San Francisco County Transportation Authority - Regular Meeting

welcome to the july 14th 2026 regular meeting of the san francisco county transportation authority i'm commissioner mirna melgar chair of this board our vice chair is danny sauter welcome colleagues the clerk today is amy sayang and i would also like to acknowledge james kawan at sfgov tv for staffing us during this meeting madam clerk please call the roll and then make your announcements

Commissioner Chan. Chan absent. Commissioner Chen. Chen present. Commissioner Dorsey. Dorsey absent. Commissioner Fielder. Fielder present. Commissioner Mahmood. Mahmood absent. Commissioner Mandelman. Mandelman absent. Chair Milgore. Present. Melgar, present. Vice Chair Sautter? Present. Sautter, present. Commissioner Sherrill? Present. Sherrill, present. Commissioner Walton? Present. Walton, absent. Commissioner Wong? Present. 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 local cable channels 26, 70, 71, 78, or 99, depending on your provider. Written public comment may be submitted by sending an email to clerk at sfcta.org or by mailing comments via US Postal Service to SFCTA 1455 Market Street, 22nd floor, San Francisco, California 94103. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. At this time, I'd like to excuse Commissioner Mahmoud from this meeting. The rest of the commissioners are expected, just running a little bit late. Before calling the next item, I would 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 a given item. Madam Clerk, can you please call our first item?

Item two, approve the minutes of the June 23, 2026 meeting. This is an action item.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. I don't see anyone on the roster with questions or comments about the minutes. So let's take public comment, please.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item two, the minutes? There's not.

Okay. Public comment is closed. Colleagues, may I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes, please? Mandelman motions. Fielder seconds. Let's call the roll on that, please, Madam Clerk.

On the motion to approve item two, Commissioner Chan. Chan, absent. Commissioner Chin. Aye. Chin, aye. Commissioner Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Commissioner Fielder. Aye. Fielder, aye. Commissioner Mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye. Chair Malgar? Aye. Malgar, aye. Vice Chair Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Commissioner Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. Commissioner Walton? Aye. Walton absent. Commissioner Wong? Aye. Wong, aye. Commissioner Chan? Aye. Chan, aye. Thank you. There are nine ayes. The minutes are approved.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. I just want to note that we have been joined by Supervisor, by Commissioners Chan, Dorsey, and Mandelman. So let's go to the Community Advisory Committee Report, please, Madam Clerk.

Item number three. Item three, Community Advisory Committee Report. This is an information item.

And we welcome CAC Chair Cat Siegel. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Melgar, Vice Chair Sautter and Commissioners. At our June meeting, the CAC voted to support the $3 million allocation of Prop L funds for six requests. Timeliness and cost of both sidewalk repairs and curb ramp installations was a major theme in the discussions, with one member wanting to see faster sidewalk repairs in high pedestrian traffic merchant corridors, and another wanting to see more cost efficiency over time in curb ramp work. Several members also wanted assurance that SFPW prioritizes curb ramps that haven't specifically received constituent requests for repairs. The CAC also voted in support of the 2026-2027 Transportation Fund for Clean Air program of projects. and we approved amending the Prop K standard grant agreement for the Visitation Valley and Portola community-based transportation plan and releasing funds for implementation of the CBTP quick build recommendations. Multiple members expressed appreciation for investing in this area and asked SMTA to ensure that the new bike lanes fully connect to the existing bike network without leaving gaps. We also adopted the recommendations of the Laguna Honda gondola feasibility study. Members overwhelmingly expressed wanting to see better shuttle bus service between Forest Hill Station and Laguna Honda Hospital, especially expanded hours of operation. Multiple members said that they would have liked to see an alternatives analysis with investments in the shuttle bus service, but acknowledged that the scope of the study was limited. We received an update on the west side network study with members representing the west side districts as well as members across the city all agreeing that they want to see better transit frequency and coverage on the west side, particularly better north-south connections. Members were excited by some of the early novel recommendations such as new connections to Daly City BART. Finally, we received a state and federal legislation update with comments affirming that frameworks for AV accountability and enforcement for moving violations remain a high priority for CAC members. Thank you, and I can answer any questions.

Thank you so much, Chair Siegel. I don't have any questions, and I don't see anyone on the roster with questions for you, so 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. Your two minutes begins now.

Thank you, Chair, Myrna Melgar, members. Alita Dupree, for the record, she and her with Team Folds. Can't say I've ever spoke on this before, but it's interesting. Did read a little of it. I'm interested in this Laguna Honda gondola. There's precedent for this. When I went to Portland, Oregon, don't know if any of you have been to Portland, Oregon. They have a tramway that goes from down near the river, near the hotel I was at, that goes up about 500 feet to the top of this hill where there's the Oregon Health Science University, I think, and the VA hospital. And I have taken the bus up those winding roads So I'm interested in what this will look like. The one in Oregon has a mid-span tower. And the gondola, I think, holds about 80 people. And it does rock quite a bit.

Albuquerque?

I found it to be enjoyable, but it takes some practice because I'm afraid of heights. Certainly I would like to see more frequency on our systems because transfers can be very time consuming. I don't know much about the Citizens Advisory Group. I guess those meetings, they take comment like I'm giving you now. I don't know. Somebody offline will have to enlighten me on that. And I'll save my comments about autonomous vehicles for later. And thank you for not having me fill out all these speaker cards today. Appreciate it.

Thank you for your comment. There are no additional public comments.

OK, public comment on this item is now closed. Madam Clerk, let's go on to the next item, item number four.

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

Good morning, chair and commissioners. Amber Crabb, senior public policy manager with the Transportation Authority. I'm joined remotely by Mark Reyes, who is our principal planner, and then Mark Watts, who's our state legislative advocate. So today we are recommending one position, and that's a support and seek amendments on Senate Bill 1246. But first, wanted to kind of give you a sense of where we are in the session. Basically, legislative recess just started. Month of August is going to be really busy, because all bills have to be approved at the state level. And then the governor has until September 30th to either sign veto or let the bill become law. So of the seven mills that we have positions on or are on our watch list, five of them did meet statutory deadlines and are still active, and two did not advance. Just really quickly, SB 1411 was one of them, and this would have allowed high-speed rail funding to be spent outside of the initial segment in the valley. And then Assembly Bill 2276 also died, and that would have, and we have a support if amended position on that, and it would have created a five-year pilot for super speeders having speed monitor devices in their cars. So disappointed about that, but happy that five are still advancing. So the bulk of our work over the next month at the state level is going to be on the state budget. This is a bare bones state budget was signed. Work continues to advance trailer bills that address some of the key topics that couldn't get resolved in time. One of those is the recent cap and trade invest, or I'm sorry, cap and invest restructuring that essentially zeroed out for really important transit capital and operating programs funded by the Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Fund. And this funding, especially the Transit Intercity Rail Capital Program, is critically important for both the portal, SFMTA capital projects, and others. And so if it doesn't get funded, I think we're going to be really challenged to find another place to come up with that funding. Thankfully, both the Senate and the Assembly do recognize the importance of restoring that funding, so we're going to keep the pressure on, but we're hopeful some kind of solution will be reached. There is a broad range of entities throughout the state and the region that are also organizing in advocacy efforts, so we have been engaging in those and will continue to. The one position we're recommending is, as I said, a support and seek amendments position on Senate Bill 1246 by Senator Cortese of the South Bay. And that would mean, essentially, that we will support the bill, but then also approach the author and work with on potential amendments. So this bill focuses on emergency response and first responder interactions to ensure that commercial AV manufacturers act quickly when an emergency is reported, make sure the trained personnel is available, and make sure that first responders have the resources they need to keep the public safe. So the bill has gone through a series of amendments since we last reported on it. It is now kind of a more focused version of the bill that we initially saw. The provisions include requiring that remote drivers have a U.S. driver's license and be physically located within the U.S. It requires dispatching local incident technicians immediately upon requested. It requires the ability to either turn off or put autonomous vehicles in neutral so that first responders can move them. And then it allows city attorneys or county councils to bring a civil action with civil penalties for violations of the bill's requirements or any other regulation authorizing AV operation. $5,000 fines for most, and then $10,000 civil judgments or civil penalties if an emergency-related blockage happens for more than 30 minutes. So finally, it requires the collection by AV manufacturers of specific emergency response data. However, they wouldn't report it. It was simply, they would have to make it available upon request by, from the DMV or the PUC. The amendments that we are seeking is to A, not make it on demand, but actually require them to report quarterly, and B, making that data publicly available so local jurisdictions can see the impact of these vehicles on our emergency responders. So, industry is still opposing the bill, no surprise, but with the amendments, their opposition is a little bit more subdued. There are a number of supporters, mostly on the record from statewide labor organizations, but we understand that it's being considered across a broader range of interests during the July recess. So we are currently talking with the author and really excited. Even though this is kind of a first step, it's an important one. So with that, I'll conclude my remarks. This is an action item, and I would be happy to take any questions you may have.

Thank you, Ms. Crabb. We do have questions. Commissioner Walton.

And thank you so much for the presentation. Is there anything in the bill that will allow passengers to override the system? We've seen people get stuck. I'm worried about what happens in a natural disaster, earthquake. Folks can't get out of these cars on their own sometimes. So is there anything in the bill that addresses that?

The bill would exclusively allow emergency responders to either put it in neutral or stop it. There isn't any provisions for passengers.

The passengers can still continue to be stuck in these vehicles and not get out and have no way of overriding the system. If they're attacked by somebody, if just so many things could happen and the passenger is stuck in this vehicle.

That's correct, yeah. This bill does not address that.

Thank you.

Only by emergency responders. And nothing in the bill requires that or there's no penalties unless it's been 30 minutes, right?

Correct. Unless they violated another provision. But the big penalty is a 30-minute limit on the time.

And it would require that some municipality proactively sue before they see that money, right? Correct.

It's not an automatic penalty. It would require civil action.

Okay. Commissioner Mandelman.

Thank you, Chair Melgar. Thank you, Ms. Crabb, and to the TA staff for all the work you've been doing over many, many years on AVs and what they mean for our roads and what reasonable regulation of them would look like. Of course, we are... unable to regulate AVs on our roads. But I do think we are seeing now at multiple events where we are getting pretty Disturbed well distressing and disturbing at best but actually dangerous traffic snarls that we need the regulators to be looking at and doing more about and I think there's a real question about whether these things whether these vehicles are ready for primetime at least for these Um, events that are causing very unexpected traffic behavior because they seem to break down and then they seem to have a way of perpetuating the problem and blocking, uh, emergency, emergency vehicles. And we're also seeing blockage of emergency vehicles, not even in weird traffic snarls, but just in the day to day. So I do think. This is a thing that would be good for the entities, the state legislature, the DMV, the CPUC entities that do have regulatory authority to lean in and figure out how to operate this technology safely, because I think a lot of people in San Francisco enjoy this technology. But we need to be able to get our emergency vehicles around every day, and especially in the event of emergencies or big events.

Thank you. Commissioner Walton.

Thank you, Chair Marigold. Just a quick question. Do we know why they don't want to allow passengers that ability? I mean, a lot can happen in 30 minutes. You know, domestic violence. There's just so many things that can happen in a vehicle in 30 minutes. Do we know why that pushback is there?

I believe there are still remedies, but it has to go through the AV providers, right? It's not part of the legislation. And I think the Senator really wanted to focus this on emergency response issues. However, we have been talking with his office, and he is eager to talk about ideas for future legislation. So these are all really great comments that I'm getting from you that we can incorporate as we're planning for the next legislative session. So thank you for that.

I'm definitely supportive of this legislation. I don't think it goes far enough. Obviously, yes, we're concerned about emergency response, traffic flow, et cetera. But I just could imagine being stuck in one of these things and not having the ability to get out. I just think that's, I don't know if everybody else sees that as important, but I think that's very crucial. And one of the main reasons why I won't hop in one. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. I am concerned about that, too. First, I want to say thank you so much, Ms. Crabb, for you and the staff following this particular bill, and also for the staff's efforts overall, particularly Director Chang on you know, providing leadership really for the state on the regulations of these things. I wanted to also thank President Mandelman for his leadership on this and, you know, constantly staying on top of it, convening us together and finding that sort of middle path. I don't think this bill goes far enough, obviously. What I'm most worried about actually is liability to the city in case of an unplanned So for a planned event, I think that there's some things that we can do that we've talked about, like geofencing, coming up with some agreement for where AVs can go and not go. But for an unplanned disaster where there's life and safety issues at stake, and where there is the expectation that our fire emergency response police personnel has the responsibility to rescue people or to make the situation better and there's something in the way, I think that there is a great potential for us to fail because of the current technology. It's just not there yet. And so I am worried that without the mechanisms for not just cost recovery, but deter certain things, it will not get prioritized because it's built into a business plan that these externalities are just, you know, we're going to risk it. So I do remain very vigilant and again thank Supervisor Mandelman for all his leadership on this. We will incorporate Commissioner Walton's concerns as well because they're very important and I think that we should just keep working with the other folks around the state who are pushing having the same interests as we have. Thank you. I don't see anyone else on the roster with questions or comments. Let's go to public comment on this item.

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

Thanks again, Chair Marner, Melgar, and members. Alita Dupree, for the record, She and her with Team Folds representing Skirt Folds. I'm watching this. I have my concerns because the actors who are involved. I'm concerned about unintended consequences that such a regulation could become prohibitionist, as I saw with some previous attempts. I do want REL... reasoned regulation of any kind of transportation service. I don't think that passengers should be messing around with the controls in these vehicles. Just as I was on a BART train once and somebody opened the doors, caused a disruption of having to reset the doors and the brakes. So people shouldn't be messing around with things that they're not trained to mess with and work with. I'll leave that to the experts. I'm a user of autonomous vehicles. I have 40 times, I think, here and in Los Angeles. I'm at risk of losing friends over this. I'm concerned about data disclosure that can be used to shame people who are using these vehicles. That somebody could see me using them and said, I know you went there. You went to that erotic literature reading that night. And be shamed over that. That's not what this should be about. This should be about protecting the public. We should be concerned about drunk drivers and sideshows. And intentional blockages caused by vehicles driven by humans. Over 100 people a day are dying on America's roads. And it seems like we're not thinking about that. That's the elephant in the room. I want the very best in autonomous vehicles. But I ask that nobody be shamed or marginalized from using them. Thank you.

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

OK. Public comment on this item is now closed. Colleagues, may I have a motion and a second to support this as amended by Sautter, seconded by Dorsey. We have to call the roll, Madam Clerk.

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 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 nine ayes. The motion is approved. Thank you. Let's go to item number five, please. Item five, allocate $3,055,000 and appropriate $125,000 in Prop L funds with conditions for six requests. This is an action item. Good morning, Ms. Siebert.

Good morning, Chair Malgar and Commissioners. SFGov, I am sharing my slides. The first request is from Public Works for $300,000 for street repair and cleaning equipment. Requested funds will be used to purchase a new front end loader to replace one that has exceeded its useful life. The new loader is compliant with California Air Resources Board and current emission standards. Next, Public Works is seeking $768,000 to repair public sidewalks and curbs at about 200 locations not due to tree damage. Damage at these locations is typically caused by trucks driving up on curbs, old age, heavy equipment, vehicular accidents, or poor original construction. Repairs for sidewalks damaged by city-maintained trees are funded by the Tree Maintenance Fund. Locations are determined by a combination of public works inspection and public complaints and prioritized based on project readiness, community support, and time-sensitive urgency. And we've included a list of locations by district in the board packet materials, along with a list of backlog by district in the packets. Next is a request for about $1.2 million from Public Works to construct 34 curb ramps at six intersections in Districts 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10. This curb ramps project meets the city's obligations under federal and state accessibility statutes, regulations, and policies to provide curb ramps that are readily and easily usable by people with disabilities. And there's a list of locations that can be found in the packet materials. The next project is a collaboration between the Rec and Parks Department with Mercy Housing and Public Works to calm traffic, improve access to Visitation Valley Middle School, and better connect the Visitation Valley and Sunnydale neighborhoods to McLaren Park's program areas and trail network. The scope includes new sidewalks, new and upgraded crosswalks, a two-way cycle track on Visitation Avenue between Mansell Street and Leland Avenue, and an off-road multi-use path connecting Visitation Avenue to Sunnydale and Hertz Recreation Center. There are some special conditions to note for this request. First is an amendment to the Equity Priority Transportation Program 5YPP to reprogram $250,000 from the Visitation Valley and Portola Community-Based Transportation Plan, or CBTP, implementation placeholder to the subject project. This placeholder is intended to fund implementation of pedestrian bicycle and traffic calming improvements recommended through the CBTP, which was completed in 2023. The subject project is recommended in the CBTP and also includes elements of the recommended Visitation Valley Greenway Connector. SFMTA has expressed support for this 5YPP amendment and anticipates requesting the remaining $750,000 in placeholder funds to implement plan recommendations later in 2026. The recommended allocation is also conditioned on the project securing full funding for the construction phase, namely transportation fund for clean air funds, which is the next item on this agenda, along with PG&E funds anticipated Board of Supervisors action this month in July 2026. Next is SFMTA's Safe Streets Evaluation Program, which tracks progress and measures performance for key traffic calming, bicycle, and pedestrian safety projects that support San Francisco's Street Safety Initiative. Prop L funds will support pre and post data collection and analysis of the list of proposed projects shown in the allocation request form. The projects are primarily quick builds, the annual citywide bike count, and a rectangular rapid flashing beacon study. For more information and evaluation results, please visit the website shown on the slide. And the last request is to provide $125,000 each to the Transportation Authority and SFMTA to support the Neighborhood Transportation Program. The Transportation Authority's Neighborhood Program, or NTIP, funds planning, development, and implementation of community-based neighborhood-scale transportation improvements. This request provides support for an NTIP coordinator role at the Transportation Authority and SFMTA to support board members' efforts to identify potential NTIP projects, as well as developing proposed scope, schedule, budget, and funding plans to support allocation requests and to conduct project delivery oversight. And with that, we can take any questions. We also have project managers available in person. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Ms. Seberg. 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 five, the Prop L allocations? There is. Your two minutes begins now.

Thanks again, Chair Myrna Melgar and members. Alita Dupree for the record. She and her with Team FOLDS. I'm really interested in the loader. I want the very best in equipment. But what does this mean about compliance with emissions regulations? I've been watching some videos. I think there was a big construction show in Las Vegas which is a town I have a lot of experience with, that was showing electric construction equipment. And I saw a video about a construction project, I think it was in the Netherlands, where they had electric equipment and they had these batteries that were on wheels that were about the size of a portable large format diesel power generator. So I would hope that we would give deep thought to what we buy with this, that there are off-the-shelf electric loaders available, along with the trailers that can be towed behind trucks. I'm sure that the neighbors would appreciate it, having a loader that would not produce emissions and not make so much noise. I know some things about this. I never worked in construction, but I worked at a grocery warehouse once, not long out of the Army. I got out of the Army and I had an A license and I drove trucks and I moved trailers around the yard. The whole warehouse had electric forklifts. If only I had an electric yard truck, I would have enjoyed my job more. Now that they have those, this is our chance to invest in something new. I ask that we not get cold feet and that we really give thought to the loader that we buy. Hopefully it will be zero emissions. Thank you.

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

OK, public comment is now closed. Colleagues, may I have a motion and a second to approve this item, please? Chen, motions? Seconded by Mandelman. Let's take roll on this item, please.

On the motion to approve item 5, Commissioner Chen? Aye. Chan, aye. Commissioner Chin? Aye. Chin, aye. Commissioner Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Commissioner Fielder? Aye. Fielder, 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 nine ayes. That item is approved. Thank you. That item passes. Let's go to item number six, please. Item six, approve the fiscal year 2026-27 transportation fund for a clean air program of projects totaling $2,496,917 with conditions. This is an action item. Welcome, Mr. Pickford.

Good morning. Mike Pickford with the Transportation Authority and SFGov TV. You should see my slides now. So what is the Transportation Fund for Clean Air? It is a grant program for 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 electric vehicles and 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, which is what we're talking about today, as well as help sponsors pursue those regional funds. This year is unusual because we have significantly more funds than previous years. Our TFCA 40% program amount is what would typically be this entire program. This year the Air District decided to try a new approach to bikeway and bike parking funding by passing through some of their regional TFCA funds to counties specifically for those types of projects, with San Francisco receiving about $1.6 million. So of the overall $2.35 million we have available for projects, about 836,000 can be used for any eligible TFCA project. About 1 million can be used for bike projects anywhere in San Francisco. And about 468,000 must be used for bike projects in a specially designated area in southeast San Francisco. This area, which includes much of District 10 and some of District 9, was identified as a high-priority community with long-standing air quality challenges through the state's Community Air Protection Program established by Assembly Bill 617. This designation requires the Air District to work with community stakeholders to develop plans to improve air quality in the area, and the Air District has also given priority to this area for various funding sources, including these subset of TFCA funds that we're talking about. So we released our call for projects in March and received eight eligible applications. All the funds must be programmed to a specific project by November or we risk losing them back to the Air District. This is a competitive program and we first evaluated applications based on screening criteria required by the Air District. Most notably, all TFCA projects must fit the rules for an eligible project type that reduces emissions and must meet a cost effectiveness threshold which is set by the Air District. Air District policies only include eligibility restrictions, not prioritization guidance, but our local expenditure criteria approved by the board in February instruct us to prioritize applications by looking at factors including emissions reduced and project readiness, which is especially important as TFCA projects are expected to be completed within two years. Of the eight applications we received, we recommend fully funding seven of the projects and partially funding one project. And I'll briefly describe each of those and our recommended conditions. First up, for bicycle corrals at daylight intersections, SFMTA would plan, coordinate, purchase, and install corrals with at least 370 bicycle parking spaces to meet the cost effectiveness requirements. Corrals and daylighting locations will have parking spaces for four to six bikes depending on available space. So we expect the project result in approximately 50 to 75 locations depending on the corral size. These corrals are not just bike parking but also protect daylighting locations from illegal parking and thus reinforce daylighting safety benefit. Locations will be prioritized by factors including whether the intersection is on the high injury network, on the bikeway network, and whether it's a commercial corridor or has metered vehicle parking. Next, SFMTA's short-term bike parking project would plan, design, and install 316 bike parking racks, providing 632 new parking spaces. Locations for bike racks are selected by request and proactively by SFMTA for corridor projects or in high demand equity priority community locations. Members of the public can request a rack at sfmta.com slash bike parking. We are recommending partial funding for this project, which results in fewer racks installed so that we can fund additional projects. This project is scalable and additional rack locations will be eligible for next year's TFCA call for projects. Also, with the other bike parking projects, our recommendation includes over $550,000 for public bike parking. The next project is the Bayview Community Shuttle Vans Project. This would use TFCA funds to replace three gasoline-powered vehicles with newer models that are zero emissions that would be used for the Bayview shuttle service. Shuttle rides provide first and last mile connections, allowing members of the public and residents of Bayview Hunters Point to connect with public transit, employment centers, and critical health resources. Further, SFMTA says that owning the shuttle vehicles will reduce costs versus using contracted vehicles. Next, the Howard Streetscape Project is a major infrastructure project that will redesign seven blocks of Howard to improve safety and enhance mobility for SOMA residents, many of whom are dependent on transit, walking, and bicycling. The project includes reducing vehicle lanes from three to two, replacing the existing bicycle lane with a two-way protected bikeway, and installing other safety infrastructure, including raised crosswalks, pedestrian bulb-outs. protected intersections, traffic signals with separate bicycle and vehicle phases, and new more efficient pedestrian scale lighting. We are recommending a condition that SFMTA must provide evidence of full funding by February of next year or we may make these funds available to other projects that can use them sooner through next year's call for projects. Next, Rec Park's Visitation Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Improvement Project. This is the same project that you heard about in the previous item. Again, it will improve access to Visitation Valley Middle School as well as recreation amenities by providing new sidewalks, protected bikeways, and safer crossings. We are also recommending a special condition for this project that Rec Park must provide evidence of full funding or, again, we may make these funds available in next year's call for projects. Next, SFMTA is proposing to work with the school district and potentially non-SFUSD schools in the AB617 planning area that I showed you in southeast San Francisco to provide parking for bikes, scooters, and skateboards on school property. that we have heard from the Air District that standalone scooter and skateboard parking racks are not eligible per Air District guidance. Each school will be responsible for installing the racks, but SFMTA intends to contract with the school and reimburse them for implementation costs. Engagement with the school community to identify interests and potential locations will include district offices and schools, PTAs, parent and family groups, and other community members. Next is Treasure Island bike share expansion from TIMMA. This would add to the initial bike share fleet of 30 bikes that the board approved last year with 20 more bikes, two new stations, two years of operations and funds to electrify an anticipated two stations which should decrease ongoing operating costs from swapping the batteries out. Bringing bike share to Treasure Island directly responds to community feedback collected in the Treasure Island Supplementary Transportation Survey, which emphasized the need for more sustainable and accessible transportation options. We are recommending a condition that TIMMA must provide monthly updates on their progress towards amending the existing contract with the bike share operator to make sure that this project advances successfully. And finally, emergency ride home incentivizes commuters to use sustainable commute modes by providing subsidized taxi rides home in case of a personal emergency like a sick kid or a flat tire on your bike. We have supported this program for many years because it is a cost-effective use of TFCA funds. This request would support 12 months of program operations. This cycle, SFMTA is taking over management of the program from the San Francisco Department of the Environment, which had previously managed the program.

with that i'm happy to take any questions and we have a number of project managers here as well thank you we do have some comments i just want to say first this is like i love this this is you know a compilation of all my favorite things i wanted to especially thank commissioner walton for his many years of service at the air district um and it is a really good decision that they gave us more money okay commissioner walton

Thank you so much, Chair Melgar. Thank you for the presentation, and I am excited about these projects as well. I do just want to make sure, just for my clarity, did I hear you say if MTA doesn't come up with certain funds, some of the money for District 10 projects may be reallocated?

So there is a strict timely use of funds requirement. I mentioned a condition for the Howard project as well as the school parking project. And the idea here is that we could allocate the funds to a different project next year and these projects would be eligible to reapply. So we do support these projects. But that's, there is a time component of making sure that these.

That's a problem though, right. We do understand that, that that's a problem. So where is MTA in terms of their contribution?

We would not be recommending these projects if we weren't confident that they will be fully funded. But you did mention it publicly.

There is a risk. Which raises my alarm. So did they commit to the resources already, or?

So I think the, I believe the only District 10 project that we had a condition on was the Visitation Avenue project, and the funds that are not secured for that project are PG&E funds that are subject to Board of Supervisors approvals this month. So we believe that that funding will be secured. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you. Commissioner Sautter.

thank you chair just quickly want to appreciate all the different projects in this package and and I think the the bike racks in the daylighting zones are just a very small but impactful improvement we're seeing that those can can help with the daylighting they also you know we've had a real explosion of the number of scooters as part of the the scooter program as well. And, you know, on some of our dense streets and our dense neighborhoods, you know, I'm thinking of Grand Avenue, which is just such small sidewalks. We have been putting some corrals in with MTA, and it's been very successful to get some of those scooters and vehicles into the corrals rather than on the sidewalk. So I look forward to more of that. Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Let's go to public comment on this item, please. Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item six, the fiscal year 2026-27, Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program of Projects? There is. Your two minutes begins now.

Thanks again, Chair Myrna, Melgar, and members. Alita Dupree, for the record, she and her with Team Folds. Lots of good things. I hope we buy these electric vans. We should be buying all electric vans for this type of work. And I support more bike racks. I like the circles that we use. I think we should have bike racks everywhere because I would like to see more bikes than single occupancy gasoline powered vehicles. How can we make sure that we're inclusive with bike racks and bike paths? These bike racks and bike paths should allow electric vehicles that are in compliance with the various rules governing those. Because there are people with disabilities who use electric bikes and scooters. I have. I've used those scooters on occasion because they help me to get around. I'm a person with disabilities, even though I don't look like one. And yeah, a lot of things I'm learning about daylighting. And I like the idea of daylighting. And I hear about this MTA. I don't know the acronyms very well. I only know one MTA. It's in New York City. They run a famous subway system. I know an SFMTA. So I'm getting a little confused with these acronyms, because I'm from New York, and I grew up on the subway. So we should be clearer with our acronyms of how we're paying for this. But overall, I'm seeing lots of good things, because as a person who doesn't have a car, by choice, I want more options. And certainly, the bike racks will help me to enjoy those options. and maybe I'll go ride one of those shuttles. I don't know what it takes to get how much the fare is and how I access those shuttles. I've never been down there, so maybe somebody offline can enlighten me. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. There are no additional public comments.

Okay, public comment is now closed. Colleagues, may I have a motion and a second to approve this item, please? Moved by Walton, seconded by Chen.

Let's call the roll, please, Madam Clerk. On the motion to approve Item 6, Commissioner Chan. Aye. Chan, aye. Commissioner Chin. Aye. Chin, aye. Commissioner Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Commissioner Fielder. Aye. Fielder, aye. Commissioner Mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye. Chair Melgar. Aye. Melgar, aye. Vice Chair Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Commissioner Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. Commissioner Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Commissioner Wong? Aye. Wong, aye. There are 10 ayes. The item is approved. Thank you. Let's go to item number seven, please. Item 7, amend the Prop K standard grant agreements for the Visitation Valley and Portola community-based transportation plan implementation to update the scope, schedule, cost, and funding plan and release $435,000 on reserve to implement plan recommendations. This is an action item.

Thank you. Welcome back, Ms. Seberg.

Hi, again, SFGov. I am sharing my slides. Back in 2023, the Board allocated $435,000 in Prop K Neighborhood Program funds to SFMTA to implement recommendations from the Visitation Valley and Portola Community-Based Transportation Plan, which the SFMTA Board adopted in March 2023. The board placed the subject $435,000 on reserve pending SFMTA board's adoption of the CBTP and SFMTA submittal of an allocation request with project details. SFMTA has requested release of the implementation funds and amendment of the Prop K grant agreement to reflect the scope, schedule, cost, and budget for the CBTP recommendations to be constructed. SFMTA conducted the study to improve physical mobility in the project area by focusing on meeting the needs of existing residents and businesses. SFMTA recommended both near-term quick build and longer-term infrastructure projects prioritized and ranked for Visitation Valley and Portola separately, along with policy recommendations for non-infrastructure needs identified by the community. The focus of today's action is to fund design and construction of quick build improvements within District 10. In the packet is a list of locations and a description of the quick build recommendations that will be implemented with the requested funds. Specific improvements include one rectangular rapid flashing beacon study or Beacon, rather, on San Bruno Avenue at Beaman Lane Stairway, crosswalk upgrades at seven intersections on Blanken and Visitation Avenues, and new bike lanes in the uphill direction on segments of San Bruno Avenue and Sunnydale Avenue. The project will improve visibility of pedestrians crossing the street, expand bike connectivity with new facilities, and continue engagement with the Visitation Valley neighborhood to be responsive and accountable for delivering on community-identified priorities. So to recap, the item before you today is to amend the relevant Prop K grant agreement to update the scope, schedule, cost, and funding plan, and to release $435,000 on reserve to implement Quick Build recommendations from the CBTP within District 10. In the future, SFMTA will request the remaining $750,000 in sales tax funds programmed for implementation of additional CBTP recommendations. And with that, we can take questions. We also have the project manager available. Thank you.

Okay, I don't see any questions or comments from my colleagues. Thank you, Ms. Seberg. Let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item seven, the Visitation Valley and Portola Community-Based Transportation Plan Implementation Amendment and Release of Funds?

There is not. Okay, public comment on this item is now closed. Commissioner Walton, would you like to make a motion that we approve this item? Yes. May I have a second, please, colleagues? Seconded by Fielder. Let's, I think we can take the same house, same call. Yeah, okay, same house, same call. Let's go to item number eight, please.

Item eight, adopt the Laguna Honda gondola feasibility study final report. This is an action item.

Welcome, Mr. Athleji. Colleagues, I just wanted to provide a few remarks before we have the presentation. I asked for this study to come up with perhaps creative solution to get people up the hill. at Laguna Honda from Forest Hill Station. As you all may remember, aside from the hospital that we have which serves people with disabilities and seniors, we are also planning hundreds of units of affordable housing for seniors in the now empty parking lot at Laguna Honda and face the physical challenge that we need to get those seniors and people with disability up a fairly steep hill. That's where we chose, or former generations of San Franciscans chose to build our hospital that serves people with disabilities. And so in other cities that have lots of hills, we see gondolas, we see funiculars, we see all sorts of modes of transportation that for whatever reason in San Francisco we have never adopted. So I wanted to have a study about this particular mode, and that is what is before you today. The outcome is that it's not cost effective for this particular site. And I'm not going to steal Amit's thunder here, but I do think it's a really useful exercise because it also showed us that this mode of transportation becomes cost effective the more people it carries and the longer it goes. So while this is a very small hill, though steep, and because of this particular population that we're serving a challenging one, we do have 47 other hills in San Francisco. Some of them are tourist destinations. And in the future, we may look back at this study and use it as a parting point for new creative ideas, especially since we are a city that relies on tourism and hospitality as our number one. industry, and people come from all over the world to look at the beauty of our city and our views, which are maximized by this mode of transportation. So with that, Mr. Slagy, go ahead.

SFGAR, please share my slides. Good morning, Chair Malgar and Commissioners. I'm a Rail Principal Engineer with the Transportation Authority. Today we're presenting the finding of the Laguna Honda gondola feasibility study as requested by District 7 Commissioner Chair Malgar. The objective of this study is to assess if an aerial gondola is technically and financially viable solution to improve connectivity between the Forest Hill Muni Station and the Laguna Honda Hospital. We also evaluated the existing shuttle as an alternative. The study followed the structured planning level methodology starting with data collection, existing condition analysis, opportunities and constraints mapping, demand forecasting, alignment alternative evaluation, planning level cost estimates, and a shuttle comparative analysis. The site presents a real access challenge. The hospital is separated from the station by the Laguna Honda Boulevard, a heavily trafficked four-lane major roadway and steep topography that makes walking difficult for many users. The station is served by three muni lines and four bus routes, making it busy transit connection. A weekday shuttle already operates between the station and hospital. Two operators, Transmetro in the morning and the hospital-owned shuttle midday through evening. The shuttle runs approximately every 15 to 20 minutes, serving all hospital buildings. We evaluated six alignments alternatives. Key constraints include PG&E high voltage lines, obstructions along Laguna Honda Boulevard, a grove of mature trees, limited space near the landmark station building, and the challenges of crossing a major roadway. The most feasible alignment that is recommended for this feasibility study launches from the east side of the Laguna Honda Boulevard within the hospital property and lands directly on the pavilion building, avoiding utility conflict, dense trees, and landmark station impact. For context, urban gondola systems have been successfully deployed in cities like Portland and Mexico City. The Portland Aerial Tram is the closest example of such a system in North America, connecting a medical facility to transit over 500 feet of vertical rise. Locally, this Laguna Honda gondola would be shorter distance and with a lower demand application. The cost estimate is built from three components. The ropeway, supplier's cable system and structure, civil work including platform and path of travel improvements, and soft costs for design, permitting, and project management. In addition, there is an operation and maintenance cost that varies by supplier. Based on quotes from suppliers, the estimated total gondola cost is approximately $22 million in year of expenditure dollars. That is capital plus soft costs with an average annual operation and maintenance cost of approximately $1.3 million. The gondola offers better frequency, five-minute cycle versus 15 to 20 minutes, and a greater capacity. However, the shuttle provides a door-to-door service to both hospital buildings. Roughly, at cost comparison, the gondola is approximately seven times more costly than the shuttle. The shuttle also retains sufficient capacity and with improvements to serve the future projected demand growth. For funding and conclusion, the study confirms that a gondola is technically feasible and could provide a fully accessible grade-separated connection. However, given the short alignment distance, modest projected ridership, and significant cost premium, the study team recommends enhancing the existing shuttle paired with transportation demand management strategies that should be sufficient to serve future growth. The gondola feasibility study documented some design parameters, finding, and costs that can inform future gondola planning elsewhere in the city as applicable, for example, Twin Peaks or other steep hill topographies. Finally, I would like to thank our city agency partners, SFDPH and SFMTA, for their support and coordination on this effort, as well as our consultant, Kim Lee Horne and Associates. And with that, I'll be happy to take any question. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Slagy. So colleagues, that's it. We are voting to accept this final report, but we will not be pursuing this idea any further for this particular site. It's not cost effective. We would need more than three times as many passengers riding it to make it even close. But it is something that we can look back on. If any of you are interested and have hills that have hills but, you know, specific challenges of transportation. And with that, let's go to public comment on this item. Thank you, Mr. Flagey.

Thank you. Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item eight, the Laguna Honda gondola feasibility study final report? There is. Your two minutes begins now.

Thanks again, Chairman Melgar and members. Alita Dupree for the record. She and I are with Team Folds. This is interesting. Maybe this isn't the project for us, but we still should keep innovative transportation possibilities in mind. At least I'm not the only one in this room who has experience with the Portland Aerial Tram. The time I rode it, I went for free, because they were giving free rides to veterans back then. But we are a city with hills. And as we have more of these shuttles, I would hope we can get electric shuttles. At least then we won't be polluting and that'll be somewhat equivalent to the electrified monorail system, gondola system here. I'm thinking about the Las Vegas monorail again. But if we're running these shuttles, how do we make sure that we're not clogging up the streets like in New York City with all the traffic that they have? I think something has to be done down the line in the future than being reliant on these small shuttle vans. And so maybe this gondola isn't right in this time. But the conversation, I think, has to continue as to how we are going to address the issues in the Laguna Honda neighborhood, which I have ridden through a number of times on the, I think it's the 44 bus. The captioning was not showing all of the bus routes that you serve. Wish that was voiced in the presentation. Yeah, I guess it's not going to happen now, but we can try to do something different that will work for the people of Laguna Honda that I hope to enjoy. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Public comment is now closed. Colleagues may have a motion and a second to approve this item. Chen and Dorsey. Okay. And I think we have to vote because we lost Commissioner Chau. Okay.

On the motion to approve Item 8, Commissioner Chan. Chan, aye. Commissioner Chin? Aye. Chin, aye. Commissioner Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Commissioner Fielder? Aye. Fielder, 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. There are nine ayes. The item is approved.

Thank you madam clerk before we go to item number nine.

I'd like to excuse Commissioner Cheryl from the remainder of this meeting Let's go to our next item number nine, please Item nine award a three-year professional services contract with an option to extend for two additional one-year periods to crow LLP in an amount not to exceed three hundred and forty thousand dollars for annual audit services This is an action item Welcome. Hi.

Good morning, Chair. Good morning. Per our procurement policy, we are required to competitively rebid professional service contracts after five years. Currently, we are in the fifth and final year of our contract with I. Bailey, which actually expired this past month in June 2026. This past April 27th, the Transportation Authority issued an RFP for annual audit services. The total budgeted amount for this RFP was $340,000, and the total contract time is for three years, with an option for two one-year renewals. We had four separate audit firms that submitted proposals, and on May 26, the Transportation Authority awarded the contract to Crow LLP. Crow LLP distinguished itself through its use of advanced audit technology and data analytic tools, strong audit methodology, and extensive experience servicing other transportation agencies. Also, CRO met all the requirements of the RFP, including the 17% DBE, LBE, and SBE goal. This is an action item, and that concludes my presentation.

OK, great. Thank you so much.

Let's go to public comment on this item, please, Madam Clerk. Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item 9, the annual audit services contract? There's not.

OK, public comment on this item is now closed. Colleagues, may I have a motion and a second to approve this item, please? Moved by Mandelman, seconded by Chen. And I think we can take the same house, same call. OK, let's go on to item number 10, please.

Item 10, ratify debt investment and procurement policies. This is an action item.

Good to see you, Ms. Fung. Oh, thank you very much. Good to see everyone, too. Good morning, everyone. As part of our best practices in insurance compliance with current government statutes, we periodically review our agency government policies. With assistance from Nixon Peabody, our debt counsel, K&N Public Finance, our financial advisors, and Nosman, our general counsel, we have reviewed the debt policy, the investment policy, and our procurement policy. These policies all guide our decisions for the operations within the Transportation Authority. As a result of this review, we have no current changes we are recommending. Therefore, we are proposing to ratify the debt policy, the investment policy, and the procurement policy. This concludes my presentations, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Okay. 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 10, ratify the debt investment and procurement policies? There's not.

Okay, public comment on this item is now closed. Thank you, Ms. Fong, for always doing such an excellent job. Colleagues, may I have a motion and a second to approve this item, please? Moved by Sauter, seconded by Fielder. And I think we can take the same house, same call.

Let's go to item 11, please. Item 11, introduction of new items. This is an information item.

I don't see anyone on the roster with new items to introduce, so let's go to public comment, please.

Item 12, public comment. And we have received public comment on item 12, and we have posted it to the website. Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item 12? There is. Your two minutes begins now.

Thanks again. Chair Myrna Melgar and members, Alita Dupree for the record, she and her with Team Folds representing Skirt Folds. Haven't been to one of these in a while. Wish I could call in. So I'm not always here and I have disabilities. So somebody is surprising me of procedure on that. Where do I fit in on all this? I'm not from here and I'm not like any of you. But I want a San Francisco that's going to have transportation for everybody, and not just for people who live and hold residency within the county of San Francisco. I consider San Francisco to be one of my homes. along with Las Vegas, where I have a place that I share with a housemate, and New York City, where I was born and my mother still lives, has spent virtually her entire life in New York City. And I often share of other places because I think it is germane to public transportation that we learn from other systems and not live in a vacuum. Because I want San Francisco transportation to be here for me, even as one who is not often understood. Where do I fit in being different? What does San Francisco do with a 60-year-old Jewish disabled Desert Storm veteran who wears a skirt at the same time? I know what transportation should do. It should include everybody. and practice welcome and not be preoccupied with particular and peculiar constituencies. I speak for those who often are afraid to speak. No one should be afraid to speak. This is a public meeting, and I expect that we welcome all who use the system in its intended manner. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much. One more and you guys can leave. Good morning, commissioners and members of the authority, Chair Melgar and members of the authority. My name is Alex Landsberg, Research and Advocacy Director with the electrical industry. I've been here a number of times over the past three years talking to you about really the value of San Francisco's trolleybus network and it being really the environmentally, economically, and operationally superior way for us to electrify transit. I learned a couple of weeks ago, about two weeks ago, that in July of 2025, SFMTA started actually doing some on-road testing of in-motion charging, dynamic charging, trolley buses, converted trolley buses to see how they would perform on our streets. And the results have been actually fairly, pretty good, and they represent really an enormous step in making the systematic step towards the alternatives analysis that I've been calling for. So I'm really looking forward to seeing how this develops. This is just on a retrofit project, so there's a lot more to do, but I really do hope that this will inform future funding decisions and actually funding the alternatives analysis for our multi-billion dollar fleet yard replacement plan. And this fits into a broader story about in-motion charging. First of all, in Prague, there's just been some recent stories coming out of Prague. They're investing into 200 more trolleybuses. And what they've actually found was the cost of operation is fairly equivalent to diesel. And this was before the spike in prices with the Iran War. And It provides significant benefits for how you manage the energy system and all the sort of ancillary improvements that you need to make to the infrastructure to make it happen. There's other developments. New York is abandoning its battery buses. Thank you for your comment.

Thank you, Mr. Landsberg. There is no additional public comment. Public comment is now closed. Madam Clerk, please call the next item. Item 13, adjournment. Thank you, colleagues. We're adjourned.

SFGov TV. San Francisco Government Television.