffs with the size of the zone where basic lieu he a larger zone such as within the 18th or this modified version not splitting neighborhoods from feedback we heard. What this does is encompasses enough of downtown that it could avoid with the smaller zone the issue having people try to drive around the zone and actually adding to congestion in the neighborhood outside the zone. A large enough zone what that means is there is enough reduction of traffic coming into the zone itself that there is actually other cities that have seen decreases in neighborhoods just outside the zone boundary. This is the larger zone. What i was saying is trips within the zone boundary within somebodys own car would be charged. It is large that way. It is essentially all of district 3, 6 and 5 and 9. Then a little bit of 10. Everything else. Got it. Okay. I am sure there will be more time for conversation about this once we receive the recommendation. One more thing. I would like to note the hours are morning and evening weekday peak periods. Somebody who lives within the zone who is traveling outside the boundary or coming back home at a time that isnt the evening or rush hour would not be charged either. It only applies during the morning and evening rush hours. May i just add, i do believe we have received some letters and feedback from mission bay organizations, employers that they do feel like they would like to be outside of the zone. Neighborhood groups might be divided. We have tried to avoid splitting neighborhoods. There is a question what is the minimum size of them that could still be feasible and effective to reduce the trips to the core. In terms of deciding whether to include a neighborhood or not, is it based on the amount of congestion . The decision to include or in mission bay based on the level of congestion or feedback . Right. I think it should be as the whole study is based on the technical need and feasibility of the given configuration and public input. The Traffic Network is concentrated in the core, meaning south of market and financial district and civic center. We know mission bay is the emerging third employment need, and right now you see it come in over the next 10 years. We expect as that development and Central Waterfront development we will see that need. We want to do 2030 analysis. What you are looking at here is existing 2019 prepandemic congestion level. The next analysis will look to a future year when mission bay will be more built out. That is the reason we wanted to keep looking at it for the purposes of next round of analysis to see what the congestion looks like when complete. I am concerned about models that puts a heavy charge on those living in a zone. To leave home and return and be charged is not the main goal, in my understanding. I think that the problem is that people are commuting heavy into the area. Some of the models that dont have a deep discount at all for people inside the zone do not seem fair or equitable to me. Thank you. Commissioner preston. One question on the timeline slide that you gave us the various six steps to get the final pointing a recommendation. Can you play out beyond that for the benefit of commissioners and the public. My understanding is once you get the recommendation there may need to be state law changes to facilitate the implementation. In the fastest Case Scenario what timeline are we looking at once the recommendations are made and assuming they were adopted to the point . How long is the point of implementation . Thanks for bringing that up . That is one thing i meant to say and neglected it. Thank you. If the board asks us at the recommendation stage to move forward with either the recommendation or modified version and look at next steps there would be several steps that we would need to do before we could implement the congestion pricing. That is why we are looking at this now as congestion has declined. It is now coming back. There is a long lead time here. Those steps include working out a lot of specific details how the system would work. At this stage we are looking at the high level what would the policy look like. There would be a lot of work to deal with the details how implementation would play out. We would need state legislation as well. Through all of those steps working out the details and a lot more outreach for input as we go through that in terms of actual User Experience of the system and getting into morety tails of each of those elements. We would look at in the three to five year timeline after we complete the study. Thank you. Madam executive director, anything to add . I believe that is fair and it all depends if we have the support of state and federal government as new york did when we were able to receive 3 million for facilities money. The conditions are important when we would be able to start and have that capacity in place on day one. I might go back to speaking to commissioner haneys question about zone residents. In london they have a zone discounts. It is 90 discount. In stockholm they dont. In new york city the approval does not include zone discount. They are not done with their discount policy. About 75 of trips driving originate within San Francisco. Within that is 60 from the zone itself. Within that number 25 of the down another 25 of downtown are tmc. That is a quarter of the zone trips. The internal trip making is a significant portion who is driving downtown during the peak. Commissioner preston. I had one question but a followup. I wonder on the strategy with going to the state authorizations we need. Is the thinking we would have fully baked a proposal, adopted a proposal in terms of the parameters and then begin the discussion . I will just say observing the incredible heavy lift that it is to even get discretion for us to lower speed limits in San Francisco, i am wondering if there will be parallel efforts like before this is fully baked will we seek discretion delegated to us locally or is the thinking these have to be sequenced where our proposal is more fully developed before we start that . Thank you. We have had ongoing conversations with members of the state legislature regarding authorization for a program like this, in particular senator bloom introduced a bill a couple years ago with senator weiner from the senate side to authorize up to four pilots in the state of california. La metro and city of lr are studying this concept actively. Other regions have expressed interest. San diego and sacramento as well. To your point these are not easy to craft and pass at the state level. We have a general strategy in the legislative platform to pursue authority to consider the pricing. As to any specific bill that is up to you to take your guidance on that. It may not happen in the first go. We hope there is enough statewide support to introduce it and to pass it when the time comes. It could take two years. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members . I dont see anybody on the roster. Why dont we go to Public Comment on this item. There are current lie five callers for item 7. First speaker, please. Davidpel tell again. If anyone thinks i oppose everything in the world. Not true. I support citywide and targeted outreach on the pricing study. I think it has a lot of things to think about. I support the proposed funding allocation to additional outreach on this important topic. I would note that we should recognize that the world has changed postvirus and that a lot of assumptions should be reviewed. We may need a fresh housing land use and Transportation Demand projection from the Planning Department or other city departments that we should look at perhaps after some of the reality has settled out because i am not sure that all of our transportation patterns are going to be the same postvirus. We should bear that in mind. Thank you all very much. Take care. Thank you, caller. Good morning. I am executive director of the Business Improvement district. Yes, thank you for your presentation. I have spent time with our Public Affairs committee and we are very concerned about this. Wwe will be in the downtown are. This is not the time for this. We have been devastated by covid disproportionately. You heard reports earlier this month showing no convention at moscone. No business travelers and no Office Workers coming downtown. These patterns may children in the future. This needs to be taken into consideration. We need to recover downtown and this is a barrier to us. What bothers us when the study was initiated it was never should we or should we not have congestion pricing. We are very concerned. Price is a barrier. It is not the time. If we are going to spend money on a study. There is no congestion. Traffic is down 90 right now. Thank you. Good morning, chair peskin and vicechairman i want to thank you. I am kevin carol and longterm resident and daily user of Public Transit. I am speaking in opposition to congestion pricing presented today for funding. Our Small Businesses are devastated by the Economic Impacts from covid19. We believe this is not the time to consider congestion pricing. Timing for the study is inappropriate. If the program were implemented would create a barrier to the economic recovery. It would impact leaves of our employees. The study and i request why none is asked for. This is the Economic Impact of covid and we are not having an Economic Impact study. They require employees to work from home. These are conducted prior to covid. International cities have congestion pricing. We have all heard on this calm discussions about what really needs or helps be strong. We dont have that. The project implemen. Our employees must travel powork on bart and muni and when they are not operating they have to drive. They are employees as well. I urge you to not move forward with congestion pricing. Thank you so much. Good morning. I am calling from the hotel here on fifth and market. Thank you for your time and presentation. We have been one of the very few hotels to stay open. I am grateful we could do that. It is not easy. Myself and my colleagues have taken pay cuts and reduced hours over this time. Tto see this significant money spent on a project to cause greater harm to myself and colleagues at this time is tonedeaf. From a constituent standpoint it shows you are not focused on what matters the most. This is a time when traffic is notcentive. The post covid traffic patterns are not the same. If we have this study we will get junk data and produce junk data out. Grew up in london. I am aware of congestion programs. I have to admit it was where i worked hard and we dont have that here. We need to get that set up before congestion pricing. We are putting the cart before the horse. I urge you to step back. We have a city full of very needy people. Please stop adding the taxes and fines. I appreciate you not moving ahead at this time. It is not the right moment. Good morning. I am steven cornell. I am Vice President of. [indiscernable] registered chair. I think, number one, the particular study is not downtown open study. It was a neighborhood study. It includes nine discount merchants including Fishermans Wharf, tenderloin and these are all neighborhood merchant districts. Then you have the districts just outside. There has never been an economic study done on how it will affect the neighborhoods. How will it affect deliveries to the stores. They are done in the morning. Coming in and going out. Nobody has ever talked to trucking companies, merchants about delivery patterns. We live outside the district and have to make a decision do i go to fillmore street . It will have a economic effect on them. Any further studies that are featured will not be very welldone because it is a city hall government building. People do not have to work there until after june of next year. Having the study beforehand about people coming to work doesnt show anything. Thank you for your time. Thank you, caller. Thank you. Good morning, chair peskin and commissioners. I am walk San Francisco organizer. We support the allocation to continue and expand outreach for the study. We all know that congestion could be done right. That involves really understanding how it would affect people across the city as well as the region. When i walk from initial outreach. How long it takes to get to the real conversation about tradeoffs and priorities. The most common feedbacks, discounts to the highest concerns. It is to understand the priorities about what can be a strong plan. With the pandemic we appreciate they are creative with online and offline channels. We are glad they have multi link gall sessions. We are continuing to be engaged. We are ready to engage to work through the locations to strengthen the potential proposal. It is a idea that goes forward it will be because there is a plan developed. [indiscernable] it can bring the greatest results for our Transit Service. [indiscernable] thank you, caller. Good morning. I am haley courier, policy manager at transform. We are working at the intersection of equity and climate. I have been participating in the ongoing discussion. I support the effort and thoughtful outreach efforts. Congestion pricing is a cutting edge tool to reduce Greenhouse Gases and manage traffic. If it is in the program, congestion pricing can have Huge Positive impacts for all of San Francisco including zone residents. This benefits all of the residents. The program targets. [indiscernable] it is necessary for longterm economic. I am encouraged by the proposals set forth. This has the potential to be a Model Program in the country and all eyes would be on us. I am excited to work with the pac to move forward. It centers on communities of concern. I ask the board to approve the out reach request. They are doing an excellent job. Thank you for your support for the study and commitment to equitable outcome. Thank you. I am tracey. Ehs pil and on the board of the merchants and legislative committee for district merchants. We feel in favor of any outreach proposed. We are encouraged by the ability of the organization to continue working on this project in outreach into communities. There has been no economic study done to assess the impact of pricing on Small Businesses. Then moving through the assessment areas most of them are neighborhoods. The downtown and neighborhoods border on the associations and tenderloin and the valley, south of market, chinatown, fisherma Fishermans Wharf and mission. We should be putting the pandemic behind us. Is we do expect to be included in outreach, especially those in the mostly traveledto areas. Thank you for your time. This is kit carter. We are involved with the committee. We do support the passage of this appropriation at this time to continue the study outreach. To continue to make sure we get the congestion pricing that is an important tool. It will help increase transit ridership. [indiscernable] this is to improve the service to help address issues of access downtown and the totality of downtown and safety of downtown. Thank you very much. There are no more callers. Thank you, madam clerk. We will close Public Comment. We have discussed this to a great extent. Is there a motion to move this item number 7. Moved by mandelman. Is there a second . Second by commissioner haney. On that motion, madam clerk, a roll call, pleasaroll call comm. Aye. Commissioner haney. Aye. Commissioner mandelman. Aye. Commissioner mark. Absent. Commissioner peskin. Aye. Commissioner peskin. Aye. Commissioner ronen. Aye. Commissioner safai. Aye. Commissioner stefani. Aye. Commissioner walton. Aye. Commissioner yee. Aye. The item has approval on the first reading. Thank you. Is there any introduction of new items . Seeing none. Is there any general Public Comment . No Public Comment. Okay. We are adjourned. The timma Committee Members should stick around. The rest can get ready for the board of supervisors meeting. Were here to raise awareness and money and fork for a good accuse. We have this incredible gift probably the widest range of restaurant and count ii destines in any district in the city right here in the mission intricate why dont we capture that to support the mission youths going to college thats for the food for thought. We didnt have a signature font for our orientation thats a 40yearold organization. Mission graduates have helped me to develop special as an individual theyve helped me figure out and provide the tools for me that i need i feel successful in life their core above emission and goal is in line with our values. The ferraris yes, we made 48 thousand they were on top of that its a nobrainer for us. Were in and fifth year and be able to expand out and tonight is your ungrammatical truck food for thought. Food truck for thought is an opportunity to eat from a variety of different vendor that are supporting the mission graduates by coming and representing at the parks were giving a prude of our to give people the opportunity to get an education. People come back and can you tell me and enjoy our food. All the vendor are xooment a portion of their precedes the money is going back in whats the best thing to do in terms of moving the needle for the folks we thought Higher Education is the tool to move young people. Im also a College Student i go to berkley and 90 percent of our folks are staying in college thats 40 percent hire than the afternoon. Im politically to clemdz and ucla. Just knowing were giving back to the community. Especially the Spanish Speaking population it hits home. People get hungry why not eat and give id like to wish my mother a happy 88th birthday today. On february 25, 2020 the mayor declared a local state of emergency related to covid19. On april 3, 2020 the Planning Commission received authorization to recon remotely. This will be our 33rd remote hearing and requires your attention and patience. If youre not speaking mute your microphone and turn off your camera as were streaming live and will receive Public Comment for each