San Francisco County Transportation Authority - Regular Meeting

OK, good morning. Welcome to the March 10, 2026 regular meeting of San Francisco County Transportation Authority Board. I'm Commissioner Myrna Melgar, chair of this board. Our vice chair is Danny Sautter. Welcome, everyone. Good morning. The clerk today is Amy Sao-Yong. I would also like to acknowledge Sue Enos at SFGovTV 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 present. Commissioner Fielder. Fielder absent. Commissioner Mahmood. Mahmood present. Commissioner Mandelman. Mandelman absent. Chair Malgor. Present. Malgor present. Vice Chair Sauter. Sauter present. Commissioner Sherrill. Sherrill present. Commissioner Walton. Walton absent. Commissioner Wong. Long 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. Also, I'd like to acknowledge that Commissioner Chan is present.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. At this time, I'd like to excuse Commissioner Mandelman from portions of this meeting and also excuse Commissioner Walton from the meeting. 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 first item.

Item two, approve the minutes of the February 24th, 2026 meeting. This is an action item.

Okay, I don't see anyone on the roster with questions or comments about the 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.

OK. Public comment on this item is now closed. Colleagues, may I have a motion to approve the minutes in a second? Moved by Chen, seconded by Dorsey. Let's call the roll, please, Madam Clerk.

On the motion to approve item two, Commissioner Chan? Aye. Chan, aye. Commissioner Chin? Aye. Chin, aye. Commissioner Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Commissioner Fielder? Aye. Fielder, absent. Commissioner Mahmood? Mahmood, aye. Chair Malgar? Aye. Malgar, aye. Vice Chair Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Commissioner Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. Commissioner Wong? Aye. Wong, aye. There are seven ayes. The minutes are approved. Great. Let's go to item number three, please. Item three, community advisory committee report. This is an information item. Thank you.

We have chair of the CAC, Kat Siegel, in person today to present. Welcome. What a treat.

Good morning, Chair Melgar, Vice Chair Sautter, and Commissioners. Nice to see you in person. At our February meeting, the CAC unanimously approved the District 2 Safety Study Final Report and the two separate Prop L Fund appropriations for both the Federal Autonomous Vehicle Policy Development and the Caltrain Governance 2026 Work Program. Members were supportive and appreciative of staff's focus on the AV policy concerns, which is consistent with the CAC's longstanding support for better AV regulation and accountability. We received an update on the SFMTA curbside EV charging initiative as an information item. Members were appreciative of the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback before approving any associated funding allocations, and questions were mostly clarifying, including site utilization definitions active charging versus idling time, and plans for avoiding conflicts with bike lanes and transit infrastructure. We also received an update on the Geary 19th Avenue subway and regional connection study, which members responded to with support and enthusiasm. Our questions mirrored sentiment from the public surveys that were presented about competing priorities of cost control, faster phased implementation, and minimizing construction-related disruptions and displacement. Members also encouraged staff to leverage learnings from successes and failures of past megaprojects, both locally and abroad. Thank you. That's all I have, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Chair Siegel.

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

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item three, the CAC report?

There is not. Okay. Public comment is now closed. I will note that we have been joined by Commissioner Fielder. Let's go on to the next item, please, Madam Clerk.

Item 4, adopt the District 2 Safety Study Final Report. This is an action item.

We have Alex Pan with us to present on this item. Welcome. Good morning, Commissioners. As with GovTV, I'm sharing slides.

So today I'll be presenting the final recommendations from the District 2 Safety Study. This study was requested by former Commissioner Stephanie and funded by the Transportation Authority's Neighborhood Program. We conducted the study in partnership with SFMTA to improve safety and access to places in District 2 that attract vulnerable road users, such as parks, schools, and healthcare facilities, and focused our work in five locations across the district that have a high concentration of these types of places. As an outcome of this study, we're recommending near-term quick build and longer-term improvements that are specific to each of the study areas. These recommendations were selected with feedback from public outreach. There's also funding set aside for the detailed design and implementation of the near-term improvements, which I will talk about in more detail later in the presentation. We conducted two rounds of community outreach engaging with about 200 to 300 people total through online surveys, town hall, and in-person events. In the first round of outreach in summer 2024, we heard that speeding, distracted driving, and lack of traffic enforcement were major issues across the district. We also heard that each of the five study areas had unique safety challenges and preferences for quick build treatments. We used this feedback to develop proposed improvements which we shared with the community in fall 2025. Comments from the second round of outreach helped refine the final recommendations. So this is summary showing the location of the final recommendations. And on the next slides, I'll go into more detail on each one. These improvements are spread throughout the district. And again, this list was developed and refined through two rounds of public outreach. In the marina study area, we're recommending more visible LED signage to reinforce the existing no-ride-on-red restriction, as well as striping to enhance safety and visibility on the south side of the intersection. In the near term, we'll also add signage to reinforce the crosswalk closure on the east side of the intersection. In the longer term, our recommendation would be to study a full intersection redesign, which could include adding a new crosswalk on the east side. We also recommend studying further bike improvements and connections to Fort Mason Park. In the Pacific Heights study area, we're recommending traffic calming measures, which could be speed humps, speed cushions, or speed tables near Lafayette Park. The exact type and number of traffic calming devices will be determined in the detailed design phase. We're also recommending to reevaluate the balance of commercial and passenger loading zones near the healthcare facility at Clay and Webster to reduce double parking and pedestrian visibility challenges. In the ENSA VISTA study area, we're recommending traffic calming measures. Again, the exact type and number of traffic calming devices will be determined in the detailed design phase. Also in the ANSA VISTA study area, we're recommending a number of signage and wayfinding changes to help cyclists turn from westbound Geary to southbound Masonic. This includes modifying the concrete island entrance to the bike lane on Masonic Avenue, which we observe that many cyclists have difficulty navigating. We're also recommending lead pedestrian intervals at all crosswalks to enhance pedestrian visibility. In the Presidio Heights neighborhood, our near-term recommendation, which will be referred to the SFMTA bike parking program, is to identify locations for short-term and long-term secure bike parking options. Examples of bike parking are corrals, lockers, or bike hangers. In the Cathedral Hill neighborhood, we're recommending painted safety zones, which increase pedestrian visibility and help slow turning speeds. There are five potential intersections where painted safety zones can be installed, and the exact locations will be determined in the detailed design phase. The final report includes a discussion of the cost estimates for our study recommendations. The near-term quick build recommendations have a total cost of $430,000 and can be funded through the remaining previously allocated neighborhood transportation funds, which are being held in reserve pending the completion of this study. The Transportation Authority Board may release these funds following the adoption of this study, and then detailed design and implementation would be led by SFMTA and would start later this year. We also identify potential funding sources for the longer-term recommendation at the Bay Laguna intersection, which is estimated to cost between $200,000 and $250,000. That concludes my presentation, and I'll take any questions.

Commissioner Sherrill.

First of all, thank you very much. I've been really eagerly awaiting this. for a wide variety of constituents. Alexandra Pan, Rachel Hyatt have worked really hard on this, especially, but to the entire SFCTA staff, thank you for really all of your hard work. I have some questions that I'd love to ask you.

With Anza Vista, there are two kind of large projects happening in that area.

There's the opening of the T&T grocery store coming up that's going to increase traffic there significantly. And then... There's a Kaiser Permanente maybe going through some construction items in the future. How are we thinking about those, especially T&T, which is going to open relatively soon, in relation to some of these traffic elements?

Yeah, so the recommendation for traffic calming in the Enza Vista residential neighborhood came up because we heard in the first round of outreach that there was a lot of cut-through traffic, high traffic speeds going to Target, trying to get to Target. So I would anticipate that the opening of the T&T supermarket just exacerbates that problem. So the traffic calming that we're recommending is, yeah, intended to kind of reduce that. Got it.

OK. But not necessarily anything specifically on O'Farrell around kind of Cardiac Hill, as it may be called.

I would have to, maybe Jennifer Molina from SFMTA who's on the line can answer to this, but I believe there have been recent improvements on O'Farrell, but I would have to ask Jennifer.

That might be a later thing with looking at that.

For the Pacific Heights Hospital loading zones that you mentioned, how are you all thinking about the further work there? I didn't hear a lot of detail on that. It sounds like there's more work and thought to be done. What is that process going to look like?

Yeah, so we saw that there's a lot of double parking, and part of that is because there's delivery trucks and passenger loading competing for the same curb space. So that would get referred to SFMTA's curb management team to do a study of how the curb space is being used and whether it makes sense to move some of the white loading zone for yellow loading zone and vice versa.

Okay, thank you. In Presidio Heights you mentioned corrals and looking at locations. I didn't see necessarily specific locations being considered. Do you have a sense of what is being considered now versus what may be considered in the future?

We don't have any specific locations. We identified some potential options near these land uses that draw vulnerable road users in the final report. So, for example, Claire Lilienthal Elementary School is an option, but the exact locations would be determined through the bike parking program.

Are any of the locations going to be in non-daylit areas on the curbside?

We haven't decided that at this point, but I think it makes the most sense to put the bike corrals in places that have already been daylit because then there would be no parking impact.

And what's going to be the process for deciding where those go?

I would have to talk with the bike parking program at SFMTA.

So the MTA bike parking program will be? Yes, that's right. Okay, great. Thank you. And last question, very similar with Cathedral Hill and the like, for the daylighting, for some of that visibility, are we additionally thinking about scooter parking areas in some of those daylighting spots? Scooters have been a big concern on sidewalks in Cathedral Hill.

Scooter parking didn't come up as an explicit recommendation from our study, and the Cathedral Hill recommendations are mostly focused on the painted safety zones to kind of increase that area around the curb and help slow turning speeds.

Okay. Yeah, that's interesting. Scooters on sidewalks has been an increasing amount of concern in my meetings with Lime and the others have suggested that, parking corrals on the streets tend to help keep scooters on the streets. And obviously, bike lanes and the like, too. My final question. In recent months, Divisadero has come up as a challenging area because of schools, because basically Google Maps pushes car traffic there, and because it's really steep. And in order for a car to see at an intersection, they often have to pull into the crosswalk. Was Divisadero considered as part of this study? And if so, why not? If not, why not?

So the way that we selected the study areas, there were a couple of criteria that we used. One is that there had to be a high concentration of these critical land uses. And we also tried to focus on places that haven't had recent improvements. Off the top of my head, I don't remember if Divisadero or parts of it were included in the study areas, but I can check. But it was not a comment that came up often during our outreach. And that might have been because of the way that we focused on these specific study areas. But we can follow up with your office.

Please do. Divisor has become especially vexing in recent months with the number of accidents and near accidents. And one of the challenges with accident reporting is if there isn't a significant injury or fatality, the MTA doesn't necessarily get access to it. And so I'm personally aware of four accidents where children under the age of 10 were hit by cars, but none of them were major injuries, thank God. And so the MTA is not considering those, which I understand. But I think we need to look a little bit more closely at near misses and close calls.

Yeah, that's something we can follow up with you about.

That'd be great. Thank you. Appreciate it. And thank you all very much for your work.

Thank you so much, Commissioner Sherrill. This was an item that was requested by former Commissioner Stephanie after an incident happened in your district. And so I'm really glad that the staff stepped right in and did this quickly. So thank you. Let's go. I don't see anyone else with questions or comments. Madam Clerk, so let's go to public comment on this item.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on Item 4, the District 2 Safety Study Final Report? There is. Just one moment. Your two minutes begins now.

Good afternoon, Board. Griffin Lee here, District 2 resident and member of, or sorry, still staff of Connected SF and Connected SF Institute. We are still alive. On the project, I think the overall sentiment of this project, and I think projects throughout San Francisco is how are these projects being formed? What is the demand for these projects? Example, the Geary Street corridor, there are probably less than 100 bikes that go through that corridor on a day-to-day basis, but thousands of cars. Yet we're prioritizing this corridor to paint striping or bike striping for whatever reason. Supervisor Sherrill brought up a good point around intersections that actually may have more children at play or recent accidents. Why aren't we looking at those versus just waving a magic wand at areas where don't really warrant demand? I hope there's general public comment here, too, because there's something else I wanted to bring up today. But I think we have to, again, go back to the drawing board around how we get to these proposals and the process of getting there. Thanks so much.

I think that's it for public comment, Madam Clerk? Yes. Public comment on this item is now closed. Commissioner Sherrill, would you like to make a motion?

Yes, I would love to move to approve the safety study, please.

May I have a second, please? Second by Chen.

Do you like me to call the vote?

I'm sorry. I think so, because didn't we got joined by Commissioner Fielder? We got joined by Commissioner Fielder? Take a vote on the motion.

I'll take a vote.

OK. Just take a vote on the motion. Thank you. OK. Sorry. All right.

On the motion to approve item four, Commissioner Chan. Chan, aye. Commissioner Chin? Aye. Chin, aye. Commissioner Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Commissioner Fielder? Aye. Fielder, aye. Commissioner Mahmood? Aye. Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. Vice Chair Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Commissioner Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. Commissioner Wong? Commissioner Wong? Aye. Wong, aye. There are Eight ayes. The motion is approved.

Thank you. We're going to skip number five for now because one of our appointees is on her way and not quite here. But we'll be here soon. Then go on to number six.

Item six, state and federal legislation update. This is an action item.

Hi, Mr. Reyes. Welcome.

Morning, commissioners. This is our monthly report where we provide legislative updates and bring bills forward for positions for approval. Today we're requesting approval of support positions for three bills. We're also providing information on two bills being added to our watch list. The first bill we are bringing forward for a support position is Assembly Bill 1421 from Laurie Wilson. This bill would direct the state to prepare research and recommendations for a statewide road usage charge program by January 2027. We've supported similar initiatives in the past, and the road usage charge program is a critical program that's needed to replace the gas tax, which is generating less and less revenues over time for transportation needs. The second bill we are bringing a support position on is AB 1837 from Mark Gonzalez. This bill would do two things. First, it would remove the sunset date for transit operators' authority to use video imaging to enforce in transit-only lanes. San Francisco actually already has permanent authority for this based on prior legislation. So what this component would do is give other operators that same permanent authority. SFMTA's use of this authority has been particularly successful. Their current camera program has resulted in a 20% reduction in transit delays. The second thing the bill would do is expand operator's authority to use video imaging to enforce double parking and parking in bike lanes. Finally, the third bill we are bringing a support position on is AB 2308 from Matt Haney. This bill would provide state authorization to extend the term of the local tax increment financing arrangements for former state-owned parcels near the Salesforce Transit Center. This would enable TJPA and the city to raise additional funds for the portal project. We are also adding two bills to our watch list, which do not need an action today, so we're just providing this here for information. The first is Assembly Bill 2276, also known as the Stop Super Speeders Act. This would require installation of an active intelligent speed assistance device for drivers convicted of excessive speeding or reckless driving, which could actively limit how fast the car could travel. The second bill being added to our watch list is Senate Bill 1411. This is from Senator Stern in Southern California. This would allow spending of high-speed rail funding from Cap and Invest outside of the Bakersfield-Merced segment, which is where the funds are currently limited to being spent through 2030. We may bring positions forward on these watch bills at a future date, but today we are just seeking approval for the support positions for the first three bills I mentioned. With that, we're happy to answer any questions.

Okay, I don't see any questions on the roster from my colleagues. Colleagues, may I have, well, let's go to public comment on this item.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item six, the state and federal legislation update? There is. Your two minutes begins now.

Good morning, commissioners. Rachel Clyde with the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. I'm here voicing support for AB 1837, expanding the use of camera enforcement on buses, and to ask the board to support AB 2276, the Stop Superspeeders Act. One of the top complaints we hear from the biking community is vehicles double parking in bike lanes. What seems like a brief act for drivers creates a dangerous environment for people biking and rolling, especially on corridors with fast moving traffic. Parking in bike lanes forces people to leave the safety of the bike lane and merge with moving traffic that is not prepared for them to enter their lane. This is a difficult issue to enforce because often by the time a complaint is sent via 311 and a parking control officer arrives, the vehicle has already left. So cameras on buses and on PCO vehicles are one of the most effective ways to combat this issue, and I want to thank the SFCTA for supporting AB 1837. Additionally, we are part of a coalition supporting AB 2276, and we strongly encourage the board and SFCTA staff to actively support this bill. The Stop Super Speeders Act would allow the courts to mandate the use of intelligent speed assistance devices for the most egregious and repeat speeders. Speeding is one of the leading causes of preventable traffic deaths in the U.S., and repeat offenders are not being stopped by traditional penalties. The ISA devices can stop collisions due to speeding before they happen. Following an extremely heavy week of three pedestrian fatalities and another collision resulting in a person biking being seriously injured, we need to be taking every step possible to prevent more tragedies like this. We urge you to support these bills and be relentless in your efforts to achieve Vision Zero. Thank you.

Thank you. There is additional public comment. Your two minutes begins now.

i am back good afternoon or good morning board um on the first uh bill which i think was 1421 it'd be really helpful to understand what's going into the study regarding potentially pricing potentially for charging for roadway usage this feels like the equivalent of congestion pricing and i think we all know uh from a connected s connected sf stand standpoint and point of view on congestion pricing uh let's just start by stating that downtown has not fully recovered uh office vacancy is still roughly 30 35 percent and we're looking to charge people to use the roads downtown when they're not even coming back yet let alone putting more money in the discretion of mta before identifying additional bloat is highly questionable thanks so much

Thank you for your comment. There is no additional public comment on this item.

Okay, public comment is now closed. Colleagues may have a motion and a second to approve our position on these bills. A motion by Sauter. Seconded by Dorsey. And I think we can take the same house, same call. That motion is approved. Let's go to our item seven.

Item seven, appropriate $75,000 in Prop L funds with conditions for federal autonomous vehicle policy development. This is an action item.

Welcome, Mr. Vélez.

Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Elgar, Vice Chair Sauter, Commissioners, SFGov TV. I'm sharing slides now. John Paul Vélez, Principal Planner, Technology Policy. Today I'm presenting on a proposed Propel appropriation for AEB federal policy. As a context for today's discussion, this is a summary slide on the regulatory framework for AEBs. I've shared this slide with you before, so I won't spend too much time here today. Briefly, at the federal level, AVs are regulated by the USDOT, primarily through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. NHTSA is charged with establishing, monitoring, and enforcing vehicle safety standards. That being said, to this day, there are no such standards specifically for autonomous vehicles in federal regulations. At the state level, we have the Department of Motor Vehicles that awards permits for testing and deployment of AVs in California public roads. And we have the California Public Utilities Commission that permits AV passenger services. Locally, we do not have any permitting authority over AVs. And most of our AV policy efforts have been channeled through legislative and rulemaking processes. At the federal level, the Transportation Authority has advocated for the adoption of AV safety standards, transparent performance evaluation, and open data reporting. Last year, we collaborated with Representative Kevin Mullen on the AV Safety Data Act, a bill that he introduced last year, which aims to codify crash vehicle immobilization and BMT reporting in federal law. Earlier this year, Representative Mullen requested additional support from the Transportation Authority on AV coordination with emergency response activities and on a broader set of AV policy issues that I will detail in a minute. Additionally, we have also been invited by the Federal Highway Administration to participate in a peer exchange program to inform federal AV policy development. But this is more of the critical juncture here. Earlier this year, Representative Bob Latta, a Republican from Indiana, introduced in Congress the Self-Drive Act, a bill that aims to establish the first federal statutory framework for governing AVs. At its heart, the bill proposes a single federal requirement to ensure AV safety. that providers develop a safety case, a structured demonstration of their system's safety. But notably, this bill only offers general qualitative guidance on the contents of a safety case. It does not offer enforceable standards for providers to certify against or to assess performance once they are operational. Providers are not even asked to submit safety cases for review, just to develop them. In turn, the bill preempts states and cities from imposing any additional safety requirements or operational restrictions. This means that many of the permanent requirements currently established in California to ensure the safe deployment of EVs would no longer apply, such as requirements for companies to confirm safety performance, through simulation and close course testing, the definition and obtaining an approval for their operational design domain, documenting the training and roles of remote assistance operators, and the submitting of emergency response and first responder interaction plans to the DMV. All of that and much more would no longer apply. It would be left to provider's discretion. California AV regulations are not perfect. There is a fair amount of room for improvement, as we've discussed here in the past. But they're also the strongest regulations for AVs in the country, and they're about to be strengthened as an ongoing rulemaking process that we've actively engaged on is soon to be completed. A larger majority of that effort will go down the drain if this bill is adopted. As such, we believe that this is an important time-sensitive opportunity to shape federal AV policy in ways that will directly affect San Francisco. The Self-Drive Act has already moved out of its subcommittee, and in addition, the Senate already held a hearing on AV policy, further signaling the momentum in Washington, D.C. around this topic. So we believe that this is a critical time for us to work with our representatives and with peer cities to advocate for our policy priorities and to prevent harmful policies such as federal preemption. The funding request aims to support our engagement on AV development at the federal level, developing a federal strategy in coordination with other interested parties, advising our legislators on AV policy issues, which can be quite technical, and advising the FHWA with peer cities on how to strengthen federal AV policy. The request is for $75,000 out of which 60K are allocated for federal policy development and technical assistance with 10K to participate in the FHWA peer exchange program and 5K for project management. Given the time sensitivity of these issues, the work is ongoing, so we're also asking for retroactive funding to cover our efforts since February. And we think this work will be completed in December of this year. And that concludes my presentation. Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Velas. Also, I'd like to excuse Commissioner Sherrill from the rest of this meeting. Let's go to Commissioner Mahmoud.

Thank you, Jean and Tilly, for your vigilance on autonomous vehicle safety and your collaboration on the hearing held last week with Waymo at the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Transportation Community. I think in the context of that hearing, why this item is important is that we saw there's still so much work to be done to ensure that AV companies are operating in the best interest of all road users. And we feel this can be achieved through smart regulation at the federal level. But we also need to ensure that the state and ideally local governments get a say as well. I'm supportive of the framework that Congressman Mullen, and I'm thankful that we have the bandwidth to support this legislative effort to ensure AVs operate safely and transparently in our city and across the country. So thank you again for your work here.

Commissioner Chan. Thank you, Chair Mulgar. I'm sorry. I'm just a little bit confused about what exactly we're paying for with the $75,000 and that we're paying the Office of Representative Kevin Mullen. I'm a little bit confused. What is this retroactivity of $5,000? Are we paying for staffing? Is this what this is?

Yeah, we're paying for transportation authority staff time and consultant support, as well as some travel expenses to go to this peer exchange program and program management.

And the staffing is, we're paying Representative Kevin Mullen's office for their staffing?

No, pardon me, no. Transportation authority staff support and advising to the Mullen office.

So we're paying for staffing hours?

Yes.

Out of the $75,000 total?

Not total. Again, there's a consultant component. I believe 35, I need to review those numbers, 25K, correct. And then staff, transportation authority staff time, yes.

The consultants are, who are the consultants here?

They have not been hired. So, yeah, we would seek support in kind of AV safety technical issues as well as regulatory oversight issues.

Understood. And then so what you're saying is currently, you know, with our lobbyists that we have, it's really the state. But I thought that we also have our lobbyists.

We do have a lobbyist, but they kind of help provide guidance on strategy. But as I was mentioning, this is rather kind of technical issues that we also need technical support for providing the advice.

No problem. So what kind of technical advice are we seeking specifically? Are we seeking the technical advice in terms of AV automated vehicles technology? Help me understand.

Precisely this concept of the safety case is a convoluted concept about the ways in which AV providers advance their safety. And it's a concept that has been developed mostly for AV providers to develop safety systems for themselves. But in this bill it's become a regulatory tool. And so there seems to be a fair amount of gaps in translating an industry tool into a regulatory tool. And so working through the different elements that comprise a safety case and the ways that they could be or not leveraged through regulations is where we are seeking advice, regulatory expertise as well as technical expertise on this tool.

And because we lack, well, clearly it's a new territory. There isn't really a clear regulation on autonomous vehicle nationwide, not even really in California, in my opinion. We are actually far behind in terms of regulation. I do not have a problem with the $75,000. I want to be clear. My apologies. Seemingly, if I'm against the $75,000, that's not what I'm trying to get at. I'm supportive of actually getting consultation in getting expertise, because I do agree that this is a moment where we lack, not only just in San Francisco and state level, but absolutely on a federal level, that it seems like there's a lack of understanding and expertise. what autonomous vehicle can do and cannot do and how do we regulate it. We see that in San Francisco. Clearly, you know, when we have a blackout, suddenly we lost, well, not we, then Waymo actually lost control over those vehicles. And it is difficult to understand how to regulate without understanding the technology. And certainly, like, I'm just trying to understand that with the consultant, will that information be shared with San Francisco as we, or I should say the state of California first before, I guess what I'm trying to understand is that as we continue to support the research and participate in the research to examine how best to regulate, will that information then, how would that information be publicly shared?

Yeah, we have a general commitment to kind of share all of our findings. So for instance, we've held annual board hearings here where we kind of inform our findings on federal AB policy. I think some of the deliverables from the consultants, for one, we can turn into memos or I can come and share like a final kind of findings through that process there. And in general, yeah, we collaborate kind of broadly within California with academia and kind of nationally in terms of engaging in these issues and seeing how to best advance them, like safety and regulations that ensure that. Because it's not just the technology that actually drives the vehicle, but it's also the broader system, like for instance the remote assistance and how is that set up and what are the regulations for that or what ought to be the regulations for that rather. And so these are some of the questions that we need to kind of continue to dive deeper into.

And what is the timing of the Safe Drive Act, Self-Drive Act?

Well, there's discussions that they want to have the bill included as part of the reauthorization, the transportation service reauthorization that would go, seems to be considered this summer, although many people kind of suggest that that timing is not going to work for them. So that would be the fastest. Now, it could also be the case that, the federal government or the executive branch decide to just move faster and put forward an executive order advancing this very policy vision and skip the Congress debate. That may take much longer.

then what is the timing of what you're trying to do here? I mean, like, how do we make sure that we actually beat them in the timeline that they're going to move forward with the bill?

Well, as I mentioned, we're already engaging in this support and with them all in office and kind of building up our coalition and setting up meetings with our representatives. So we're trying to move as fast as possible. I think that now that... the Self-Drive Act is out of subcommittee and it's kind of being considered. Again, this is the moment that we need to really rally support more broadly. And so, again, we're trying to move as fast as possible. I cannot give you a specific X amount of weeks or in this month. This is when something is going to happen because it's not clear what the future of this bill may be within Congress.

Sorry. That I understand. My question is, though, then what is your timeline for the work that you're doing with consultants who are trying to have a better understanding of how we can actually respond to this regulation?

So again, the staff time we have already engaged on, but the consultant support we have not begun. So I think the division would be kind of following approval of the item if that were to be the case. Then we would move to get the consultants on board as fast as possible. That would be probably in the month April to May, April to June and leading up to a potential briefing of congressional delegations and support staff in the summer.

Thank you, Chair. I think that the way I view this, though, is absolutely that we should invest in this to help us to have better understanding. I think that oftentimes, in my opinion, When we do this type of investment, clearly we cannot predict where the bill is going to head. But my thought is then let's be on top of our game and be able to be ready for you to report back to this body so that this body is ready to understand how we can best support and navigate, be a supporting Congressmember Mullen in his work. to push back through the Commerce and Energy Committee to be able to ring this in or however way that we could to best to counter this bill. So my suggestion is that we should have this, have your report back to us before June.

Thank you, Commissioner Chan. I will just, you know, say a couple comments that you may remember that last year the TA came out with, you know, these guidelines that we then disseminated that were widely used in the country around AV's best practices for municipalities, you know, acknowledging that the regulatory infrastructure is imperfect right now. Um, and I think that this is why Congressman Mullins reached out to the TA specifically, because we've done so much work around this area. already. But I completely agree with you that communication strategy is key, that once we have a work product, we share it with a congressman, but also share it with others because this is a nascent industry. And the regulation right now is such that people are in different camps as to how to approach it. And San Francisco has strong values and that we need to put those forward. So Totally agree. And thank you very much, Mr. Velas. Let's go to public comment on this item, and then I will take a motion from the floor.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item seven, the Prop L Federal Autonomous Vehicle Policy Development?

There is not. Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. May I have a motion, colleagues, to approve this item? Moved by Chen, seconded by Sautter. And I think we'll have to take a roll because we lost Commissioner Sherrill.

On the motion to approve item seven, 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. Chair Melgar. Aye. Melgar, aye. Vice Chair Sautter. Aye. Sautter, aye. Commissioner Wong. Wong? Wong, aye. There are eight ayes. The motion is approved.

Thank you. And now, Madam Clerk, we're going to go back to item five. It looks like one of our appointees, Senesia Margarita, is not going to make it. She's held up with a work issue. But we have to move on this, and we have the other appointee here with us, and I don't want to waste her time. So let's do that. Go back to item five, please.

Item 5, appoint Kat Siegel and Venezia Margarita as the District 5 and District 9 representatives, respectively, to the Community Advisory Committee. This is an action item.

Okay, we have Amelia Wally here who's going to introduce this, and then we have Ms. Siegel here herself, and I think Commissioner Fielder wants to say a couple words as well.

Welcome. Hi. Good morning, commissioners. The Transportation Authority has an 11-member community advisory committee with members each serving a two-year term. The board appoints members to the CAC with each commissioner nominating one member to the committee. Neither staff nor the CAC make recommendations on appointments. Applications must be San Francisco residents, and they must appear before the board at least once to describe their interest and qualifications. So there are two seats requiring board action today, District 5 and 9, both of which are due to upcoming term expirations for the current representatives. Commissioner Mahmoud has indicated that he would like to re-nominate Kat Siegel for the District 5 seat. As Chair Melgar noted, Vanessa Margarita is not here yet, but Commissioner Fielder has indicated that she would like to re-nominate her for the District 9 seat. So Kat is here to speak to her interest in qualifications for the position. Commissioner Fielder may nominate Vanessa Margarita if she wishes, and we would ensure that she appears at the March 24th board meeting to speak before final approval.

Thank you so much, Ms. Wally. Commissioner Mahmoud, did you want to say a few words about your nominee before she comes up?

Yes. Thank you, colleagues. I've really enjoyed getting to know Chair Siegel, and I'm proud that our district is represented on the CAC by someone with such a passion for improving our city's transportation network. My office has appreciated the collaboration on muni funding, as well as traffic safety and street use items that have come through this TA board. She's incredibly knowledgeable about the present state of transportation funding and active in her personal capacity in ensuring the well-being of our transit system. Her commitment to the role is apparent through her service as chair of the CAC. It is a position that requires an additional commitment of time, but she stepped up to the plate and has contributed to the success of the whole committee. Looking forward to her continued service, and I ask colleagues for your support in her reappointment.

Okay, before we hear from Ms. Eagle, I also have to chime in and say a few nice words because I have had the pleasure and honor of working with her on several transportation-related issues over the years, and she is as smart as they get and also so politically savvy. We are so lucky and honored to have you in this role, but also to have you in our city fighting for these causes. So if you would like to come up and say a few words, I'd appreciate it.

Hi again, Commissioners. Thank you, Chair Melgar and Commissioner Mahmoud for the kind words. It is extremely important to me that everyone in San Francisco be able to move freely and safely through our city regardless of income or ability, and I see investing in public transit as the highest impact thing we can do to accomplish that as a city. Public transit has also enabled me to live here car-free and to connect with my neighbors and city in a way I would not have otherwise been able to do, and I'm so grateful for that. My focus for the last several years has been on making sure that members of my community, especially folks who are most transit dependent, have been aware of and able to weigh in on the muni service reductions that we've faced while also building political support for new transit funding so that we can hopefully put these fights against cuts behind us and focus on improving our transit service. So my focus this year is on getting the local and regional funding measures on the ballot and passed in November. And in the meantime, I am so grateful for the privilege of serving on the CAC and the ability to weigh in on how our limited transportation funds are used. So thank you so much for your consideration, and thank you so much for always taking the CAC's feedback seriously.

Thank you, Ms. Siegel. Commissioner Fielder, did you want to nominate?

Yes. Thank you so much, Chair Melgar. Colleagues, I'm happy to recommend the reappointment of Vanessa Margarita to the CAC. Ms. Margarita has successfully completed one term as a District 9 representative on the CAC, first being nominated by former Commissioner Ronan. Miss Margarita is a lifelong San Franciscan with years of experience serving the community as a social worker and community organizer. Miss Margarita is bilingual, has served on several community boards, and is well-versed on issues facing our low-income and immigrant transit riders. I'm very grateful that she is willing to continue to serve on the CAC, and so I want to thank Miss Margarita for her service.

Thank you, Commissioner Fielder. Madam Clerk, let's go to public comment on this item. I don't see anyone else on the roster.

Yes, please come up for public comment. Okay, your two minutes begins now.

So, Commissioners, District 9, We have a number of problems that adversely impact those who are physically challenged. And we need to give an opportunity to these groups, because I've been doing that for a long time. And I've a lot of experience because I've been monitoring the muni for 50 years. And Muni has not done us a great service. They have spent a lot of money, and now whoever comes in with some new suggestions, they say, oh, we don't have the money. We have the money. We got the money. We wasted the money. I don't come to City Hall too much now. I choose my thing. Today, actually, I came to talk to the SFPUC. But we need to serve those who are physically and mentally challenged, and our elders, and they are not. Construction everywhere, and we are talking about transportation, but what about when you're in a wheelchair, and you cannot go from point A to point B? We have to have empathy. The supervisors have to have empathy. Go to the spots like Bill. Go on Market Street. Come on San Bruno Avenue and see the mess over there. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone else in chambers who wishes to speak on Item 5, District 5, and District 9 CAC appointments? There is not.

Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. Commissioner Fielder, do you want to make a motion to approve these?

Yes, please. I would move to recommend Vanessa Margarita to another service on the CAC. And also Kat Siegel.

as well as Ms. Cat Siegel. Commissioner Mahmoud seconds. And I think we can take the same house, same call. Okay. Now that motion moves forward. Let's go now to item number nine. Oh, eight. I'm sorry. Sorry, Jesse.

Item eight, appropriate $97,000 in Prop L funds with conditions for Caltrain Governance 2026 work program and ad hoc committee support. This is an action item.

Thank you so much. And I am sorry that we don't have Commissioner Walton here with us for this item because, you know, this has been his baby for several years. But we have Jesse here, Kaler, who's going to present.

Good morning, Commissioners. Jesse Kaler, Rail Program Manager. As Chair mentioned, this item is in response to a request from Commissioner Walton to provide San Francisco staff support to a very important body of work underway this calendar year to progress the governance of the Caltrain organization. Caltrain is a joint powers entity formed in the early 1990s at the agreement of the three member counties of Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco. Since the agency's formation, the San Mateo County Transit District, has served as the managing agency of Caltrain, and in this role provides staff and administrative support to the railroad under a shared services model. At its January 8th meeting, the Caltrain Board deliberated on a motion concerning the railroad's governance. The motion was brought forward by Director Walton, who serves as one of San Francisco's three appointees to the nine-member Caltrain Joint Powers Board. The motion, which was modestly amended and then approved, directs the Caltrain Board's Ad Hoc Committee on Governance to oversee a program of work to, among other activities, prepare recommended amendments to Caltrain's governing documents, advance the shared services agreement with Samtrans, and bring forward Caltrain's own salary ordinance. At the Transportation Authority's January 27th meeting, Commissioner Walton requested that the Transportation Authority provide staff support for this work program, including to support Director Walton's participation on the ad hoc committee where he serves as San Francisco's representative. The request before you this morning will allow Transportation Authority staff to effectively serve San Francisco in this time-sensitive and specialized work program, including technical review, policy analysis, and coordination with our partner agencies. The appropriation is recommended to come off the top of the Prop L capital program as the Caltrain category is programmed at full capacity in the current five-year period, and we would like to preserve our full commitment to the San Francisco member contribution for capital state of good repair. We will incorporate the requested funds into the Caltrain category at the time of the next five-year prioritization program to avoid any impacts to current programming. We are also seeking a waiver to allow funds to be used for expenditures starting February 1st as the associated program of time-sensitive work is already well underway. That concludes my remarks. We are happy to address the board's questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kaler. We don't have anyone on the roster. I will just say that I want to thank Commissioner Walton specifically for his stick-to-itiveness on this process, and also former Commissioner Peskin, because this is something that predates this board in the multiple uh, concessions and agreements that were made during measure RR. So, uh, you know, uh, I wanna make sure that we continue to support, um, the work of commissioner Walton, uh, during this process, uh, while he, uh, is still here with us. So thank you so much. Um, let's, uh, go to public comment on this item.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item eight, the Caltrain governance support appropriation?

There is not. Okay, public comment on this item is now closed. Colleagues, may I have a motion and a second to approve this item? Motion by Fielder, seconded by Dorsey. I think we can take the same house, same call. That motion is approved. Okay, let's go now to item number nine.

I think for the last item. Never mind. Sorry.

Item 9, potentially going into closed session, final approval, evaluate public employee performance and approve the executive director's performance objectives for 2026. This is an action item.

Okay, colleagues, this is agendized as a potential closed session, but we do not have to go into closed session. I just have to tell you that the personnel committee of the TA met twice to make the recommendation to you. We went into closed session, and we also had open session and took public comment. on both the items that are included in this recommendation. So we can go into closed session if anyone wants to ask HR questions or just approve the recommendation as is presented to you having been approved by the Personnel Committee, which is Vice Chair Sautter, Commissioner Mandelman, and myself. So I don't see anyone on the roster wanting to do that. So I think we can just go to, you don't have to go to public comment on this because we already took public comment.

Yeah, that's right. We already took public comment at the personnel committee. And I'd also remind you that for this personnel committee recommended item, you only need a motion. There doesn't need to be a second.

No motion or second.

You need a motion.

You do need the motion. Okay. I'll move. Supervisor, Commissioner Chan moves. May I have a second, please? Fielder. So I think we can take this same house, same call?

That's correct, yes.

Okay. Same house, same call. That motion is approved. So let's go to item number 11, please. 10.

10.

Okay, sorry, I see that. Item 10. Item 10, final approval. Adopt the revised salary structure, amend the existing employment agreement, and set the annual compensation for the executive director for 2026. This is an action item.

Okay. Are there any questions or comments, colleagues? Okay. On February 23rd, the personnel committee met. Again, this was a second time. And after considering the executive director's performance and other factors, recommended adopting a revised executive director salary range of $298,015 through $395,066. Amending the employment agreement to extend Director Chang's term from December 31st, 25 to December 31st, 26 and setting her annual compensation beginning on March 16th, 2026 at 365, 930 with other terms. Are there any questions or comments from colleagues? Okay. Madam Clerk, please call the roll on this item.

Just a moment. Well, let's

I'm sorry, repeat that. Yeah, you still need a motion, but he does no public comment.

So moved. Sorry, that's not on my script. But yes, let's go ahead. Thank you. So moved by Commissioner Chen. Can I have a second, please? Seconded by Supervisor Chen. Let's take the same house, same call. And that motion passes. Madam Clerk, let's go to Item 11.

Item 11, final approval. Adopt nine new job classifications, revise organization chart, and revise salary structure. Approve the use of up to $2,375,000 over a five-year period, $475,000 per year from the agency's program and operating reserve, and amend the Prop L Strategic Plan Annual Program Administration and operating allowance from 7.9% to 8.3% for fiscal years 2026 to 2027 to 2030 to 2031. This is an action item. OK.

Thank you. Again, this is part of the recommendation of the personnel committee. At the February 23rd, the committee unanimously recommended the first three parts of this item, which is adopt nine new job classifications, a revised org chart, and revised salary structure in recognition of the importance of investing in our staff and organizational development. After discussing how to fund the increased costs in light of the drop in sales tax since the pandemic, we had one dissenting vote from Commissioner Mandelman on tapping the Transportation Authority programs in operating reserves in raising the agency's sales tax allowance, the Prop L program administration operating allowance from 7.9% to 8.3%. for the next five years. I remain strongly supportive of the staff recommendations while also appreciating Commissioner Mandelman's perspective. He is not here with us to share his perspective, but knew that this item was on the agenda. So if there are no questions or comments from our colleagues, I will take a motion and a second to approve this item. Moved by Sautter, seconded by Chan. Madam Clerk, we can take this also same house, same call.

Yes.

Okay. That motion passes. Let's go to item number 12, please, Madam Clerk.

Item 12, introduction of new items. This is an information item.

I don't see anyone on the roster to introduce new items, so let's go to our next item, please.

Item 13, public comment. Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item 13? There is. Your two minutes begins now.

Good morning, Chair Melgar and directors. My name is Jody Medeiros. I'm the executive director of Walk San Francisco. This has been a horrific month for traffic fatalities. We've lost five pedestrians already this year, including a two-year-old. And these tragedies are preventable, and these families are paying the highest price for our society's failures. We all know that speeding is the number one cause of crashes, and depending on how fast a person is going is whether that person lives or dies. The speed cameras in the 33 locations are showing the number of citations issued each month that speeding is rampant in San Francisco. And it's happening in every district. No district is exempt. Today you heard about a California piece of legislation, the stop super speeders act. I unfortunately missed that item on the agenda, but I do want to say that AB 2276 is something that walks San Francisco and all of our California colleagues support. This is going to require active intelligent speeding devices when dangerous drivers are convicted of severe speeding related offenses, reckless driving, engaging in speeding contests, and of course driving more than 100 miles per hour. This is the third bite of our apple in Sacramento to pass this legislation. different and is probably the best of the best that we have. And all the national respectable agencies are passing it, AAA, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Advocates for Highways, Auto and Safety, and we're asking for you to ask this body to also be on that list of people that support this legislation. I have a letter for all of you, and I hope that you would consider that. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Ms. Medeiros. Is there anyone else who would like to make public comment? There is. Your two minutes begins now.

Griffin Lee here, District 2 resident and staff of ConnectedSF. I actually brought this up to a couple supervisors in this room today, commissioners of the board regarding SFMTA changes I think actually happened more often than not, and I just happened to catch them because I was at an engineering public hearing meeting on Friday to support an initiative by MTA. But there were proposals to reduce speeds from 25 to 20 miles an hour. on a couple corridors, one corridor in District 4 from 26 Ave down to Lower Great Highway on Terreville. And then the second corridor I'm referencing is just off of 101 on Market between Octavia and Franklin. Both proposals included reduction of speed limits from 25 to 20. Though I go into the San Francisco County Transportation Authority dashboard, and in the month of January on TerraVale, respectively, speeds were at 15.6 miles an hour and 14.95 east and west. The same goes for on market between Octavia and Franklin, actually 11.94 miles per hour, the average speed in the month of January going eastbound on market. We need to hold MTA accountable to what they're actually proposing and implementing. If they do believe in data, then why are we surfacing these types of projects when the average speed limits are already 10 miles below the current speed limit of 25? Thanks so much.

Thank you. There is no additional public comment.

OK, thank you. Public comment is now closed. Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Item 14, adjournment.

We're adjourned. Thank you.