San Francisco County Transportation Authority - Regular Meeting

Good morning. Welcome to the December 16th, 2025 regular meeting of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority Board. I am Vice Chair Danny Sautter. Our chair, Myrna Melgar, is stuck in the tunnel, but will be here momentarily, I believe. Welcome, colleagues. The clerk today is Amy Cy Young. I would also like to acknowledge Eugene Labada at SFGovTV for staffing the 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 present. Commissioner Mahmood. Mahmood absent. Commissioner Mandelman.

Present.

Mandelman present. Chair Melgar. Melgar absent. Vice Chair Sauter. Present. Sauter present. Commissioner Sherrill. Present. Sherrill present. Commissioner Walton. Present. Walton, present. Commissioner Wong? Wong, present. Vice Chair, we have quorum.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. At this time, I'd like to excuse Commissioner Mahmoud 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 public comment per item to 30 minutes for today's meeting. Each speaker will have two minutes to speak on a given item. And Madam Clerk, would you please make your public announcements?

Thank you. 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. To make a reasonable accommodation for a future meeting under the Americans with Disabilities Act or to request language assistance, please contact the Transportation Authority Clerk's Office at least 48 hours in advance by calling 415-522-4800. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. And can I ask you to now call item number three, please?

Item three, Executive Director's Report. This is an information item.

Thank you. And of course, we have our Executive Director, Tilly Chang, here to present her report. Director Chang. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Vice Chair Sautter. Good morning, commissioners. This month, I do have the pleasure of announcing two big grants that the city received. One was from the Federal Transit Administration to the SFMTA for $39.8 to $40 million. And this was from the low and no emission grant program to procure 24 diesel hybrid electric buses. The new buses will replace old vehicles that have reached the end of their useful lives. And combined with the 94 hybrid buses supported by our Prop L funds, these will all then be scheduled to be in service in 2028. And more than a third of SFMTA's hybrid diesel fleet will have been replaced with new vehicles in the next few years. The second grant was a $45 million state grant for Treasure Island. So we're very pleased for both SFCTA and Timma. We're thrilled that the Strategic Growth Council awarded that $45 million grant from the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, and this was funded by the Cap and Invest program, including $35 million for construction of affordable housing on the island. The partner there is John Stewart Company, and $10.9 million for transportation improvements, including bus shelters, bicycle paths, and sidewalks that Tim and Tida are building, and completion of the Transportation Authority's multi-use path in the northern segment there. as well as $7 million in operating funds for the future electric ferry services to be operated by Bay Ferry. This award is a huge boost to our collective capacity to deliver all the transportation services and projects for the island's development at this critical time. And we thank the state very much and congratulate TIMAA and, again, TA. So I'm sure we'll be also presenting this to the TIMAA when it meets in January as well. On the state front, on the AV policy arena, the DMV has released revised autonomous vehicle regulations. This was awaited from earlier this year when the first version came out, and we commented on that alongside SFMTA and the airport. The proposed regulations include several improvements, such as expanding some data reporting, a clear progression from testing with a driver to driverless testing and deployment, and additional enforcement tools for the DMV. However, our staff commented that other areas do warrant even further improvement, including the adoption of performance standards for safety in particular, enhanced data transparency, and stronger requirements for remote operations. We will provide comments on the updated version by the end of this week and keep you all apprised. While we're on the topic, I'll just note also some local developments in the AV front. On November 30th, a Waymo vehicle reportedly struck and killed a dog at the intersection of Scott and Eddy Streets, and the incident followed a separate event in which Waymo had killed a cat in the mission. And following these incidents, Waymo did receive regulatory approval from the DMV to operate throughout the Bay Area. Additionally, Zoox has begun providing free robo-taxi services to members of the public in parts of the SOMA, the Mission, and the Design District. Finally, SFMTA indicated that it may expand its current Market Street ride hail pilot where Waymo, Uber, and Lyft black car services are invited to use Market Street during now peak hours, not just in the off-peak. This development follows the initial period of operations where, again, the ride-hailing services were operating in the off-peak hours. MTA's limited evaluation of the initial phase reported unclear numbers of ride-hailing trips and low impacts to transit services operating on Market Street. So we'll keep tabs on that as well as it moves forward. Another exciting regional development, the Clipper 2.0 program, the tap and ride feature has been launched. It's very exciting. We've all been waiting for this for some time. I appreciate Vice Chair Sautter and members of our staff joining Mayor Lurie, Senator Weiner, Assemblymember Stephanie, and MTC and MTA leadership to celebrate this launch at the Embarcadero muni bart station last wednesday just in time to benefit travelers for the holiday season the tech tap and go feature and and clipper 2.0 upgrades are intended to reduce cost and modernize fair payment across the two dozen or so bay area transit agencies that use clipper key new features include free or discounted transfers up to 2.85 off subsequent rides within a two-hour period, and instant availability of funds added to Clipper accounts. Riders may also pay fares system-wide using a contactless credit or debit card. In addition, new family accounts allow users to manage multiple Clipper cards under one profile, enabling parents or caregivers to add value to dependents' cards seamlessly. So congratulations to MTC and all the operators involved. The Air District also has announced new funding for EV chargers in San Francisco and across the Bay Area. Their charge program for electric vehicles includes 11 projects in San Francisco with over 140 chargers. The program prioritized locations at affordable and below market rate housing, low income and disadvantaged communities, multi-family housing, and areas with lower EV charge density. Notably, the awards to multiple private parties, homeowner associations, and EV charger vendors include a total of 50 proposed curbside chargers in the Japantown, Richmond, and Sunset communities, which will still need to secure permits from San Francisco agencies prior to moving forward. We are excited to see the Air District focusing on multifamily residential locations, which will be very important to San Franciscans wishing to transition to an electric vehicle in those neighborhoods. Next, the SFMTA parcel tax continues to be developed. Mayor Lurie and office, the mayor's office and SFMTA released an updated parcel tax framework for the November 26 ballot that would generate an estimated $187 million annually inclusive of $22 million to expand and enhance muni services. Under the revised framework, most homeowners would pay $129 annually, with owners of homes larger than 3,000 square feet paying an additional 42 cents to $2 per square foot, over 3,000 square feet. Multifamily and commercial properties would pay a higher base rate and per square footage fees, and some provisions of the framework are still under discussion, such as whether pass-through of taxes would be allowed for rent-stabilized housing units. We will continue to keep the Board apprised of updates to the framework as the Mayor's Office and SFMTA work toward a final version. Turning to project delivery, the DeLong Street pavement renovation has been substantially completed. I'm happy to report that Public Works has finished this renovation of DeLong Street in District 11 between San Diego and Santa Cruz Avenues. The project scope included demolition, pavement renovation, new sidewalk construction, curb ramp construction, and retrofits. which is required for final acceptance of the street for city maintenance purposes. Public Works is proceeding with the final acceptance process and is targeting completion in spring 26. The Transportation Authority funded the design and construction with $350,000 in sales tax funds. Of course, the Minnesota Streetscape Project has also reached completion, and yesterday we joined Commissioner Walton, Public Works, and other community members to celebrate this milestone led very much by the community from the heart of the dog patch. This is Minnesota Street from 23rd to 25th Street. Many community members played a big role in making these improvements happen, including everyone from the Central Waterfront Dog Patch Public Realm Plan, who initially recommended the project, and the Dog Patch and Northwest Potrero Hill Green Benefit District. as well as a neighborhood association and a dog patch. The Transportation Authority was pleased to support the construction of the new boulevard curb ramps and accessible ADA path on the eastern side of Minnesota and 25th with $400,000 from the voter-approved half-cent sales tax program. And as a result, we will have a new facility in that neighborhood for everyone to enjoy. Finally, I just want to mention that the I-280 northbound Geneva off-ramp study received a nice award from the American Council of Engineering Companies. So congratulations to our Deputy Director for Capital Projects, Carl Holmes, who will be traveling to LA to receive the award. This was our Geneva off-ramp study that looked at optimizing the operation and safety of that short ramp in the Balboa Park area. Finally, thank you very much to Vice Chair, Commissioners, everyone, and your legislative aides for another productive year here at the Transportation Authority. We also wish to thank our Community Advisory Committee, hardworking group there, all of our partner agencies, and our own staff who have been so dedicated and so collaborative throughout the year. We wish everyone a relaxing and joyful holiday season and look forward to making continued progress in 2026. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Director.

And I see Commissioner Dorsey. Thank you, Chair Sautter. I have no questions, but I really did want to express my gratitude on behalf of Treasure Island residents and visitors present and future for the work that you have done in a really challenging environment to identify and secure funding for transportation priorities on Treasure Island. obviously, it's helpful that we are also, you know, we're grateful to the California Strategic Council Growth Council, you know for their generosity that's going to mean a lot both for affordable housing and Transportation, but I just want to say thank you to you Tilly and to the entire team for their work on this.

It really matters Thank you so much chair Dorsey Too much here Dorsey. Thank you.

Hey seeing no other questions. Let's please go to public comment

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item three, the executive director's report? There is not.

Okay. Public comment is now closed. And Madam Clerk, can we please go back to item number two?

Yes, Vice Chair. Item two, chair's report. This is an information item.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, and I will do my best to share these updates from our chair, Melgar. This month, as the executive director shared, we celebrated several exciting milestones. Last Wednesday, I was pleased to join the CTA staff, Mayor Lurie, Senator Scott Wiener, Assemblymember Catherine Stephanie, and MTC, BART, and SFMTA leadership to celebrate the launch of Clipper 2.0 at Embarcadero BART Muni Station. This is a long-awaited next-generation Clipper feature, including a suite of major customer-facing upgrades such as tap and ride with a credit or debit card and discounted transfers between the over two dozen Bay Area transit operators using Clipper. Thank you to the public and operators for your patience with this rollout of these great new features with MTC and its contractor as they work to meet the high demand for signups. Overall, we are delighted with this major improvement for the user experience and affordability for riders across the region. Yesterday, I was glad to join Mayor Lurie and many of my colleagues, I think Supervisor Mahmoud, Supervisor Wong, Supervisor Dorsey, Chen, Fielder, and maybe a few others, city departments, as well for the announcement of the Mayor's Street Safety Initiative Executive Directive. which guides the implementation of the Safe Streets Act that was championed by Supervisor and Chair Melgar, and that the Board of Supervisors passed unanimously this summer. Transportation Authority staff working with the Controller's Office will support the city's working group to be led by the SFMTA, SF Department of Public Health, Police Department, on a set of immediate near-term and longer-term actions to boost citywide efforts to increase street safety. This will be the focus of annual hearings here at the Transportation Authority as well, starting next year. Thank you in advance to all the staff, advocates, and members of the public who will be collaborating on this critical initiative. On the funding side, I am delighted to congratulate SFMTA on receiving $39.8 million from the Federal Transit Administration's Low and No Admission Grant Program to procure 24 new diesel hybrid electric buses from Muni's fleet to replace vehicles that have reached the end of their useful lives. Timma Chair Dorsey was also thrilled by, of course, the award of $45 million from the State Strategic Growth Council for the Affordable Housing and Transportation Improvements on Treasure Island. This grant includes $10.9 million for additional bus shelters, bike paths, and sidewalks, completion of the northern segment of the Yerba Buena multi-use path being led by the Transportation Authority, operating funds for Timma's future electric ferry service to be operated by Bay Ferry. This award is a huge boost to our collective capacity to support the delivery of thousands of housing units on Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island. Congratulations to the John Stewart Company, the Treasure Island Development Authority, and the Treasure Island Mobility Management Agency on this exciting award. And as we close this busy year, I want to extend the Transportation Authority's appreciation to all of our partner agencies as well as recognize their own hardworking TEA staff, legislative aid, support the work year-round. We are truly grateful for your contributions and dedication, and we send warm wishes to everyone for a safe, fun, and enjoyable holiday season. And with that, I conclude my remarks. If there are no questions, let's please go to public comment.

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

Seeing no other speakers, public comment is now closed. Madam Clerk, I believe that would take us to item number four.

Item four, approve the minutes of the December 9th, 2025 meeting. This is an action item.

Okay. Do we have any questions on the minutes?

Okay.

Can I have a motion? We have a motion from Commissioner Mandelman. And a second, please, from Commissioner Chen. All right. Let's please go to public comment on this item.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item four, the minutes? There is not.

Okay. With that, public comment is now closed. And Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Okay. Commissioner Chen? Okay. Chan absent. Commissioner Chen? Chen, aye. Aye. Chen, aye. It's okay. Commissioner Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Commissioner Fielder? Aye. Fielder, aye. Commissioner Mandelman?

Aye.

Mandelman, aye. Chair Melgar? Aye. Melgar absent. Vice Chair Sauter? Aye. Sauter, aye. Commissioner Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. Commissioner Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Commissioner Wong? Aye. Wong, aye. There are eight ayes. The minutes are approved.

Thank you, and the motion passes. Madam Clerk, could you please call the next item?

Items 5 through 9 comprise the consent agenda. Staff is not planning to present on these items, but are available for questions.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. And we do not need to take public comment on these items since they were taken at a prior meeting, but happy to take any questions from colleagues. If there are no questions, may I have a motion and a second for the consent agenda? We have a motion from Commissioner Chen, a second from Commissioner Mandelman. Madam Clerk, do you please call the roll on the consent agenda? We will do same house, same call. And with that, the motion passes. Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Item 10, SFMTA's Application-Based Traffic Calming Program Progress Update. This is an information item.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. And to begin our discussion on this item, we have Transportation Planner Rachel Seberg here to introduce this item. She will then be followed by SFMTA Project Manager Damon Curtis, who will present the item as well. Ms. Seberg, welcome.

Good morning, Vice Chair Sautter and Commissioners, SFGov. I am sharing my slides. This is a presentation providing a progress update on SFMTA's application-based traffic calming program. Back in July, the board approved concurrent programming and allocation of TNC tax funds for the application-based residential traffic calming program fiscal years 21, 22, and 23. The residential traffic calming program has struggled for many years with timely project delivery with the application to installation process taking years for simple measures due to delivery challenges. As a condition of both programming and allocation, we developed an enhanced monitoring, reporting, and oversight protocol in consultation with SFMTA. On this slide, we have a few examples of our special conditions included in the oversight protocol. This includes monthly progress reports, an update to the CAC on the status of the program, which SFMTA provided in October, and that by December 2025, SFMTA would report to the board on the future of the application-based traffic calming program, which might mean stopping the application-based program and switching to a proactive program where locations are identified by SFMTA. So for this information item, in compliance with our oversight protocol, SFMTA will provide an update on the status of the application-based Traffic Calming Program, including delivery on the backlog and the future of the program.

Good morning, Commissioners. Damon Curtis, Traffic Calming Program Manager at MTA. So first, just a quick overview of what I will be discussing. What is traffic calming? I do not plan to spend a lot of time on that aspect. The program timeline, also not a lot of time there. But the progress updates, that'll be the heart of my update here. And then lessons learned, draft criteria, and next steps will be handled by my director, Kimberly Leong, once I'm done. So again, I don't plan to spend a lot of time on the next five or six slides. They're really just a... overview and reminders of what the Traffic Calming Program is all about. I think the only thing I would like to highlight on this slide for all of you is that stop signs are not traffic calming devices. They are traffic control devices used to sign right away at intersections. Again, here's the Tribal Common Toolbox, just some photos of our typical measures that we installed throughout the city. This slide describes all the other work that we do outside of the application-based program, and I think the key takeaway here is that You know, app-based traffic calming is just a fraction of all the traffic calming we do. And historically, these other proactive projects and programs have accounted for anywhere from 25% to 40% of the number of devices we install in any given year. Resident requests. So this slide just simply describes in more detail the typical planning, design, and construction phases of a typical traffic calming application. And then program timeline. Just briefly, I mean, the program began in the year 2000. We went through some iterations throughout the first decade or so. This past July, when this allocation was approved, this latest funding was approved, we decided to pause accepting new applications and reevaluate. As Rachel mentioned, we did an update to the CAC back in October, and we're here before you today. And again, if any of these few slides that I skipped through, if you've got questions about them, I'm happy to come back to them at the end of the presentation. So as a reminder, the funding allocated last July was meant to cover all remaining work from FY21, FY22, and FY23. Starting with FY21, we've already implemented 176 of those devices. So there's a handful of accepted applications left that require us to still do design and then ultimately construction. That design work we plan to begin sometime in the spring. Skipping ahead to FY23, which will make sense in a minute. Also, in FY23, we have 40 accepted applications. Those are ready for design, and we plan to design those in conjunction with the ones from FY21. And the reason to combine those efforts is just it's more efficient from a staffing perspective. Also, those improvements will all be readied together so that we can package them up into a JLC contract for construction later. So going back to FY22, all of the applications from FY22 were fully evaluated, fully designed and approved, and are all ready for construction. In fact, this is the work that you all received notifications about in late October that is coming. It's also been prominently featured print media and our agency's social media channels over the last month or so. So this work, consisting of 265 devices at over 155 locations, or around 155 locations, has been broken up into five JOC contracts. Let me just find my notes. Here we go. So the first JOC... covers 57 devices in Districts 1, 2, and 9. It had an NTP or Notice to Proceed date of November 17th this year and a construction completion date of January 30th of next year, 2026. Of those 57 devices, as of today, 37 have been installed. The second JOC, 62 devices in District 7, also had an NTP date of November 17th and has a completion date of January 30th, 2026. And of those 62 devices, as of today, 27 have been installed. So as you can see, we've had two JOCs NTP in the last month, and those contractors are going gangbusters. We've already installed over 50 devices in less than a month. Moving forward, the third JOC has 56 devices in districts three, five, six, and 10. That one has an NTP date set of January 12th of next year and a completion date of March 27th. So that work will begin in earnest next month. Finally, the fourth JOC, 64 more devices in districts four and eight. That JOC is still awaiting final approval by executive management at DPW. We expect that to happen any day now, and then for that contract to have a similar timeline as the third JLC, meaning MTP in late January, early February, completion in late March, early April. And finally, the fifth JLC, it's got 26 devices in District 11. That one will proceed once one of the first four are completed. That's only because we've maxed out the capacity Public Works, JOC program with the first four. So the work that I just described really constitutes our commitment and really our obligation to address the backlog. One final piece of that backlog is the first two quarters from FY24. So these are funded separately. However, we do have funding in hand. And for the first two quarters of FY24, all the applications were fully evaluated. And we have 36 accepted applications that we need to move forward to design. And so we are planning to incorporate this design work with the design work I described earlier. So sometime this spring, we will work to design remaining accepted applications from FY21, accepted applications from FY23, and the accepted applications from Q1 and Q2 of FY24. So I think equally important is our obligation to in our commitment to right size the traffic calming program and um create a more or develop a more efficient effective and sustainable traffic calming strategy moving forward so that work begins with how we intend to treat the re the the uh applications we received from the remainder of FY24, and all of FY25. So those applications are on file. We received them. We have not done any evaluation yet. But to talk you through what those next steps might look like, I will invite up my director, Kimberly Leong, to walk you through the next few slides.

Thank you, Damon. As Damon said, my name is Kimberly Leung. I am the Louisville Streets Director. So while Damon provided an update on past traffic calming cycles, I want to take some time today to share the work the team is doing looking ahead for this program. So during the pandemic, we eased application requirements, in particular the ballot requirement, which required folks to collect signatures from households on the blocks was removed, which ultimately led to this unprecedented number of requests and created a backlog. So to better understand how our program acceptance criteria compares to other cities, our team conducted a pure city review. So on the slide here, we highlight three metrics that are common to most application-based traffic calming programs, the first one being a petition requirement, second, speed threshold, and three, street slope or grade. So prior to the pandemic, we required a simple majority of households to sign a petition for traffic calming on their block, but that was removed prior to the fiscal year 21 program because of the onset of the pandemic. We found that petition requirements from peer cities ranged quite a bit, with cities like Oakland requiring 67% of households to sign a petition, while Los Angeles only requiring four households. When it comes to speed on a typical 25 mile per hour street in San Francisco, San Francisco currently has a minimum speed threshold of 27 miles per hour to be eligible for the program. All peer cities that we looked at had a higher minimum threshold of 30 or more miles per hour in order to be accepted into their programs. And given that San Francisco is a hilly city, we have a maximum 13% grade threshold for streets that are accepted into the program. Compared to other cities, this is a much more generous threshold. So given what we have learned from the Peer City Review, we are proposing to adjust our program's acceptance criteria. Proposed changes include one, reinstating the petition requirement that was required prior to the pandemic, and two, raising the minimum speed threshold for the program from 27 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour so that we are prioritizing blocks with the most egregious speeding. No changes are being proposed for the grade threshold. So this criteria is still being developed, so we welcome your feedback, because we do want to make sure that we are working in the right way to right-size this program, and we also want to make sure this program continues to be efficient and equitable. So for next steps, we will continue to focus on delivering the backlog of applications from past fiscal years. At the same time, we plan to finalize the new acceptance criteria for the program in spring and start phasing this in as we review the pending applications from January 2024 through June of 2025. We plan to return to this board in summer of next year to provide another update on our progress. And also, as a part of Mayor Lurie's Street Safety Initiative that was announced yesterday and the Street Safety Act that was unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors earlier this year, we will share a plan by the end of 2026 for an updated traffic calming program. So at this time, I'll be happy to take any questions. Thank you.

Commissioner Wong.

Thank you. I'm supportive of the petition requirement because that ensures that there's organized support for some of these traffic calming measures. And so thank you for sharing about your work. I've got one question. How, for District 4 specifically, or I guess the entire city, how do you ensure that for the traffic calming measures that every district is able to get its fair share of investments for the traffic calming measures?

Yes, so through our application-based program, that program is where we are hearing from constituents in different districts about what they're kind of seeing out there. But we do have a slew of other programs that Damon shared earlier in the presentation where we are working to make sure that we are doing speed management work throughout all of our districts. As a part of the updated traffic calming program that we're going to bring forward in about a year, We are looking to have a proactive approach where we will be looking at the city holistically to really understand where we may be missing parts of the city that do need more speed management work.

And then when the proactive measures are implemented, will we still have the application-based process? And what would be the division between that? Would it be majority proactive or majority application-based?

So we are still working through those details, but we anticipate that there will still be some sort of application-based program, because we do want to hear from the citizens of San Francisco. If we didn't have the sort of program for people to submit applications to, we would just anticipate getting those requests in our 311Qs. We want to have something a little more formalized to make sure we're hearing those requests directly.

Thank you. And then I'm looking at under the slide that says proactive projects and programs, it mentions quick builds, low streets, and in District 4, there have been resident concerns about different measures that have been invested into the district into the past. community feedback on concerns about some of these changes. How does MTA respond or listen to some of these concerns?

Yeah, we absolutely take that feedback into consideration. So for example, our quick build program, one of the things that we do there is that we make sure to collect data before and after the installation of a project so that we can make sure that it's having the impacts that we would like for it to have out there. If we're seeing that it's not achieving what our goals were for that project, we do definitely spend time iterating on that design to make sure that the design out there is working for everybody.

How about for active community feedback if, say, the residents may have concerns about the practicality from their perspective of some of these projects?

Yeah, so we are open to finding time to speak with these stakeholders. We've done things where we've gone out and maybe walked through a project with residents. So there's a variety of ways that we make sure that we're seeking feedback. If there's something specific in your district right now, Commissioner, happy to talk with you to figure out how do we make sure we're hearing that feedback appropriately.

Thank you. We'll definitely engage offline. Thank you for your time.

Perfect.

Thank you. Vice Chair Sautter.

Thank you for the update on this. I guess I have some concerns with kind of the direction this feels like it's going. Obviously, we need to make changes because we saw what happened without enough structure. At the same time, it seems like the proposed changes, at least the ones we heard about today, are focused on first the petitions. I think there does need to be some sort of threshold and public support and community support indicated. Going down the petition route concerns me because you said that you wanted it to be fair and equitable and I would say that actually runs counter to it because what we typically see and I've seen this with a similar process for 50% required for street sweeping, for example, is that organizing something like that is fairly straightforward and accessible when we're talking about single family homes lining the block. But when you're looking at apartment buildings in a neighborhood, take it like Lower Knob Hill or Knob Hill, that's just not feasible. And you're going to disproportionately see that these improvements are made more available to higher income residents and neighborhoods rather than areas that really need this, more dense areas. So I'm concerned about that. And I'm also concerned about increasing the threshold for speeds. We still have a lot of crashes and a lot of incidents that happen and that can be dangerous below 30 miles per hour. I would like to see, you know, obviously we need to redesign this, but I'd like to see just as much focus on introspection and retro on... This process in terms of the agencies involved in the coordination And how that is slowing things down rather than just putting new burdens and guardrails on the residents You know, we kind of let this be completely open and we saw that there's a lot of interest Which shows the demand for it and I get again there needs to be structure but I don't want us to swing too far back on the other end of the pendulum where where this is not adopted by residents. So not necessarily a question, just some thoughts and an invitation to work together on this. Thanks.

I appreciate that feedback. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Sherrill.

Thank you, Chair Milgar. Thank you for presenting this today. I had a question on slide six about the traffic circle. In my district, we have a bunch of these on Euclid. What is the difference between a traffic circle and a roundabout? Because it feels like these were supposed to be roundabouts, but they're not.

Neighborhood traffic circles, which is what's shown here, which is what are on Euclid, roundabouts are a completely different animal. They are specifically engineered with horizontal deflection at the entry points. Sorry, let me rephrase.

I'm very familiar with roundabouts. Can you tell me a little bit more about the purpose of the traffic circle versus the purpose of a formal roundabout? Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. No, no, no, it's fine.

Absolutely. I mean, the purpose of a traffic circle is to reinforce the controls that exist. And in the case of Euclid, there are stop signs at all those intersections already. And to prevent right angle collisions. So everyone has to go around the circle in the same direction. No one is really meeting at a right angle unless they're going around the circle, which is at a reduced speed.

Got it. OK. On Euclid, we hear from a lot of folks confusion as to basically like, they put in these roundabouts and they're not even roundabouts. which I think we can all understand. So people feel a little annoyed by that. I think the point is that they slow down and drive slowly, which is fine, and that's great. If I can ask that in the future we consider putting reflective markers around the circle, because at night we get reports that people drive into them and crash into them.

Absolutely, and those markers should be there. If they're not, I will take care of them.

Great, and especially around the edges.

Yes, around the edges.

Thank you. That would be great to assuage some neighborhood concerns, and I will also pass that feedback along that they're not supposed to be roundabouts, in fact. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. So I have a couple of questions. I think it's for Ms. Leong. So when the pandemic hit and we went to an open system, that made sense because of the circumstances. People weren't meeting each other. And I really appreciate that the department has a plan to deal with a backlog. I am wondering, in a new system, what will be different? If we go back to implementing the signatures of the requirement for 50%, one of the things that was consistently feedback from the residents of District 7 was frustration over the lack of communication. that once a traffic calming was requested, it kind of went into a black hole and never heard back. What was going on? So I'm wondering if there's going to be a system for folks to understand where applications are. you know, Mr. Curtis described the three different steps, you know, design, evaluation, design, and implementation. And so I was wondering if, like, any of those three take any longer and how that can be communicated to members of the public. And the other thing that I'm wondering is about use of technology. Because in the old system, like, you had to actually gather signatures. And that is time-consuming. Maybe it was designed to be time-consuming. It seems like we have better technology that could be... We're in Silicon Valley. Why is it that it takes... Like old school. It seems like we could invest a little bit to make it both more transparent and for your staff easier to keep track of with like a database and not just an Excel spreadsheet. So I'm wondering what will be different and if you could talk about that a little bit.

Yeah, so to answer your second question about technology and the collection of signatures, I think it's something that we can definitely think about. I mean, during the pandemic, we had found new ways to do outreach because we weren't doing in-person open houses. So we had to iterate and figure out how we even do outreach in that sense. I think there's some room here for us to think about how is it that we can go about reinstating this petition requirement, but not necessarily having to knock on every door to get those signatures. So I appreciate that suggestion. And to your first question about communication and outreach, that is something that we are definitely trying to grow within this program, especially given this backlog. We have started getting support from our comms team here. We do have a person now assigned to our traffic calming program to help with that communication, particularly with our backlog. And we'll be working with them to think through what is the right model for communication when it comes to this program. I know it does take a little bit of time between receiving an application, collecting data, designing, and ultimately constructing. So we do want to make sure that we're staying in communication with the public about the status of those projects. So it is something that we are thinking through as a part of the plan that we'll share next year.

So I will ask that when you come back to us, within you, you have that. So a communications person is one aspect of it. It has seemed to me consistently that what is lacking is a system. Yes. So, you know, it would be great when you come back to have, you know, technology is a part of it, but it's not a system. It's a tool, you know, that supports a system. And I'm wondering if when you come back with a new program, if you could think that through.

Yeah, we would love to share like a communications plan for what that program would look like as well.

Thank you. I appreciate it. All right, I don't see anyone else on the roster with questions or comments. Thank you, colleagues. Let's go to public comment on this item, please, Madam Clerk.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item 10, the application-based traffic calming program update? There is. Your two minutes begins now.

Great. Good morning, Chair Melgar, Board, and Director Chang. My name is Jody Medeiros. I'm the Executive Director of Walk San Francisco. Yesterday was a great day in San Francisco with the mayor signing of the Street Safety Initiative, and thanks to all of you for signing the Street Safety Act back in September. I do want to thank the SFMTA staff and the SCTA staff for their work on the residential traffic calming program because the humble speed bump, hump, and cushion is one of the most powerful tools available to end dangerous driving behavior throughout our city. Since the 33 speed cameras were installed less than a year ago, more than half a million warnings have been given with these cameras. That means that many drivers are going more than 10 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. Speeding is rampant in San Francisco, and San Francisco does need to address speeding in every way possible to ensure our safety, especially as vehicles get bigger and more powerful. And today's presentation shows there is great demand. San Francisco residents want safe streets. We're encouraged to see that this program is scheduled to be updated next year, but we are asking for complete reform, not just an update to the program. Now is a great time to really do that with the PAWS and the Street Safety Initiative. Reform is needed for better efficiency and speed of putting these street safety devices out there. Safety should be data-driven, not a popularity contest or only eligible for people who have the time to get buy-in from their neighbors. The new system can be designed to regain public trust and move forward with transparency and equity. Thank you for continuing to ask about the status of this program and to fund it, because that's really important too. This is one of the most cost-effective tools the city's toolbox to slow speeds and show that San Francisco is a safe speed city. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Medeiros.

Is there anyone else in chamber who wishes to speak on this item? There is not.

OK. Public comment is now closed. Madam Clerk, let's go to item 11, please.

Item 11, internal accounting report, investment report, and debt expenditure report for the three months ending September 30, 2025. This is an information item.

Good morning. I'm Cynthia Fong, Deputy Director for Finance and Administration. This is just going to be a quick update for the first three months of fiscal year 25-26. In terms of assets, we had a total assets of $192.3 million. We had total liabilities of $323.8 million, and this includes $177 million outstanding for our 2017 sales tax revenue bond. In terms of revenue, we've collected approximately $49.9 million. In terms of expenditures, we've spent approximately $26 million. This is quite typical for the first quarter of the fiscal year as invoices are slowly coming in. We have not yet received many of our first quarter SGA reimbursement requests from our various Prop L sponsors. We are in budget in terms of revenues and expenditures for the first quarter. In addition, in investment compliance, we stand at 71.7% of cash sitting in the city's treasury pool. We are in compliance with the California government code and the TA's investment policy. In terms of debt compliance, we still have 65 million outstanding in our revolving credit agreement. We anticipate making our next draw sometime in the next quarter. As you may previously remember, we have come to this board for approximately a $60 million approval to draw down in fiscal year 25-26. With that, I'm happy to report we are, again, in compliance with our revenues and budgets for the first quarter. Happy to take any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Commissioner Sherrill.

I'm sorry, just for clarifying. So I'm just looking at the sales tax program revenues on a year of like $25.8 million. That was for the first quarter of the year, is that right?

Yes, just for July, August, and September. Great, thank you.

Thank you so much. I don't see anyone else on the roster. Thank you for the presentation, Ms. Fong. Madam Clerk, let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item 11, the quarterly accounting investment and debt report?

There is not. Okay. Public comment is now closed. Before we go to new business, Madam Clerk, let's go back to item number two, please. Oh, you did? OK. Great. Sounds good. Let's go then to item 12.

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

OK. I don't see anyone on the roster introducing new things. Please call the next item, please.

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

OK, general public comment is closed. Please call the next item. Item 14, adjournment. We are adjourned. Thank you, colleagues.