San Francisco County Transportation Authority - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the February 10th, 2026 regular meeting of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority Board. I'm Commissioner Myrna Melgar, chair of the board. Our vice chair is Danny Sautter. Welcome, everyone. The clerk today is Amy Sayoung. I would like to acknowledge Jaime Echeverry at SFGov TV for staffing this meeting. Madam Clerk, please call the roll and then make your announcements.

Commissioner Chan. Chan absent. Commissioner Chin. Chin present. Commissioner Dorsey. Dorsey absent. Commissioner Fielder. Fielder absent. Commissioner Mahmood. Mahmood present. Commissioner Mandelman. Mandelman absent. Chair Melgar.

Present.

Melgar present. Vice Chair Sautter. Sautter present. Commissioner Sherrill. Sherrill absent. Commissioner Walton. Walton, present. Commissioner Wong? Wong, present. Chair, we have quorum also. The Transportation Authority welcomes your attendance here in person at the Legislative Chamber, room 250, second floor of City Hall. When you can't be here, the proceedings are streaming live at sfgovtv.org or airing on SF cable channel 26 or 78. Written public comment may be submitted by sending an email to clerk at sfcta.org or by mailing comments via U.S. Postal Service to SFCTA 1455 Market Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94103. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. At this time, I'd like to excuse Commissioner Connie Chan from the parts of the meeting that she will miss. Before calling the next item, as Chair, I'd like to invoke Rule 3.26 from the Rules of Order to limit total public comment per item to 30 minutes for today's meeting. Each speaker will have two minutes to speak on any given item. Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Item 2, approve the minutes of the January 27, 2026 meeting. This is an action item.

Okay, I don't see anyone on the roster with questions or comments about the meeting minutes, so let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item two, the minutes? There is not. Does the caller on the phone wish to comment on this item?

Yes, I do.

Okay, your two minutes begins now.

Hello. This is Michael Petralis calling in. Regarding the minutes, I find it quite curious that for every item, there is no public comment. And I would like for this commission to consider how to better engage with the public, especially using remote public comment. I think that given the importance of public transit in San Francisco and indeed all of the Bay Area, that it is incumbent upon this commission to make sure it is very easy to have remote public comment, yes, for disabled persons such as myself, and also for the general public. I believe that making it very easy for us to participate remotely will really enhance transit in San Francisco. So those minutes are quite telling that there was zero. That's right. There was no public comment at all during that January meeting. And really, that is a blot of shame. about this commission that you did not have anyone making public comment. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone in chamber who wishes to comment on the minutes?

There is not. Okay, public comment on this item is now closed. Colleagues, may I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes? Moved by Mandelman, seconded by Chen. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Okay. On the motion to approve item two, Commissioner Chan. Chan, excused. Commissioner Chin. Aye. Chin, aye. Commissioner Dorsey. Dorsey, absent. Commissioner Fielder. Aye. Fielder, aye. Commissioner Mahmood. Aye. Mahmood, aye. Commissioner Mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye. Chair Melgar. Aye. Melgar, aye. Vice Chair Sautter. Aye. Sautter, aye. Commissioner Sherrill. Aye. Sherrill, absent. Commissioner Walton. Aye. Walton, aye. Commissioner Wong? Aye. Wong, aye. Chair, we have eight ayes. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's go to item number three, please.

Item three, community advisory committee report. This is an information item.

We have Kat Siegel right now with us, speaking remotely. Welcome, Chair Siegel. Good morning.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair Milgaard, Vice Chair Sautter, and Commissioners. The CAC started off the year with a full agenda and some lively discussions. I'll highlight for you the District 4 Community Shuttle Study Final Report. which the CAC discussed at length and ultimately did not approve with two members voting against and for abstaining. Several members, including our District 4 representative, felt that recommending a pilot program for this shuttle would not be a good use of the estimated $3 million annually. particularly given SMTA and the city's budget crunch, and wanted to see the city explore new fixed-route service to serve the sunset, either instead or in addition. Members noted that despite the popularity of the Bayview Community Shuttle, that that program has not yet been able to secure ongoing funding and that the District 4 Shuttle would be less competitive for grant funding. other members were supportive of the shuttle while noting that they too would ideally like to see more fixed route north-south transit service in the study area the cac voted in support of all other action items on our agenda including the 21 million dollar prop l allocation requests for 10 items the $12 million allocation for the portal project and the 2026 state and federal advocacy program. There were several members with concerns about the cost overruns associated with the Guadalupe River Bridge replacement project and wanting assurance that freight operators are paying their fair share for the project. We also voted to support adding the Hayes Valley Public Life Study as an eligible use of the Market and Octavia Special Revenue Fund. As the District 5 representative, I'm very supportive of the study and also hope to see progress on the various safety improvements that were recommended as eligible uses of those funds when we approved the Octavia Improvement Study in 2023. Finally, we were appreciative that SFMTA staff came and provided an update on the local revenue measure. Members were particularly interested in spending oversight, SFMTA's complementary efficiency and cost-cutting strategies, and how to navigate voter concerns about the measure complexity and impact to cost of living.

Thank you, and I can answer any questions.

Thank you so much. I don't see any questions or comments from my colleagues. So, Madam Clerk, let's go to public comment on this item.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item three, the CAC report? There is not. Does the caller on the phone wish to comment on this item?

Yes, I do.

Your two minutes begins now.

Hello, this is Michael Petralis again offering public comment. In looking over this report, I noticed there is only one member of the public who made public comment. And I think it is really shameful that the Community Advisory Board, like the full committee here, had so little public participation. We are talking about public transit and the advisory board and how it can influence the decisions about public transit in San Francisco. And yet, on your website, there is no information about how disabled people can use remote public comment to petition our government, that being you. How can you continue to basically hide the information about remote public comment? And then when we read these minutes, we see over and over again, no public comment, no public comment. This lack of public comment needs to be addressed by the Community Advisory Board and by the full committee. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. There is no additional public comment, Chair.

OK. Public comment is now closed. Madam Clerk, let's call the next item, please.

Item four, allocate $21,042,500 and appropriate $200,000 in Prop L funds with conditions for nine requests. This is an action item. And we have public comment on this item, which has been posted to the website.

Thank you so much. We welcome Anna Laforte, who will present on this item. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair Malgar. Anna Laforte, Deputy Director for Policy and Programming at the Transportation Authority, SFGTV. I'm sharing my slides. And let's go ahead and get started with the first request from the SFMTA for the Muni Forward project to install quick build improvements on four corridors throughout San Francisco. And you can see the corridors on your screen. The work is in support of reliability, speed, and safety benefits and includes stop spacing adjustments, signal retiming, and transit signal priority, term restrictions, and curb changes. The scope of work is for the construction phase to install approximately 10 to 15, to install work at approximately 10 to 15 intersections on the four corridors with elements that are primarily consisting of paint signage and signal timing adjustments. The next group of requests is from Caltrain. And these are for a total of $5 million. And I'll pause on the last of the requests. And you can see summary information on the slides. This is all for work, sorry, this is all for work that is totaling $5 million in Prop L funds to be allocated. And this is for the San Francisco member share contribution to the Caltrain capital budget. This is a member share that is provided by the three JPB members at an equal level for system-wide improvements. that maintain the train system in a state of good repair up and down the corridor. So not all of the improvements are in San Francisco, but they're necessary in order to keep the system running along the corridor. The Guadalupe River Bridge Replacement Project, I'd like to pause on this request for just a moment. These are for two rail bridges over the Guadalupe River. that have exceeded their useful life and are in need of replacement to avoid slow orders and wait limits for Caltrain and freight operations. We funded this project previously with the Prop K expenditure plan sales tax funds for design and construction. There have been significant cost increases for a variety of reasons, and we have advocated for greater oversight on the project, which Caltrain has agreed to. And our recommendation includes a condition for Caltrain continuing to conduct the quarterly oversight meetings with funding partners, including transportation authority staff. Our commitment to the project is a total of $10 million that we will provide over the coming years as we continue to support general state of good repair projects system-wide in addition to the river bridge. This next request is the annual contribution from the sales tax to SFMTA's paratransit operations. We help to fund the broker contract that includes all of the paratransit services that SFMTA provides, including the essential trip card program and prescheduled van trips. This allocation request would fund services in the current fiscal year, dating back to July 1, is our recommendation. SFMTA had to delete its submittal of the request as it was focusing on an agency-wide directive to identify and implement cost reduction measures across contracted professional services, and that included paratransit. So MTA has confirmed the annual cost for the program. at this point, and the budget shows the actual expected cost of the service based on historical data and cost-saving measures, whereas in the past it had shown an up-to amount based on the contractual amount. This next request is for neighborhood program funds to install traffic calming measures in District 5. The locations were identified through a survey that the district office had conducted in the last couple of months. And the district office and SFMTA will be finalizing the locations which are shown in your packet for viewers watching at home. And this last request is from SFCTA, and this is for an appropriation of $200,000 in Prop L funds from the Equity Priority Transportation Program, which we created in part to leverage community-based transportation planning funds from MTC that we receive as the congestion management agency for San Francisco. The funds are intended to support community planning and equity priority communities. Among other goals is to help establish a pipeline of projects that are ready to compete for discretionary grants as they become available. And this funding will leverage $370,000 in Prop L funds for us to work with community leaders and other stakeholders in the project area, which is shown on this slide. slide on the screen. And with that, I can take any questions. And we have lots of program managers or project managers that are here also as well.

Thank you, Ms. LaForte. We do have questions. Commissioner Mahmoud.

Not a question, but I just wanted to speak on our neighborhood transportation program allocation for traffic calming and pedestrian improvements in District 5. As was mentioned, last year my office launched a survey asking residents where in District 5 they would like to see the city invest in making streets and intersections safer through speed cushions, raised crosswalks, and painted safety zones. We received over 300 responses from all corners of the district, and the results were clear. From Japantown to the Haight to the Tenderloin and everywhere in between, community members want traffic safety on our streets. For each infrastructure type, we heard over 75% support and received over 140 suggestions for locations. We also received separate feedback from the Alamo Square Neighborhood Association and the Japantown Task Force. This item includes a draft, a list of locations that will be the site of speed cushions, race crosswalks, and painted safety zones. These locations reflect a combination of the results of the survey combined with the city's high injury network and initial assessments by SFMTA traffic engineers. We will continue finalizing locations, prioritizing the Tenderloin in particular where past SFMTA investments have laid important groundwork and additional improvements are still needed, however. As a neighborhood with a high concentration of streets on the high-injury network, it remains a critical focus for targeted safety upgrades to better protect the children, seniors, and families who call it home. Thank you to everyone from the community who submitted survey responses and sent in their recommendations. Thanks to Paul Stannis and Damon Curtis from SFMTA, Mike Pickford from the TA, and Raynal Cooper from my team for their work to make the streets of District 5 safer. Colleagues, I ask for your support on this item.

Thank you, Commissioner Mahmoud. Commissioner Sautter.

Thank you. On the immunity forward work, I'm really excited to see that. Has the scope of that work been identified yet in terms of the particular lines and what those improvements look like?

Yes. Let me invite Michael Rhodes, the program manager, to speak to that from SFMTA. Thanks.

Morning. Michael Rhodes, Transit Priority Manager at SFMTA. We have identified the four corridors that would be addressed through this allocation. They would be along 19th Avenue on the 28 line, along the T3rd surface portion of the route, along the 22 Fillmore on Fillmore Street, and along 1 California throughout, particularly the western portion of that route.

Okay, good. Those are important lines, so I look forward to working with you on those. Thanks.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Chen.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to say thank you to Rachel Hyatt and Andy Hadle for moving forward the Mission Alamany Community-Based Transportation Plan. This plan will improve how people from my district move on the Mission and Alamany corridor and strengthening our urban street landscape and improve safety and circulation of pedestrian safety, transit riders, cyclists, and drivers. Through this planning process, I am committed to uplifting the voices of our very diverse communities, including our youth, our elders, and our very monolingual community in the district. My goal for this project is to identify practical and doable capital projects, public amenities, services recommendation, and policy ideas. So my office is really looking forward to coordinating with the staff as the implementation of this project moves forward. Thank you for all the work. Thanks.

Okay.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Laforte. Let's go to public comment on this item.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item four, the Prop L allocations? There is not. Does the caller on the phone wish to comment on this item?

Yes, I would like to make public comment.

Your two minutes begins now.

Hi, this is Michael Petralis again. I really wish that there were other folks who could offer public comment remotely about this item because it is very important for implementing these changes. So again, please find a way to include the information about remote public comment is available, at least for the disabled people, and reconsider allowing everyone, regardless of disability or ability status, to dial in remotely and make public comment. This would go a long way toward making public transit better for all of us in San Francisco. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment, Chair. There is no more public comment.

Okay, public comment is now closed. Colleagues, may I have a motion to approve this? Mahmoud, seconded by Sauter. Let's take the roll, please.

On the motion to approve item four, Commissioner Chan. Chan, absent. Commissioner Chen. Aye. Chen, aye. Commissioner Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Commissioner Fielder. Aye. Fielder, aye. Commissioner Mahmood. Aye. Mahmood, aye. Commissioner Mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye. Chair Malgar. Aye. Malgar, aye. Vice Chair Sautter. Aye. Sautter, aye. Commissioner Sherrill. Aye. Sherrill, absent. Commissioner Walton. Aye. Walton, aye. Commissioner Wong? Wong, aye. Chair, there are nine ayes. The motion is approved.

That motion passes. Thank you. Let's go to item number five, please.

Item five, allocate $12,500,000 in Prop L funds with conditions to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority for the portal project and engineering phase activities for fiscal year 2025-26 and amend the Prop L standard grant agreement for the portal project engineering phase activities for fiscal year 2024-25 to allow retroactive expenditures of up to $267,209 starting July 1, 2024. This is an action item.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. We have Jessie Kaler here, our rail program manager, to present on this item. And Mr. Vanderwater is here also to answer any questions. Welcome.

Good morning, Commissioners. Jesse Kaler, Rail Program Manager at the TA and SFGov TV. I am sharing slides. Thank you. I am here to present this year's allocation of Prop L funds to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority for the continued advancement of the portal project, also known as the Downtown Rail Extension. And thank you to TJPA staff for their work with us on this and for being here this morning. As a reminder for the public, The portal project, which TJPA leads, will construct a tunnel to bring Caltrain and future California high-speed rail into the Salesforce Transit Center in the heart of downtown San Francisco. The Transit Center was constructed with a subterranean train box, which is awaiting the completion of this project. The TJPA is implementing the project in partnership with the Transportation Authority, the two rail operators, the city and county, and the MTC, under the terms of a six-agency Memorandum of Understanding, which was executed last year. The Transportation Authority is an active partner in the work to advance the portal project. in a number of capacities. We serve on project governance bodies, including at the policy, executive, and management levels, as described in the multi-agency agreements for the project. We also support by leading or co-leading certain project development tasks in partnership with the TJPA and the other partners, including funding, advocacy, and governance implementation, among other efforts. Finally, we conduct oversight of the project on behalf of San Francisco, reflecting the project's scale and our significant local investment as a complement to the oversight conducted by the Federal Transit Administration. This year, we are advancing enhanced oversight of the project as it moves toward construction, consistent with the approach we have successfully used for past megaprojects, including the central subway and Caltrain electrification. The portal project's current schedule targets opening the project for passenger service in 2036. This date is subject to completing the project's funding plan to allow it to move fully into construction. The single biggest funding source for the project is a $3.4 billion funding share from the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment Grant Program. Currently, the project is advancing through what we call the engineering phase of the FTA process during which the TJPA must complete various pre-construction activities and secure full commitment of all funding other than the planned grant from the FTA. In 2023, in concert with putting the project forward to the Federal Transit Administration, TJPA estimated the capital cost of the project as $8.25 billion. Of this amount, $720 million represents previous expenditures to construct the train box at the transit center. In July of last year, TJPA staff presented an indicative update to the cost estimate with a value of approximately $7.6 billion, with this decrease reflecting scope modifications supported by all six partnering agencies, as well as other adjustments to underlying cost assumptions. The project's cost estimate will be formally updated in the future as part of the process to secure federal funds through a full funding grant agreement with the FTA. With respect to the balance of the funding plan, there are significant local, regional, and state funds already committed to the project, including city and county funds and transportation authority funds. Completing the funding plan and closing the funding gap will require securing planned state funding of at least $1 billion as well as securing additional local and regional commitments. The TJPA has prepared a three-year scope of work for advancing the project to full funding and readiness for construction, including work to acquire the remaining right-of-way required for the project. This scope of work includes those activities necessary to fulfill federal requirements and secure federal funding under the FTA's process. Excluding those right-of-way costs, this program of work over the three-year period will cost approximately $235 million, supported through a combination of local, regional and state funds. The TJPA has requested $12.5 million in Propel funds to support activities of the engineering phase this current fiscal year. In addition, TJPA has requested allowance for limited retroactive expenditures under the previous fiscal year 2024-25 Prop L grant and allowance for retroactive expenditures starting November 1st of last year for the current request in the current fiscal year. The use of a limited amount of Prop L for these retroactive expenditures will assist the TJPA in managing constraints on eligible uses of other available funding sources, in particular regional and state funds, in order to continue to advance the project's work program on a timely basis over the coming year. With that, our staff recommendation is for the allocation of $12.5 million and the amendment of last fiscal year's grant, as I have described. Thank you, and we are happy to address the board's questions.

Thank you, Mr. Kaler. Amazing. 36 is not that far away, it seems. Okay, Commissioner Mandelman and TJPA member, Mandelman.

Vice Chair. Vice Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Melgar. I want to start by thanking Mr. Kaler, who has been working on this project for lots of years. and of course Adam Vandewater, Executive Director of the TJPA for joining us here this morning and for all of the work you've been doing over the last few years. I guess I have mixed feelings. I share the chair's enthusiasm that 2036 is not really that far away. And if we're going to get there, a bunch of things have to sort of fall into place over the next year or two. So we really are moving I mean, we've been in a critical period. There have been some very significant wins over the last couple of years. We're certainly in a more challenging climate in terms of federal funding than we were two years ago. But we also have continued to make progress. And we have a plan, at least, that if everything comes together, we should be able to start and possibly make this 2036 goal. But everything has to come together And so members of this board, the mayor, the whole city I think are going to have to be aligned along with TGPA, along with the whole region in pushing to close these last gaps and doing the work that needs to get done to set us up to break ground. This is a tricky project in that the TJPA is an independent agency, but is representing and made up of people from different stakeholder constituencies and agencies. We very much want and believe that this is a project of regional significance, and yet San Francisco has unique stake in this game. And so our unique stake is reflected in the enhanced oversight that I believe this board wants to see provided. We are putting a lot of money in. And so that requires, I think, a level of coordination with the transportation authority and the MTA that is not necessarily challenging, but it requires a lot of the TJPA staff, and so I want to thank you, Adam, for your recognition of that and your willingness to continue partnering with the TA staff. We've put a lot of money into this project. We will continue to need to put funds in this project to move it forward. I am enthusiastic about it. I think it will be a very big deal for our downtown. It will be a very big deal for housing and the possibilities of housing in all sorts of sites along the way. I think this could be very good. And of course, if high speed rail manages to move forward on some kind of timeline, that will make it an even smarter, better project. So the things we're doing here today, even this commitment of funding, we hope will bear fruit for children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, future generations, that this is one of those projects that people will remember as a really big and good thing for San Francisco and the Bay Area. So I think, of course, we should make this commitment. Thanks to everyone who's been doing all the work. Keep doing all the work. Let us know how we can help. And it does need to be kind of an all-in effort from this board, our mayor, our legislative delegation, the rest of the Bay Area's legislative delegation, the governor. And so hoping we'll be able to actually make that timeline that our chair and I are both pretty enthusiastic about. So that's what I got.

Thank you, Commissioner. I think it's going to be awesome, not just for San Francisco, but all of California. We can only hope. So let's go to public comment, Madam Clerk, and then I think Commissioner Mandelman is going to want to make a motion.

Okay. Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item five, the portal project? There is not. Does the caller on the phone wish to comment on this item?

Yes, I do.

Your two minutes begins now.

Hello, commissioners. This is Michael Petralis again. Listening to this terrific report, I kept wishing that we could find a way to allocate about $6,000, maybe $7,000 for filling the potholes at Jane Warner Plaza. This is a regional transit stop for many people. At Jane Warner Plaza for years there have been desperate pleas to city authorities to fill in the potholes at Jane Warner Plaza and all we get in response is silence. um and it's really um a hazard for all users of Jane Warner Plaza that there are these huge potholes and yet no city money can be found to address the potholes um I hope that in the future when I um call in to this commission that you will have um uh the the matter of potholes at jane warner plaza and the low amount of money needed um to patch up those potholes thank you thank you for your comment chair we have no additional public comment okay public comment on this item is now closed commissioner mandelman did you want to make a motion uh yes i'd like to move approval of this item thank you can i have a second please 10 seconds

I think we can do the same house, same call. Right, Madam Clerk? Yes. OK. Same house, same call. That motion is approved. Let's go to item number six, please.

Item six, amend the Octavia Improvement Study recommendations to add the Hayes Valley Public Life Study as an eligible use of revenues from the Market and Octavia Special Revenue Fund in the amount of $410,000 with conditions. This is an action item. Thank you. We welcome Rachel Hyatt.

Good morning, Commissioners. Rachel Hyatt, Deputy Director for Planning and SFGov TV. I am sharing my slides, which have a bit of background on this item. Excuse me. In 1999, San Francisco voters approved Prop I, What Prop I did was designate the revenues from the sale of former land parcels that were formerly in the Central Freeway right of way to build a new boulevard, the Octavia Boulevard, and also any extra revenues to be used on ancillary transportation projects in the area, to benefit the area. That proposition required that the SFCTA, that the Transportation Authority, prioritize any excess revenues to be used on the ancillary projects, and to do so in consultation with what was then the Central Freeway Citizen Advisory Committee, which later dissolved and became the Market and Octavia, CAC. The most recent time that the SFCTA Board did this prioritization of the revenues was in 2023 with the Octavia Improvement Study, which identified near-term traffic calming and pedestrian safety improvements, ancillary to Octavia Boulevard, and they're shown here on this slide. What this item would do is make, eligible for the use of these revenues, the Hayes Valley Public Life Study, the proposed public life study, which would be led by the San Francisco Planning Department. And that it has a cost estimate of $410,000, so this amount would be then no longer available to partially implement the other recommendations in the study. With this introduction, I will hand over to Jeremy Shaw with the planning department who will describe the scope and approach for the public life study.

Thank you, Ms. Hyatt. Welcome, Mr. Shaw.

Thank you, Chair Malgar. Good morning, Commissioners. Jeremy Shaw, Principal Planner, Urban Design and Resilience with the San Francisco Planning Department. Here to brief you just quickly on the scope of the public life study. Throughout and since the pandemic, the Hayes Valley shared space has hosted public events and programming along Hayes Street between Goff and Octavia. Last year, the supervisor, Supervisor Mahmoud, requested a study to better understand the transportation and public life impacts of that shared space in order to best plan for the future of the corridor. The Octavia Improvement Study, mentioned by Rachel, was adopted by the Transportation Authority in 2023 and does recommend street safety and traffic management concepts to be funded by that Market Octavia Special Revenue Fund. So this amendment would, as Rachel mentioned, shift $410,000 to this study, again, which is primarily meant to understand the transportation and public life impacts of the shared space. The scope is focused on technical work, and if the funding is approved, the planning department and SFMTA would work with the project consultants to finalize the work plan, clarify project objectives, and an outreach plan, which we will build in visits to the TACAC throughout the study. Items two through four focus on the technical analysis. And since there are other pedestrian safety improvements already funded and scoped from the 2023 study, there's an optional task built into this to look at conceptual developments, sorry, concept developments around street designs to ensure that they respond and align well with the improvements that are in that study already. The scope of this study would compile existing transportation data around transit, transportation, and loading. It would collect new data around public life, such as pedestrian counts and activities, and include other indicators around businesses' emergency responses and city costs. The final deliverable would be a memo or slide deck. Here before you is the overview of the budget, which includes both consultant and staff time, as well as that optional task six. Pending the contracting process, we anticipate the technical tasks one through five to take around eight months, and the optional task would take an additional two to three months. In December, we visited the Market Octavia CAC. As you know, in January, we also were at the Transportation Authority CAC, and we would be, pending the results today, eager to start in March. That concludes the study. I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Shah. I will turn it over to Commissioner Mahmoud, who requested the study.

Thank you, colleagues, and thank you again for the presentation. I'm excited to be working together on this. Colleagues, for context, the Hayes Promenade activation began as a way to help bring the Hayes Valley community together during the pandemic. It has grown into a weekly transformation of street space on the 400 block of Hayes Street. It has support from the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association, the Hayes Valley Merchant Council, and a growing number of volunteers and event programmers who help bring the street to life every weekend. Its permit was also renewed late last year by the SFMTA Board of Directors. However, the temporary nature of this activation has made it difficult for the city and the community to fully understand its impact. We feel it's time to learn about how this street closure affects our transportation network and affects the liveliness of the corridor. This will provide necessary context to support the SFMTA board when they make decisions about the future of the Hays Promenade shared spaces permit later this year, and will help guide community conversations about long-term activations and the vision for a town center in Hays Valley. Wanted to thank our CAC for their support of this item as well, and the SFCTA, SFMTA, and planning department staff for working on this item on the plan. Colleagues, I ask for your support as well.

Thank you so much. Let's go to public comment on this item. I don't see anything from my colleagues.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item six, amend the Octavia Improvement Study? There is not. Does the caller on the phone wish to comment on this item?

No, thank you.

Your two minutes begins now.

I said no, thank you. I do not wish to make public comment.

Okay. Apologies. Thank you. There is no additional comment. Thank you. Public comment on this item is now closed.

Commissioner Mahmoud, did you want to make a motion? Okay. Do I need a second? By Wong, we can take that same house, same call. Thank you so much. That motion passes. Let's go to item number seven, please.

Item seven, adopt the district four community shuttle study final report. This is an action item.

Thank you. We have John Paul Thales here to present on this item.

Good morning, Commissioners. I'm John Paul Velez, Principal Planner. I'm here to present the District 4 Community Shuttle Report, SFGov TV. I'm sharing slides now. The background for this study is the D4 mobility study, which was completed in 2021, which recommended piloting an on-demand shuttle to improve local access to destinations and reduce car mode share within District 4. So at the request of former Commissioner Gordon Marr, the Transportation Authority Board allocated funds to study that idea further. Specifically, this study was tasked with designing an on-demand shuttle for District 4 following industry best practices and developing an implementation strategy in form of public input, identifying costs, and funding options. Before we move forward, just to make sure that we have a shared understanding of the on-demand shuttle concept, an on-demand shuttle basically means a transit service that operates without a fixed route or without a fixed schedule like a traditional bus. Instead, much like an Uber or a Lyft, you can use an app to summon the service on demand and travel from any origin to any destination within a given service area, with the only exception that, unlike Uber or Lyft, you cannot opt out out of sharing trips. You will always have to be open to sharing trips with other traveling customers. So here on the screen, we have the Bayview Community Shuttle, which was implemented in 2024 and is an example of that concept here in San Francisco. We first conducted, as part of this study, a peer review to identify key lessons from industry. We began by reviewing 25 on-demand shuttles throughout the whole country. And building on that, we identified eight specific cases that we thought were most relevant to San Francisco's experience in this case in District 4. And for that, we did a much deeper deep dive and held interviews with agency leaders at these eight different transit properties to, again, draw all of these key lessons. So here on the slide, we have a summary of some of those key lessons. There's more on the report. But again, we used these lessons to inform the service design and implementation strategy discussions that we're going to have ahead. So again, with those lessons in mind, we turn to looking specifically at District 4. And our first observation was that the land use pattern in District 4 and the size of the district match well with that of successful peers that have implemented this type of service. We also confirmed that while almost all of the district is within a quarter mile of a transit stop, transit does not offer a competitive alternative for many local trips. Many trips actually require transfers and or local long walks from a stop to make them, that can make them inconvenient. So there's a bit of. additional friction when you're trying to travel diagonally and it's a short trip, yet you still have to take two buses or, again, make long walks to get to the right bus for you. And this is particularly a bigger issue for seniors and people with disabilities that are more burdened by this request to either transfer or have to do a long walk. As a comparison, car travel times in District 4 are five times faster than the average transit trip for any trip in the district. So we find that all of these are signs that on-demand shuttle could be a good fit for District 4. We conducted a first round of outreach in the fall of 2023 through surveys and focus group discussions with community leaders. We mainly asked the community to give us their preferences regarding various service design features as well as guidance in terms of how to prioritize different service parameters. And so we see that guidance reflected in this service design that I'm about to present. So the proposal is that the service would have as a service area the whole of District 4, and then we add in the south, the Stone Town Galleria Mall area, as well as FSSU, which would be a big draw for TRIPS, and so we recommend adding that section. The service will operate seven days a week with different schedules for weekdays and weekends. In terms of the trip request experience, as I was describing before, the main vehicle to request trips would be a smartphone app, but people could also use a multilingual call center. You get to wait wherever you are, where you're most comfortable for 10, 20 minutes while the vehicle approaches, and once it's near and you can track that through your app, then you walk to the nearest intersection for regular customers, And then for seniors or people with disabilities, you would actually get a door-to-door service, so door pickup. You pay a regular muni fare with a Clipper card or with your smartphone app. You travel, again, sharing along the way with other customers. And then once you arrive to your destination, again, regular customers get dropped off at the nearest intersection, and seniors and people with disabilities get dropped off at the door. We conducted a second round of outreach this summer where we presented the service design and funding structures outlined in the next slides during a town hall meeting with community leaders. We also presented at the outer sunset merchants and professionals meeting a couple of months ago. And the basic feedback that we got is a great general support for this idea and a lot of interest in making sure that the needs of seniors and people with disabilities are well addressed through the service. Our estimation is that the daily weekday demand for the service would be of about 300 passenger trips. The annual operating cost would be between 2.5 and 3 million per year, depending primarily on the type of vehicles that are used and the wages and benefits offered to service drivers. There will also be a one-time implementation cost of around 600,000, including procurement, contracting, marketing, among others. So using these numbers, on average, the cost per passenger trip would be between $25 to $30. Moving forward to implementation, we recommend to start with a pilot, as we have seen most peers do it, as a means to gauge demand and general impact and support, and also as an opportunity to make adjustments as needed during the pilot run. And then also using that pilot run to assess the viability of securing longer-term funding sources. In terms of funding, our first finding is that traditional revenues would only cover a small percentage of total costs, about 4%. So, in order to implement a pilot, we're going to need to mobilize various funding sources. The first would be a grant or an earmark. However, in our analysis, we found that this project is eligible but not very competitive for most existing grant programs. So the alternative could be an earmark. But even in that case, strategically, we shouldn't expect that that is the sole source for funding this service. So we recommend to keep that to about a million dollars. The second source would be a corporate sponsorship. We think that, similarly, the potential amount could be of about a million dollars, and that would leave one last gap, which is if, and only if, those two power sources have been secured, then we may need to use SF government sources as a match to activate those funds. So again, you see here in the sample table shown here, each of the three sources that I've detailed cover 32% of project costs. If the pilot is successful and there's interest in continuing the service, the funding structure would shift. Grant funding on earmarks would no longer be available as a source for funding operations. And instead, local sources would need to contribute a higher share. And then we also believe that the District 4 community would have to contribute a specific share themselves, be it through a business benefit improvement district or a parking benefit district or higher fares for the service or other creative ways of leveraging additional funding. To conclude, the study recommends moving forward with pursuing funding for a pilot following the service design and implementation and funding strategy that I just outlined. As part of that process, one critical step moving forward will be the consideration of the D4 shuttle in the ongoing West Side Network Study, which evaluates broader mobility needs in the West Side and prioritizes solutions for those needs. We will also continue to track closely the evolution of the Bayview shuttle as it moves closer to completing its pilot period and decisions need to be made about extending the service or not. With that, that concludes my presentation and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Bellis. Commissioner Wong.

Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. I support moving forward to explore funding opportunities for the District 4 community shuttle pilot as outlined in the final report. District 4 continues to face significant mobility gaps, particularly for short trips between key destinations such as Stonestown, SFSU, and neighborhood corridors. The proposed on-demand shuttle offers a targeted solution to improve coverage and provide a compelling alternative to driving. I recognize the concerns raised by the Community Advisory Committee regarding cost effectiveness and long-term sustainability. That is why a pilot is essential, not as a commitment to permanent service, but as a data-driven approach to evaluate demand, operating costs, and equity impacts. I was also able to check in with former supervisor Gordon Marr who initiated this, indicated this was one of the recommendations from the D4 mobility study and was supportive of moving forward with the pilot. To ensure accountability, I recommend clear performance benchmarks including ridership target at least 500 trips per week within the first six months, cost efficiency, maintain cost per passenger trip below $20 during the pilot, equity access, at least 20% of trips serving senior students or low-income riders. These metrics will allow us to measure success objectively and compare the shuttle model against other options, including enhanced muni service before making any long-term investment decisions. I urge the board to authorize staff to pursue a realistic funding strategy leveraging state earmarks, local contributions, and potential partnerships while maintaining transparency and accountability throughout the process. This pilot will help us make evidence-based decisions, whether to refine the shuttle, invest in fixed route service, or take another approach. It's about accountability, innovation, and meeting community needs responsibly. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Wong. Commissioner Chan.

Thank you, Chair Melgar. How much, I mean, I see that this trip right now is costing about $31, or the operating cost per trip is $25 to $30. How does that compare to usually like a bus operation per trip?

Yes, so currently from the data reported to the National Transportation Transit Database, Muni is reporting about $6.5 per local bus, or not local, just bus trips. So yeah, that is one comparison point. We also have on the other side of the spectrum, prior transit services, for instance, FS Access, that costs about $100 per trip. And so, in a sense, what we have is the service cannot deliver the efficiencies. It's not meant to move people at scale, but rather to address the needs of those special markets that have not been properly served or that there's challenges to offer good mobility with the existing network. And so that's when you start to see some of these differences. So obviously, paratransit offers a range of additional services. But again, it's a more flexible service. So in a sense, it has an open origin, an open destination, similar to what we see in the on-demand shuttle, with the exception that paratransit operates citywide. And this is more restricted to a specific service area. The value of serving this specific market is a little different than serving the mass market of mobilizing hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis.

Thank you. I just want to make sure I understand correctly. Right now, any bus trip citywide is $6.45?

So the cost to provide that trip on average, I'm sure that if you look at a local route, that cost is going to be way higher. And if you look at some of our high-capacity corridors, the cost is going to be lower, the cost per trip, per passenger trip. So we divide the cost of supplying the service versus the demand. And so this is kind of the case where we're not meant to move as many people with this type of service. What we learned from our conversation with peers is that this service is meant to address the coverage challenges.

Sorry, again, so that trip is $6.45 per trip?

On average, yeah, between $6 and $7.

Thank you. Anywhere between $6 and $7 per trip. This is actually costing around $25 to $30 per trip. I totally get the paratransit. It's the reason why I think that for the previous sales tax renewals for Proposition L, I think we all recognize that Paratransits consistently serving our seniors and people with disabilities. It's a much-needed, really, service. But we understand the operation calls is needed to be added in funding. That's why we make sure that paratransit operation cost was actually part of the last round of sales tax renewal. In fact, colleagues at the budget committee meeting tomorrow, we will have roughly about $339 million of paratransit contract that is coming through. But we also have recognized that paratransit trip actually is not back to the level of 2019 pre-pandemic. I really, there's a few things about the community shuttle in District 4. When I was on the board, I should say, when Supervisor Gordon-Maher was on the board, and that with the recognition of potentially a couple of things, I think both the JFK closure as well as the Great Highway closure, potentially how actually it would impact District 4. really specifically on Great Highway closure. And so that was the understanding that we should have a study. And so how can we move a shuttle forward within the district? And fast forward now where we're today, while I am supportive of the concept of the community shuttle, I am not in support of spending that money right now. I think that if there is a conversation to either postpone this to a later date, when we actually know that our SFMTA is going to be fiscally sound and sovereign after November, especially given that the fact that we are still in conversation about potentially a parcel tax proposal as well as a regional sales tax. proposal that is not only going to fund SFMTA, but really also regional transit. Like these things haven't happened yet. I would like to see those things actually pass and happen and that like that our transit system is funded before we spend on a pilot program. I know this money is coming from CTA in support of this, but right now I just can think of many, many things and many scenarios that this body, County Transportation Authority, may actually have to jump in like end of the year, figuring out some kind of emergency. I don't know. I'm just saying I'm anticipating. I think that we should also prepare for the worst case scenario that this body may actually at the end of the year have to jump in and figure out some sorts of proposal, emergency funding and solution to support our transit agency to cross the border. to just be able to get through whatever it is for the next two fiscal years. So, colleagues, my apologies. I think that while, again, you know, conceptually I'm in support of this, I just don't think that I can be in support of spending money on a pilot program that is going to cost additional 225, up to like $3 million that we have yet to be able to identify how to help. That money can actually close some gaps here and there. But not only that, I also want to point out, and maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe our citizen advisory body committee also failed to approve the motion to support this. And so with all those reasons, I will be voting no on this item today. Unless we can be open for discussion for amendment for implementation date to a later date. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Before I go back to you, Commissioner Wong, if I could have a clarification from staff. I think the action that we would be taking today is approval of the report. We're not approving funds. We are approving staff looking for funding. But can you please clarify, if there were funds allocated to this pilot project, would that have to come back to us?

for approval yes chair uh this you're correct today's action is to approve a report that does recommend that staff continue to look for funding but that funding request if it should come back to our board to say provide local match from our prop l program or any transportation authority controlled funds would require a vote of the body yes okay thank you very much um commissioner wong

Thank you, Chair. I recognize Commissioner Chen's concerns about ongoing sustainable funding, and I want to be able to move forward with this so that way we can explore different funding opportunities. I was in a conversation with our staff earlier about, potential options and these would, this would look for potential funding from outside sources that, um, that are not directly coming out of, uh, MTA or other budgets. If, uh, director Chang, if you can just share about some of the potential places that we could look into for, for funding.

Sure. In our report, we talk about different community-based or business partnerships and sponsorships. So John Paul mentioned, for example, corporate sponsorships. We've been in discussions, for example, with the zoo and looking to potential corporate sponsorships for a joint or shared shuttle option for when they do anticipate hiring visitorship with potentially the development of their programming. There's also foundations and philanthropy organizations that we could partner with community-based organizations. And then we could also potentially be looking at more creative opportunities with the merchant communities, such as transportation management associations that we see elsewhere in the city. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Chan.

Thank you, Chair Margar, for clarification. That is super helpful. I think that I just want to point again back to the slide, you know, 15, indicating that if there's a desire to continue the service long term, like actually what would it take? And I am, again, like I just think that like that is, I think my no votes today is a signal to say this should be at the bottom of the priority list. I would think that there's many other things that I would like the CTA staff to spend their time on with the recognition of that. Even if they spend the time and we know that the results will end up to be Like, we require long-term revenue because external grants are no longer available, and it will also then tap into a local funding, like for SFMTA, and particularly in general fund. And I just am not going to be in that position to support it. But I really am grateful for the staff's work on this community shuttle study. It is not easy. We have contemplated a very similar study for Richmond because with the recognition of closure of the Great Highway. But even then, I think I'm not going to be in the position to support this. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Mandelman.

Thank you, Chair Melgar. I think, I mean, this item may raise a larger issue about how this body works and how each of us have the ability through our NTEP funds and otherwise to send staff off on projects that we may think are important for us or our districts but may not be priority, you know, who knows how they rank in the overall priority for the city. And it may be that that's something that, you know, this board should look at and be thinking about whether we want to continue to do that. But, um, this, this project does not seem inconsistent, uh, with what we have, uh, funded and approved and lots of other cases. I am also not sure that this particular shuttle would be my highest priority. I think as sales tax dollars get tighter, we're going to have to be making hard choices. But I think looking at it and thinking about whether this could be an option for the sunset is a reasonable thing to do, and I don't have any problem approving the report. Again, keeping in mind that any actual expenditure is something that would, for a real program, yes, this body would have to buy in on that and decide that that's the thing we want to fund.

Thank you, Commissioner. When Supervisor Marr asked for this study, he asked me if District 7 was interested in going in on it together, and I respectfully declined because I do believe in public transportation and that we should concentrate our efforts there. However, as Commissioner Mandelman just stated, we have always provided deference to the supervisors in those districts because they know the transportation needs of their district best. And so for now, this is what we have, and I will be supporting it as well. But I think that staff has heard that there is some concern about the expenditure of funds. So before there's any Request to this body for further approving or matching any funds. I would like you know some information and You know communication from staff up to that end because it seems like there is not full agreement about how we proceed so with that Let's go to oh we have a Commissioner Walton

Thank you, Chair Milgaard. Just a question for our CTA director. How much NTIP money goes into operating the Bayview Shuttle?

Commissioner Walton, no NTIP money goes into the Bayview Shuttle operations. That's a grant funded pilot from the state.

That's what I thought. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Let's go to public comment on this item, Madam Clerk.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on Item 7, Adopt the District 4 Community Shuttle Report? There is. Please come up. Your two minutes begins now.

Thank you. Morning, supervisors. My name is Annie Chong with Self-Help for the Elderly. So I brought today Mrs. Sun, Christina, one of our seniors that attend the Chi-Sing Center out in the sunset, and also our community organizer, . I want to just adopt or suggest that we adopt the report, but also to provide the opportunity for the Sunset residents, particularly our vulnerable seniors, to have a better transit system in addition to public transit. Just an example, Mrs. Sun comes to Cheesing Center, which is located at 41st and Terravale every day, and she had to take three transfers in order to get there. And because her knee is not too good, she has to time each of the lines, so that you get on one train, then another line, and another line in order to arrive in Terravale, or else the trip will last longer than an hour. I think many of our seniors do this every day. So we all know that Sunset is a fast place, and to be totally dependent on the public transit that is existing there now just does not do the work right. So I know that money is short, but sometimes when we equate seniors' health, nothing pays the price because our seniors' health is not guaranteed that their needs will hold up. So I just stop right here and urge the supervisors to give it a chance. It's a pilot project. We're willing to work with county CTA to work on funding, sponsorship, and whatnot. And if you build it, they will come. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Does the caller on the phone wish to comment on this item?

Yes, I do.

Your two minutes begins now.

hi this is Michael Petrelis again I just heard supervisor Mandelman make remote public comment I find it quite hypocritical that this supervisor led the effort to get rid of general remote public comment for everyone who wants to make public comment remotely at the board of supervisors And yet, he enjoys the privilege of not being in the meeting room right now.

I'm going to stop you. Please address the body as a whole.

I will, but do not interrupt me. Do not interrupt me. I am giving the larger context. of my comment and I would like to have my 15 seconds returned to me.

We're going to stop the clock and I can't interrupt you because I'm the chair. I'm just asking you please to follow the rules and address the board as a whole and not an individual member of this body. Thank you. Okay, we can restart his clock again, Madam Clerk. Okay, your two minutes begins now.

I find it ironic that I was just lectured about the First Amendment and the restrictions placed upon me during public comment. This is a very curious item. I'm glad I got to hear it. I'm very happy that there was a person in the room to make public comment. And in the future, I ask that you not interrupt anyone making remote public comment because of that little thing called the First Amendment. Just let us speak for two minutes without interruption. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comment. There is no additional public comment.

Okay, public comment is now closed. Okay, Commissioner Wong, did you want to make a motion? Okay, seconded by Mandelman. And we have been joined by Commissioners Chan and Sherrill, so we have to take a roll on this one, Madam Clerk.

On the motion to approve Item 7, Commissioner Chan. CHAN NEI, COMMISSIONER CHIN. AYE. CHIN, AYE. COMMISSIONER DORSEY. AYE. DORSEY, AYE. COMMISSIONER FIELDER. AYE. FIELDER, AYE. COMMISSIONER MAMOUD. MAMOUD, AYE. COMMISSIONER MANDELMAN. AYE. MANDELMAN, AYE. CHAIR MELGAR. AYE. MELGAR, AYE. VICE CHAIR SAUDER. AYE. SAUDER, AYE. COMMISSIONER SHERRELL. AYE. SHERRELL, AYE. COMMISSIONER WALTON. AYE. WALTON, AYE. COMMISSIONER WONG. AYE. WONG, AYE. THERE ARE TEN AYES. THE MOTION IS APPROVED. OKAY. THAT MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU.

Let's go to item number eight, please.

Item eight, approve the 2026 State and Federal Advocacy Program. This is an action item.

Welcome. Great. Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. Amber Crabb, I'm the Senior Public Policy Manager at the Transportation Authority. So this is an item that you see every year. It adopts broad goals and strategies and informs the positions that we then bring to you every month. Top line goals and objectives are seeking and securing funding to advance the priority projects and programs as well as advocating for other policy priorities such as autonomous vehicle regulation, safe streets, and implementing San Francisco's climate action plan. We've developed it in coordination with other legislative priorities of agencies like SFMTA and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. So we're entering the second year of a two-year state session, and I'm going to go through kind of our top five priorities that we see as likely going to be the bulk of our legislative work. The first is supporting SFMTA and our other transit operators in securing state loans to address near-term financial shortfalls and sustained service levels beyond June 2026. We did get the good news that a couple weeks ago, the transit operators did reach an agreement with the State Department of Finance on, I think it was 590 million of loans, and so we're really encouraged by that and thankful to the administration and to the transit operators for all their work, but it does now still have to go through the legislative process, so we'll be supporting their work in that. The second is just in general advocating for transit funding, and this would be through the state budget process and within the newly authorized cap and invest program, specifically looking to fund important transit grant programs at the statutory levels, and then meeting commitments to transit funding that have been in prior year budgets but require annual appropriation. Then thirdly, as you heard Mr. Kaler present earlier, we'll be securing or seeking funding and financing authority for the portal and supporting TJPA in that effort. In the long term, we still have an eye on the prize, seeking about a billion dollars from the state total. But TJPA has a near-term need of around $110 million that we'll be working hard to identify this year, as well as potentially supporting TJPA in seeking approval of extension of their tax increment financing agreement for the state-owned parcels around the transit center. And fourth is around autonomous vehicle policy. And we'll continue to do our work advocating for them to be regulated and deployed in a way that advances safety, resiliency, and ensures accountability. And we'll also be focusing on any legislation that may come up in the second year, in particular around data transparency, emergency response, compliance with driver statutes, and incremental permitting, building on the study we released late last year. And then finally, in general, supporting e-mobility and climate resiliency. As I said before, seeking funding and supporting policies to advance San Francisco's climate action plan, and this could include things like increased incentives for electrification of public and private fleets, and subsidies of things like e-bikes. At the federal level, unfortunately, we'll likely be playing defense again this year. On the funding side, we'll continue to try to keep transportation funding flowing at current levels, as well as maintaining investments in programs that are important to San Francisco, primarily transit and active transportation in particular. of opportunity areas. The first is the annual budget appropriations process, and this is where we'll be focusing also on directed spending for San Francisco's priorities, so earmarks. And then the current federal transportation bill expires on September 30th, so we're likely to see continuing resolutions, but we'll continue to work on the reauthorization proposal as it moves forward. And then finally, we'll be continuing to engage at the federal level as well around autonomous vehicle legislation and regulation. We are seeing movement very recently on the development of autonomous vehicle policy framework at the national level. In fact, legislation was just introduced, I think, last week in print. And we're also directly working with Representative Mullen on an AV data safety bill. So this is all coming together, and it's great to see an interest at the federal level. But at the same time, we really need to make sure that any federal action doesn't preempt the ability of state and local jurisdictions from regulating and overseeing and maintaining current rules in overseeing these vehicles. So with that, this is an action item to adopt our federal and state legislative program, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you. Ms. Crabb, I don't see anyone on the roster with questions or comments. So let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item eight, approve the state and federal advocacy program? There is not. Does the caller on the phone wish to comment on this item? Hello?

Okay.

No, I don't want to make public comment. No.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Public comment is now closed. Colleagues, may I have a motion to approve this item, please? Walton, seconded by Sauter. Call the roll, please, Madam Clerk.

Okay. On the motion to approve item eight, Commissioner Chan? Aye. Chan, aye. Commissioner Chin? Aye. CHIN absent, Commissioner Dorsey? Dorsey, aye. Commissioner Fielder? Fielder, aye. Commissioner Mahmood? Mahmood, aye. Commissioner Mandelman? Mandelman, aye. Chair Malgar? Malgar, aye. Vice Chair Sautter? Sautter, aye. Commissioner Sherrill? Sherrill, aye. Commissioner Walton? Walton, aye. Commissioner Wong? Wong, aye. Chair, there are 10 ayes. The motion is approved.

Thank you. That motion passes. Let's go to item number 10. Oh, I'm sorry. I skipped one. Item number nine. Ms. Pickford, welcome.

Item nine, adopt fiscal year 2026-27 transportation fund for clean air local expenditure criteria. This is an action item.

Good morning. Mike Pickford with the Transportation Authority. So the Transportation Fund for Clean Air funds projects that reduce motor vehicle emissions beyond any current requirements to improve air quality. Revenues come from a $4 surcharge on motor vehicle registrations in the Bay Area. 60% of TFCA funds go directly to the Air District, which uses them for regional grant programs, including EV chargers. 40% of TFCA funds are distributed to county-level programs, with the Transportation Authority administering the program here in San Francisco. We program these funds through an annual call for projects, and then we also help project sponsors pursue those regional TFCA funds. For this year, we expect to have a little over $650,000 in county share funds available for projects, plus some additional funds that I'll get to in a second. The Air District establishes eligibility requirements, including eligible project types and requires counties to adopt local expenditure criteria each year to guide the selection of local projects, which is what we're discussing today. The Air District requirements include strict cost effectiveness thresholds that each project must meet. Within these constraints, we're typically able to fund three to five projects per year, and we're generally able to fund most of the projects that meet the Air District's eligibility requirements. In past years, we've funded projects including bike parking, shuttles to transit hubs, low emissions vehicles, EV chargers, and even building a Clipper transit pass into the SF State student ID card. Our recommended criteria are largely the same as recent years, but for this year we are not recommending prioritizing applications by project type. Prioritizing certain types of projects may conflict with our other goal of creating a diverse program of projects and funding innovative projects that are not eligible for other sources. We also recommend adding a leveraging criterion, which was not specifically called out before. The other recommended criteria are the same as prior years. We recommend prioritizing projects based on features such as cost effectiveness of emissions reductions, project readiness, program diversity, demonstrated community support like being recommended in a community-based transportation plan, benefits to equity priority communities. And since private entities can apply for vehicle and charger projects, that those projects would have a commensurate private funding investment to make sure the public is getting a good value. So the big news for this cycle is that the Air District has offered San Francisco about $1.5 million in additional regional TFCA funds to award specifically to bikeway or bike parking projects. Of this amount, about 468,000 is specifically for projects in southeast San Francisco in the area that you can see on this slide. These additional funds must otherwise follow the same policies, guidelines, cost effectiveness limits, and timelines as the rest of our TFCA program. So between our county share funds that I mentioned before and these additional regional TFCA funds, our total call for projects amount will be approximately $2.2 million. And we expect to release a call for projects in early March with applications due in April And we would then return to this board in June with recommended projects with that.

I'm happy to take any questions Okay, I don't see any questions or comments no one on the roster Thank You. Mr. Pickford Let's go to public comment on this item.

Please madam clerk Is there anyone the chamber who wishes to speak on item 9 adopt the TFCA local expenditure criteria? There is not, does the caller on the phone wish to comment on this item?

Hello?

Okay.

Okay. Public comment is now closed. Madam Clerk, may I have a motion, colleagues? Sauter, seconded by Chen. I think we can, no. Commissioner Mahmoud is out, so let's take roll on this, please. Okay.

On the motion to approve item nine, Commissioner Chan. Aye. Chan, aye. Commissioner Chin. Aye. Chin, aye. Commissioner Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Commissioner Fielder. Aye. Fielder, aye. Commissioner Mahmood. Aye. Mahmood, aye. Commissioner Mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye. Chair Malgar? Aye. Malgar, aye. Vice Chair Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Commissioner Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill absent. Commissioner Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Commissioner Wong? Aye. Wong, aye. There are 10 ayes. The motion is approved. Thank you. Let's go to the next item, Madam Clerk. Item 10. Item 10, accept the audit report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. This is an action item.

We have Javier Altamirano here to present. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Yes, good morning. Yeah, the Transportation Authority's financial records are to be audited annually by an independent certified public accounting firm, and we have here our partner from Ed Bailey today to present the results of our audit. Thanks.

Yeah, thank you very much. Good morning. Yeah, my name is Nathan Edelman with Eide Bailey. I am the independent external auditor. I'm talking about accounting for a little while. I just want to give you the 10,000-foot executive overview of really the scope and the results of what we did as auditors. Excuse me. So we audited the financial statements. Year end is June 30, 2025. Scope of the audit, it is really make sure that these financial statements are complete and accurate. There are numbers within the report, debits, credits, there's cash, investments, there's revenues. But there are numbers that get recorded on the financial statements. Really our job is to come in, ask questions, and it is validate. Excuse me. It is an after-the-fact affirmation to validate that those numbers that were prepared by management are complete and accurate, that they are prepared in accordance with the governmental accounting rules. To the extent that there are significant estimates, such as pensions, our job is to make sure that those are correct. And then through all this, if there's what's called internal control deficiencies, we are required to report those to you as well. Our job is to look at the source documents, it's to ask the questions, and then ultimately, we as auditors, we report back through the audit opinion, we report back to you the results of the audit. Management of the entity, the folks on the accounting side, They actually prepare the numbers. They have to support the audit. They have to answer the questions. They're the ones that are responsible for ensuring that the audit is a clean audit and that it's able to be completed. And I just wanted to highlight that there's a basic set of financial information that all governments are required to report. Those are in accordance with what's called GASB, the Governmental Accounting Standards Body. And then the TA, like some of the larger entities, city and county of San Francisco as well, puts together what's called an annual comprehensive financial report. It gets looked at by the auditors. It also goes to this, it's called the special review committee. And so it has quite a bit more eyes on it and quite a bit more information really to ensure transparency, to enhance accountability. And the TA was awarded for 2024, as for many years prior, this certificate of excellence for financial reporting. So I just wanted to Highlight that. 2025 will be submitted for the award as well. And then really the results of all this. So there's an opinion on the financial statements. It's what we call a clean or unmodified opinion on the financial statements, which really translates to the financial information that was previously presented to you. It survived the audit. It was considered to be correct. There were no internal control deficiencies. And I didn't mention that we also look at there's federal compliance. There's compliance with laws and regulations. And if there were non-compliance identified, those are also required to be reported. No such matters were identified. And then there's a number of also required communications had things occurred, such as if there were audit adjustments, there were no audit adjustments. And really, management was very forthcoming and cooperative to support the audit. So with that, Yeah, I'll turn it over. If there are any questions, I'm happy to try and answer those as best I can. Thank you.

I don't see anyone on the roster with questions or comments. To the staff, thank you so much for another stellar audit, and thank you for our outside auditor for supporting and our controller. Thank you. So with that, let's go to public comment on this item, Madam Clerk.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item 10 except the audit report? There is not. Does the caller on the phone wish to comment on this item?

No, I don't. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. May I have a motion to approve this by Chan, seconded by Mandelman? I think we can take the same house, same call. No, because, okay. Let's, sorry.

That's okay. All right. On the motion to approve item 10, Commissioner Chan? Aye. Chan, aye. Commissioner Chin? Aye. Chin, aye. Commissioner Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Commissioner Fielder? Aye. Fielder, aye. Commissioner Mahmood? Aye. Mahmood, aye. Commissioner Randleman? Aye. Aye. Mandelman, aye. Chair Malgar? Aye. Malgar, aye. Vice Chair Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Commissioner Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. Commissioner Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Commissioner Wong? Aye. Wong, aye. There are 11 ayes. The motion is approved.

Great. That motion passes. Thank you so much. Now, let's go to item number 11, please.

Item 11, internal accounting report, investment report, and debt expenditure report for the six months ending December 31st, 2025. This is an information item.

Okay, over to you again, Mr. Almirano.

Thank you, Chair. Appreciate it. Yes, I'm here to present the... the quarterly internal accounting report for six months ended December 31st 2025 as of December 31st 2025 assets totaled 181 million dollars liabilities total to 295 point 7 million and that includes 220 21.6 million dollars of sales tax revenue bond and revolving credit debt and We have $106.1 million in revenues were collected, 76.4 million of expenditures were spent, and as of December 31st, 2025, we are within budget. Lastly, in terms of our investment compliance, approximately 63% of the authority's investable assets were invested in the city and county of San Francisco's treasury pool. These investments are in compliance with both the California government code and the adopted investment policy and provide sufficient liquidity to meet expenditure requirements for the next six months within the drawdown and the revolving credit loan agreement. In terms of our debt compliance, we have not made any drawdowns from our revolving credit loan and have continued to make our bond payments timely. This is an information item and this concludes my presentation. Thank you.

That's good. Thank you, Mr. Rappaport. I don't see any questions or comments from my colleagues. So let's go to public comment on this item, Madam Clerk.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item 11, the quarterly internal accounting report, investment report, and debt expenditure report? There is not. Does the caller on the phone wish to comment on this item?

No, I don't. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay, public comment done. This item is now closed. So this one, I think we can take a same house, same call. If somebody makes a motion, please. Cheryl. Oh, it's an information. Okay, thank you. All right, I guess we don't, we just take it. Thank you. Let's go to the next item, please, Madam Clerk.

Item 11, introduction of new items. This is an information item.

12, I think. It's 12, Madam Clerk.

Item 12. Yes. Sorry.

I don't see anyone on the roster for this, so please call the next item.

Item 13, public comment. Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item 13? There is not. Does the caller on the phone wish to comment on this item?

Yes, I do.

Your two minutes begins now.

Hello, this is Michael Petralis again. I'm asking for a moment of silence about the $100,000 that was wasted two years ago on Jane Warner Plaza for a fantasy plan. Let us observe a moment of silence for that wasted $100,000. Okay, moment of silence is over. What happened two years ago is that a politician allocated $100,000 for a fantasy plan at Jane Warner Plaza. The person who created this plan at DPW never held a public meeting in the Castro to discuss how he wasted $100,000. Since then, in two years, people in the Castro have fallen over the potholes. We cannot get our local official to take any interest in the potholes at James Warner Plaza. Yet, he allocated $100,000 for that fantasy plan. We need our local official for that area to take an interest in the potholes and get them patched. We also need to address the boarding island inside Jane Warner Plaza. This is the gateway to the Castro and it is in deplorable condition. There is a thing called the Castro Cam. If you look at the Castro Cam any day, you will see these large potholes are clearly visible to the world, and yet our local supervisor remains silent about patching those potholes. I ask that you allocate $5,000 to $6,000 to patch those potholes.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Chair, we have no more public comment.

OK. Public comment is now closed. Please call the next item. Item 14, adjournment. We are adjourned. Thank you.