meelting in memory of normal bray. worked for public works insuch with traffic engineering department for over 30 year jz a pred ses squr made huge contributions. also we have another one. because item 18 was removed the agenda published we will do the closed session at the end thf meeting. >> just so for the public is aware item 18 regarding taxis medallion program form is removed from the agenda and following we will move closed session to the end of meeting. item 6, introduction of new or unfunshed business. >> i had one thing to bring up, we had information and a lot of public comment on the commuter shuttle program alt the last meetjug a number of public commenters brought up the fact shuttle buserize not running at capacity. i think the number is 60 percent capacity and it was opponented out by someone after i left the meeting that the priveerate carerize running at 20 percent if you look at the number of seat belts. it is interesting again. it just pointed out how we tend to give the private cars a pass and focus on commuter shuttles. >> thank you. >> item 7, directors report. >> good afternoon director reiskin. >> good afternoon, member of the board and public and staff. want to recognize a number of employees from the agency and first i want to ask the transit director john hailey to come forward to recognize a couple of folks, only one of whom is here for extraordinary heroism. >> good afternoon, mr. hailey. >> good afternoon mr. chairman and board members. 41 days ago right about this time of the afternoon two of our colleagues paul desozea to my left and frank [inaudible] who could not be here today in the course of normal duties came upon a individual being assaulted with a knife in downtown san francisco. i think most of us would like to think when confronted with that type of a situation our instickts and reactions are to intervene and call for help but most know all too often that isn't what happens. but it is my great honor today and very proud to introduce you to a true hero. somebody who's selfless actions saved a life and it is my honor to let paul desozea tell you his story for that day and again, honored to introduce a true hero. [applause] >> thank you. really this is a big surprise for me for being honored for something that by beliefs and i think my colleagues beliefs frank [inaudible] is something we would do on a daily basis if that would occur. my beliefs you know, i am a christian and peter [inaudible] love all andee overcome all we have. we have to love all. i see all together. it is not only me. then when we saw this person that was in distress and really needed help, we stopped to do what we thought would be the best to do. a person calling for help, many people around just watching that i call upon my colleague frank [inaudible]. we call him that just because i call him i was on the passenger side and couldn't have control of the truck and said stop recollect stop the truck, somebody is going to get killed if we dont do anything and frank stepped on the break and jumped out of the truck right away and we intervened and we saved this mans life. not only that man, but the [inaudible] as well. the corrode troyed tried to kick the guy and probably lynch him in the middle of the street and had to contain the people around and try to help out the other gentlemen that had a very bad wound on his neck. unfortunate to be here but the most important to say we are heroes to be here. i as i see all you hear and feel like you are my heroes because we are all public serviceant servants who serve the community and when you serve the community the biggest thing i have i think it is not to serve only myself but to serve the others and i think that's the best part of not being a hero, but be ing a pubhook servant. >> thank you so much. the entire agency for your outstanding heroism that day. proud to hear and happy to honor you. [applause]. >> thank you. >> mr. hailey will present the one to mr. shrive at a later date. director reiskin. >> thank you, next i want to ask tom mcguire director of sustainable street come up and talk about how kids get to squofrom school safely. >> i like to call sustainable street crossing guard program up. so, today as they walk up we will recognize some of the best crossing guards, the ones who take the lead in the field and train all the other crossing guards we have out in the streets at all our schools around san francisco. our lead guards are at their every day they train and observe the guards, they jurchl in and assist at the corners when they are needed. these are the folks known for even more than the typical crossing gourd who is pretty terrific if you ask our school parents. those are the folks who are professional, patient, friendly and honest and accommodating of all the kids they need to keep say. willing and able to communicate with parents in diverse neighborhoods, the folks with speak, english, spanish, [inaudible] willing to step in to tackle a issue in the field and any project whether participating in office and field training, they make the training videos to demonstrate the safe proper crossing technique, supporting and train thg guard and building good working relationships and working to have safety around the school. i want to introduce them to you and then will ask one to come up and say a few words. we have-i will go from your lerft left to right. luniece thomas. ophilia gonzalez, yan linn. phillip nguyen. phillip [inaudible] and fredric porse. i think rod will say a word or two on behalf oof the group. >> thank you for your vital work you do aerfb day for our most pressure resource, our children so thank you. >> we trainers of the san francisco adult crossing guard wanted to thank you for the opportunity to make the city streets safer. it is our privilege to be of service to your children possibly and the children and pedestrians of san francisco. on behalf of the trainers we thank you for this recognition. it has been our privilege. thank you so much. [applause] >> nobody else wants to give a speech? >> thank you all again very much. [applause] drether reiskin. >> next i like to ask can deuce sue the communication director to come forward and recognize one of her long standing employees. >> good afternoon mrs. sue. >> good afternoon chairman nolan and trecters. candice sue from sfmta. there is a lot of work that occurs belined the scenes that allows us to function evectively and nothing could bow more true than with our public website so i will ask chad and christian to come forward. today we are recognizing charles belloff who we know as chaz for long term efforts in leadership to update and maintain our public website, sfmta.com. this is a massive under taking and is and always been our sole web mast er at the agency. chaz has been sfmta and the predecessor agencies since 1996 and he had 20 years in october. he just passed his twnt year anniversary. he came on board as a public service aid as part of a multimedia services division and at the time tasked to work on a interactive cd rom driver training praumgect back in the day when we had cd ram rom. that project received a number of awar including one from mtc. his contribution to his project jz continues to demonstrate this today are invaluable and his work is always just truly top notch. our public website is one of our moers most important resource frz the public. it is very visible and showcase for his deep dedication to the aemsh agency is why we acknowledge him today mpt i want to mention a number of communication teams members are here to also support chaz and if you want to stand to be acknowledged as well. [applause] >> thank you. on behalf of the board of director jz agency on the fine work you have done for all these 20 years, thank you. >> thank you very much. i thank tooz yoi and the entire board for this honor. i would like taacknowledge the entire sfmta staff who provide conitant for the website without which the website would not be worth visiting. i like to acknowledge the trust, support and space that candice and kristin give me to do my best job. it is a honor to work for this city. thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. [applause] director reiskin. >> goes without saying the content that's makes the site most worth visiting is photos of inmember of the board of directors. so, a few updates, one we had a as you all heard a pretty interesting weekend over thanksgiving weekend. friday morning we learned that we had been infected by some sort of computer issue. this was the day after thanksgiving. from what we know at this point-the reason i want to intention it has got a lot of attention in the media a lot thf things urmy on were not accurate so want to give more accurate information. one is that from what we know we were hit randomly. we were not targeted as a city agency or transit agency. just some random result of phising these people put out trying to click on a link you shouldn't click on. we dont believe there is sensitive data or non sensitive data compromised. no customer or financial data or employee data. none of that compromised or hit by this. the day that we learned that there was a issue with our systems before we had not full understanding of what it was we made the decision to open the fair gates in the subway stations. purely a precautionary measure and fair system wasn't impacted but wanted to make sure as we learned about what was happening we wouldn't put anything at risk. by sunday morning we had the fair gates normally operationm but note the rest the fair system during the weekend including the readers on the buses and trains is all functional. it wasn't free muni all weekend, it was just the fair gates were a period of less 48 hours. we estimate a loss of something under $50 thousand of revenue but thought it was a reasonable approach to take. i also heard folks here shopping downtown thought tfs a gift muni was giving to shoppers so maybe we got good will from that as well. what the malware effected work station squz computers throughout the agencies and meant that we couldn't access things like e-mail i other systems. fortunately our information technology group had through good practice had everything backed up so we are able to remake those workstations and bring back all the data and not lose any of it. of course, we did not pay a ransom or consider paying a ransom and never will pay any ransom. just fortunately because of the good work of our it folks, we were not preparing for this, we are prepared and able to get our systems back up and running. both the u.s. department of home land security and fbi are investigating the matter so can't say anything more at this time. hopefully they will find the person who is doing this. that's the real story on thanksgiving day weekend. i want to commend our it staff, many who lost the holiday weekend trying to address this. many of the mta fields and supervisor and management staff who came into work or already working but had to do numerous work arounds to make sure the customers still get around thmpt transit service was uneffected. a couple other things, there were a couple of legal rulings i wanted to make you aware of relate today mission bay, one you probably heard about and one you haven't. the one you heard about it is essentially the golden state warriors the arena and surrounding space was finally cleared. it was a caurt of appeals unanimously afirmed the city approval for the center, so that was a important for the city. related to that in a way and i say related because obviously mta and muni service and the street management were a big part of what made the whole event center program possible and i think it was all of the analysis that was done in the environmental documents that the courts found was thorough and adequate. so, as part of that we have our loop, which is a loop designed as part of phase one of the t third light-rail and allows trains to come down from downtown and turn-go east on 18th, south on ind iana and back west on 19th to come back on to third street. the good news is we prevailed around all most the same day i think as we got the other ruling-prevailed in a lawsuit that challenged the loop. the court of appeals upheld the trial court determination that the city complied with ceqa and undertake thg project so after we won at the lower court we did commence work but very happy to have the court of appeal ruling to hopefully put this matter to bed. the construction there is underway and should be done before the end of 2017. couple ofgue good news item and that loop will enable us to provide more service on the northern end of the t 3 line so relates in a way to the warriors so good news all around there. one minor construction related note, last meeting during public comment someone had made a comment about inadequate signage at bal bowo park particularly for people with disabilities and others trying to get to the accessible platform on san jose avenue so grateful for the feedback and able to get the signage up and will be maintained throughout the projethconstruction so wanted to close the loop for you on that. and then finally, vision zero update. first, this spring will be launching a three year city wide education campaign in partnership with the police department and department of public health on motorcycle safety. according to the dmv there were nearly 23 thousand registered motorcycles in 2014 and have a 10 prert increase in fiver years. the state office of transportation ranks having the highest collision rate of motorcycles in california in terms of city we are the 5th highest as a county so it is a incident which is particular concern. 20 percent of all traffic fatalities in 2015 -focus the education erfts against the data driven analysis that motorcycles are disproportionately represented in the serious and fatal collisions. the campaign will be fundsed through $190 thousand dld grant and will roll out in the spring. another vision zero update is relates to folsom and howard streets in the south of market area. south of market area is projected by 2040 to see more than 200 percent increase in resident and 1 40 percent increase in workers rchlt everybody knows this is one of the fastest growing areas of the city so need to prepare to make sure the transportation system can accommodate that growth and do so safely. i think you also know if you look that high injury corridor map, a lot of the south of market area contains high injury intersections and corridors. coming out of the eastern neighborhoods plan as well as the central soma plan, we are kicking off the folsom howard streetscape project to look how to make the streets safer and provide better options for people to get around the south of market neighborhood. to kick that off we will have a couple open houses at the soma recsenter at 276 street. there will be one this thursday december 8 at 6 p.m. and another saturday at noon so we encourage folks to come and we are really going look for input on all the elements that you see with we bring these projects forward, park and loading, byway, pedestrian safety, landscaping and sidewalk amenities, open space all within the context how to keep traffic mubing. that is soma rec center thursday at 6 p.m. and saturday at noon and that concludes my report. >> thank you director reiskin. questions or comments. mb members of the public? directors report. >> a question about the report. my name is herbert weiner. one thing about vision zero, you educate the motorcycle, what about the bicyclist as well? too many ride on the sidewalk y. had to tell 2 of them they were violating the law. they also go through the traffic lights. shouldn't that be included with the motorcyclist as well? i thij think that will provide good public service. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon. >> patricia void. last friday at deviz dareo a man ran a red light or something happened with his car. he hit a priu s which spun around and 45 year old man is dead. for 10 year jz i told mrs. nolan and talked to mr. reiskin about this, the time lights on lombard are wrong. there needed to be a delay when the change happened. if we had that delay this union man would be a alive. number 2, the way the accident happened, the area where the vision zero anybody standing in that place would have been dead. i question some of what is happening with vision zero. another thing that happened, you talked about new buses. the new buses that i have ridden- >> this is only on items- >> that's what i am talking he mentioned all this. >> he medicationed the buses? >> yes, he did. they are rattling more than the old ones. i'm very very very disappointed in what happened. i'm disappointed that a person dide because we are ignoreed. he talked about putting outreach to soma. i hope it is better outreach than in the marina [inaudible] i hope that people actually listen at these meetings and listen to what we have to say. thank you very much. >> thank you. anyone else care to address the directors report? seeing none, thank you director reiskin. >> item 8, citizens advisory council report. i don't see the chairman here today. he isn't here so we'll move on. item 9, public comment. this is a opportunity for members to address the board on matters within the jurisdiction of sfmta but not on todays agenda. i do have a few speaker cards for you starting with john geordano. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i like to comment on the shuttle hub study. it is very thorough there is a negative bias towards hubs which based on questionable logic and data. first, page 2 states under all scenarios shuttle ridership will drop up to 45 percent. nearly all the prior shuttle riders would switch to driving. on page 46, we find this isn't basedoon survey, it is based on a model and there are a list of parameters there st. no current information including car ownership of shuttle riders. how can it be switched when they switch to driving when it isn't surveyed or know if they own the car. it also staitss the model is contrained by the absence of the information. that is saying we don't know how accurate the model is. if we use ridership in a decision making process a more accurate model is mandatory. second, the report states that the analysis focused on pucklic right of way and firthser study would need to be done to determine if private property could be used. these are private shuttles which serve a small portion the population and not accessible to anyone else. they should be using prescribet private space. busing operate cannot be controlled but where they stop can. stopping at muni stops is illegal. white zones are controlled by the city and enforcement by the city. the report suggests that under a hub model, unauthorized stops would increaset. that means thee are illegal and we should be able to enforce them and this type of logic shouldn't be part the decision making process. if we allow more private entities the same access and the mta says yes, we have a lot of chaos. if the mta says know only these companies, it sounds like discrimination to me. i request the mta consider revising the report with some the comments and recommend that we give a hub model. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> herbert weiner followed by patricia void. >> herbered weiner. this sh the holiday season and this is a time oaf giving and exchanging presents and what does mta give us? they have given increased bus fair squz also taken away some bus stops. now, this is isn't a idea of giving gift squz if you give gifts like that i think there should be a free exchange so this is request i have. one, is medical fiending by the board of the physical impact of walking a quarter a mile to the bus stop. notebly for seniors and disabled. accurate time panels of the bus stop. like for instance they say the bus will come 25 minutes later and it comes 10 minutes and it is very frustrating and aggravating. more openness the board listening to concerned groups. i have a feeling this board has a rather closed mind especially with the eltear taraval issue and they think maybe the contractors were lined up to implement this way before the meeting and the testimony. and also, i would like to have members of this board informed bicyclist violating the law when they ride on the sidewalk and crash a red light. these are my holiday gift requests from the board. frank laly you should spell santa claus in the right way and not claws. >> thank you. tureek mu mood and that is the last person who turned in a speaker card on items within your jurisdiction and dmot on todays calendar. >> good afternoon mr. mumood. >> good afternoon directors. so, we go back do had taxi issues and this taxi industry run by [inaudible] is just like nothing but a fool game. taxi drivers fund $4.7 million, who is on that fund? this is a list of 27 people and they are medallion holders they are not drivers. they sent the e-mail to the people they want to be [inaudible] it isn't this e-mail, it isn't sent to the drivers to participate. thousandoffs drivers have no idea what is going onfelt they are bearically making $30 or $40 a day and you feel it is okay. taxi task force, 6 seats for the taxi drivers as medallion holderess. i came to you 5 time and and you repeatedly do something, you are not doing anything. [inaudible] honestly [inaudible] nothing more than a 5th grader. i'm more intelligent than her. samantha robert [inaudible] no lights connected with a meter. that fly wheel taxi meter in my cab 10 times in three months. the customer in the cab, the meter rolled and money gone. 20 times no customer, meter rolled. 30 times the meeting failed in three months. this mta is doing what? that meter is forced on us by kate tur an. you need to remove the lady from the job and look at these issue jz please call the meeting in a different way. we have to solve this issue, your taxi industry is ruined, finished. it is all most dead now. nobody is making money. these are the paper frz the board. thank you. >> thank you. anything else care to address the board. seeing none. >> moving to item 10, consent calendar. all mattererize rutune unless a member hof board wishes to have a item severed and considered separately. mr. chairman i received no request from either the public or the board to serve any item on the consent calendar. >> motion to approve the consent calendar. >> second? >> second. >> all in favor say aye. opposed no. those two housing projecktds look terrific and understand the neighborhood is very supportive of both of them and look forward to seeing them get under way. >> mr. chairman moving to your regular agenda you directed that the closed session be movaled to the end of the meeting and therefore we move to item 14 which is a presentation discussion of the sfmta fiscal year 2016 year end financial audit. >> good afternoon mrs. [inaudible] >> good afternoon. thank you for hearing the item. so, before you is my 10th year end audit and i wanted to thank [inaudible] who are not hear but other people who work on the audit. they are both retiring at the end of the fiscal year so it will be a huge loss for had agency but wanted to put that on the record. we are here on the fy 16 year end audit. sor ry, this is--what is happening here? i'll just have to go with it. i'll use the paper copy. let me use the paper copy. so, the year end audit is the picture of the financial status of inagency and no document for partners and bond holders so it is a important document for us. it is the-we have two audits the financial audit and single audit which is our grant review. also part nof city's overall audit. we do not have management of findings so that is another good result. ten years of no findings, which is very proud of. review of our income statement. our operating revenue went down $5.4 million last year and due to reduction in the fairs and wavers you gave to had low income and moderate income youth and seniors as well as the taxi drivers and renewal fees. non operating revenue went up by all most $40 million due mainly to development fees. we were lucky to receive the economy and also able to unwind sale lease backs. you probably heard about the 4 investors we had. we were lucky enough to unwind three of them so have one remaining so increase the portion of the lease backs. we also had increased capital expenditures. we are doing a lot of work of capital projects on the street so these were billable granters for subway and vehicles mptd we were lucky enough to increase general fund receive new so the transfer wechbt er went up. rev new went up by $272 million and expenditures on this slide also went up-the majority of increase as you expect is personal services in our hiring and our labor cost associated with the colea and labor and pension costs. we also saw increase in the contractual service mostly due to lrv program and overhaul and repair and minor increase in other minor line items. total increase expenditures increase by $80 million but that was much lower than our increased in revenues. with that-sorry, i have the wrong--here is quick summary of our balance sheet. so, we saw a position increase by all most $500 million. the majority of it due to the capital side as we do capital work. capital investment and infrastructure are increasing. pretty good news and hopefully continue on the trends. let me introduce the kpmg partners who done a great job working with us to get through the audit. lisa [inaudible] managing director. i'll turn it over to lisa. >> good afternoon. >> thank you. if we have technical difficulties here i have a copy here. we'll use the overhead projection here. so, thank you for having me here this afternoon. as part of our audit, we are required under our auditing standard to discuss our present certain items to those key members of management one being the ovsite committee here today. we can do this in letter or in person so appreciate the opportunity to be here. now, if you look at the first slide here , this is disclosing what our responsibilities are under auditing standards and what we must comply with. we must consider internal control at the organization to design an effective and efficient audit approach. we must also design and implement audit procedures base odthen understanding of the organization to gain reasonable but not absolute assurance that it there are no material misstatements in the financial statementsment we must also perform tests of compliance with certain provisions law jz regulations. as you know mta receive as lot of federal fund{there are laws and regulations to xum ply with so are required to consider those. we also do a separate single audit which looks at complains and still under way so will be back to present results. we fob [inaudible] if you have the financial statement there is a section called management discussion and analysis. that is what management uses to put into their own words what happened during the year. we do not apine on that but are required to read it to make sure it is correct and it was. the significant accounting policies that mta uses to prepare the financials are consistent with what we have seen in other industry practice across the cuntsry. they also discuss the qualitative aspect of the accounting practice and not just focus on the numbers so it provides transparency into what the readers have. now, when we conduct our audit there are numbers that we can easily trace to invoices or bank statements, debt agreements, however, there are some estimates required in the financial statements sup as a estimate for workers compensation, general liability in addition the city allocate as portion of the overall city wide pension liket to mta, so we have to use acwares to look at that. they look at fact and circumstances and they look at the potential for management bias in there and that the end of the day if they were able to conclude the estimates presented are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. there were no uncorrected misstatements identified and we did not identify any misstatements during the audit, so great job to the accounting team. we also noted no control defix ficiencies. the audit was completed and issued in the timeline with what we agreed on prior to coming to the engagement. as mrs. bow stated the financial statements received a clean bill of health during the year. during the audit we encountered no disagreement or difficulties with managementism we were able tocomplete it on time and the accounting department providing full cooperation, documents request of staff resources necessary to help complete the audit. there were no consultations with other accountants. would it be a bad thing if ort accountants were consulted during the year? it is fairly common in our organization tooz have management accountsing contact other consultant to implement unique and difficult transactions, however, this more focused on did they not like an opinion that we had and therefore wnt opinion shopjug now we did not encounter therethat. there were no major ish oo as prior to retention and management sent a representation letter and it is a standard document they send that lists out everything they took responsibility for such as adopting sound accounting policies and principles in compliance with laws and reg ulations. does anyone have any question snz >> ten years in a row. pretty good. a general question. i don't know if you audit other transportation agencies, but is there a common problem that occurs and agencies have problems? where are weaknesses in other agencies so we can be aware of it. >> i think mta has done a great job managing contracts and grants they have with the central subway system and capital improvalment projects i have seen at other agencies a lot of project management there. not only on site but in the accounting department as well aconting for the multiple grantss that come in and the grants guidance changed over the last year and there is now a new set of rules that the feds require audit or agencies to follow. unfortunately you can't just go to the federal guidelines like in the past and said this is what they want us to do, each federal agency transportation, health and human service, education, has to develop their own. it is understanding the grant requirements because if you dont then that is where the findings pop up and so i have seen other agencies struggle with that. so far in the financial statement audit we didn't have findings to report on laws and compliance. >> member s of the board. thank you very much. >> thank you and thank you mrs. bow frz all the years of hard work and hope that when you lose your two key people you have great replacements coming up. >> anyone interested inthosis positions please apply at s f gov.org. dust off your cta certificate. >> this is not a action item. >> no members indicated interest in addressing on this matter. >> 15 presentation and discussion regarding the muni customer satisfaction survey. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon again. chairman and directorsism candice sue communication and marketing director for sfmta. i'm pleased to be back again to share the results of our communey customer satisfaction survey for 2016. this is a annual survey that we conduct to track the level of satisfaction that muni riders have with our service. using the tracker we are able to see progress ovtime and measure the impacts of changes that have been implemented to improve service. this particular survey, the 2016 survey was fielded between july and august, so it took place after the april service changes and we i think are very fortunate to be able to see some of those results reflected in the survey that you are going see today. the good news is that once again we see satisfaction levels tracking up. the trend continues and they really indicate the investment that we have been maiging making to improve muni with your support are clearly felt by our customers and that is the reason we do a survey like this. so, once again here toprint the survey results is john canna parry from the research firm, [inaudible] and cory can parry galans is located here in san francisco. they have been in business for 45 years and a local business enterprise. the firm has worked with us at sfmta on a number of research projects you have seen before, the rider satisfaction survey, on-board demo graphic survey, state of cycling survey, transit effectiveness and others and sthai also worked with a number of other local clients both in the private and public sector including sfo, bart, sfpu c, mtc, vta and a number of others. so, i'm going turn the presentation over to mrs. canna parry and we look forward to hearing your questions after the presentation. >> good afternoon. >> thank you very much. appreciate the opportunity to speak today. candice, thank you for the introduction. first i want to talk about details how we did the survey. so the survey was conducted by telephone. it was conducted during the july and august time period. we have been connecting the survey for over 10 year jz it is a annual survey. the survey is directed at users of muni opposed to everybody who lives in san francisco. to qualify for the survey we asked residents if they used muni in the past 6 month jz anybody who had qualify frd the survey. that the same. that screener criteria is the same throughout. the sampling on the survey used cell phones and random digit dial to get the broadest selection of residents throughout the city and made efforts to be as inclusive as possible including doing the survey in english, spanish as and cantonese. margin och era on the survey is plus our minus 4.2 percent and sample size is 543 which is representative sample size and enough to analyze the survey in many different ways. that is at our above the level of many city wide surveys you may see. first section on the presentation is usage of muni. we asked questions about useage. one question is frequency of riding muni. we had a broad mix of users. we had regular users who use 5 or more days a week down to less than once a month so got opinions fwraum a variety of users. we also asked the purms of using muni. people use muni for different purpshs but we asked when you use muni what is the main purpsh the trip that you make. commuting to work or using the service for business purpose is response but personal appointments, rickriation, entertainment and shopping were also mention said. we also asked about fair payment among the respondents. we had close to 2/3 who use clipper. bet 3 and 10 who use cash and other ways as well as far as frumuni offerings. satisfaction ratings. this is the meet of what we were king. there are a lot of questions but a primary reez frn the survey is track satisfaction and to be able to track attributes as far as ratings of muni over time. a key question on the sur vau was overall satisfaction of muni. the question is how would you rate muni service, excellent, good, fair or poor. 17 percent, celebrity, 53 percent good, 24 percent fair and 5 percent 4 so when you combine the excellent or good ratings when chis what you do in survey of this type your have 70 percent satisfied. candice mentioned, this continues in upward trnd for satisfaction that we have seen for about 4 or 5 years now. when you look at it just over the past 3 years, what you can see combining the ratings, in 2014 64 percent said excellent or good. 15, 67 percent up to the 70 percent. another value of showing the chart is if you look to the end to the poor rating. so what you see there is it is not big but you see a slight decrease in the poor, which is what you want to see. what you dont want to see is our satisfaction is increasing and excellent good but we got tabump in the poor rating because you are not seeing that increase which we are able to show you today. thestanding and key values of the survey is have the information going back to 2001. you can see the 70 percent excellent good rating in 2016 is increase over the past couple years but you can also see that trending increase really starting in 2010 at 52 percent and mubing up to 70 percent currently. another way to look at this same overall satisfaction is by different groups. by different segments of riders. what this chart shows, you see the 70 percent who say slnt or good in the total, but when you look at usage of muni folks who use the service more often versing more6 infrequent riders the infrequent rider are more likely to give a higher rating. they bring it to 75 percent those who use 3 times a months less or often where commutererize at 66 percent. that isn't a huge variance and also very common but what you will see in transit surveys that we do, you see folks who use the services more oftenteneding to be lower than the average so this is not uncommon at all. we also looked by service line type and what you see there is the rapid bus lines there is 76 percent excellent or good rating. there again not a huge variance but a difference. we also looked alt it by disability so respondent who indicated they had a disability or health condition that impacted travel in san francisco, there you have 75 percent giving a excellent or good rating. overall. moving to another question, we asked the survey of the aspects of muni riders would like to see improved. this question was asked open end. we ask the question and typed in the responses to the question and coded them into these categories. the top three in terms of aspects most like to see improvaled were more frequent services 20 percent. overcrowding 17 percent and better on type performance 15 percent. these are the partial list but top ones that came up. another key section asked about spirfck attributes of muni and asking riders to rate the attributes using that same scale for overall satisfaction, the four point scale. this chart sort of shows two things, it shows in 2016 the rating that riders gave each of the attributes and it also compares that rating to previous years. attributes we asked were things like operator helpfulness, safety and security, cleanliness. a couple take aways from the chart is similar to the overall satisfaction, most of these ratings are either showing increase or improvement or flat similar to previous years. another is looking independently at each of these and you see accessibility for persons with disubltds, there is 75 percent excellent or good rating. keep in mind this is among all riders rating this. operator helpfulness, 71 percent and that i think i also like to point out that is continuing to improve versus 2017 2015 and 14. the one on the bottom of the list is managing crowding on muni vehicles which only 35 percent give a slnt or plus rating. looking on the plus side you see improvement compared to previous years. this chart is i think a very useful chart and takes the same attributes on the previous chart and plots them. the plots that are being used or being on this chart are showing each of the attributes and showing how much they correlate to overall satisfaction. if you look at the attribute we applied correlation coefficient to see how much impact or effect they have on overall satisfaction. as you go towards the top of the chart, those are the attributes which have the most impact on oevall satisfaction. the top three up there are reliability or on time performance is one, frequency of service and trichs take a reasonable amounts of time so clearly the ones with the most impact with riders on satisfaction. what is the value of that? the value of it is-it tells you if you-if those ratings change, for knmp, example, if you see decline in one or more of the top 3 you are very likely to see a decline in overall satisfaction among all riders. slight improvements on those attributes tend to also correlate to overall satisfaction ratings. increases. it doesn't mean the other attributes that we are testing on are unimportant but it means in terms of priorities and resources if you were to make a huge investment on managing crowding and muni vehicles there is value to that but it is likely not going have a big as impact on the riders perception of overall satisfaction. we asked other questions regarding sfmta and one of the questions was in general how familiar are you with the sfmta and responsibilities. there you have about half who say they are very or somewhat familiar with the sfmta. i think the usefulness of asking this question is knowing that these are riders remember. about half the riders are not familiar with the sfmta and so as you do outreach and as you communicate with riders or others, it is something to sort of keep in mind saying half the folks know the agency and then others maybe struggle with that so making sure that is clear and communication is made. the next section talks about alternatives to muni. we haven't asked this the entire court. there are very interesting results relating to alternatives. the question is think about your last muni trip. if muni wasn't available for the trip how would you have gotten where you need to go. the top alternative is use a ride sharing service, 29 percent. the next is walked, 21 percent. drive at 14 percent and so on. as i take it to the next slide a interesting thing is this is again showing the same information and comparing it to 2015. so, here what you see, the using ride sharing servicess is at 29 percent in 2016 and that is a huge jump from 18 percent in 2015 so 11 percent increase in terms of what your riders say they would use as a alternative. that is a really big year to year jump for a survey of this type. the rest the chart shows other differences so using other transit such as bart, walking our riding saw increases and drives which happened to be the main or top alternative in 2015 saw decrease of 7 percent. these are year to year i think is the think i point out the most saying that is a big difference in terms of what people say they would use. we asked questions about muni related apps. this chart shows that about 51 percent say they downloaded a muni related app at some point. next chart-this is among folks who said the 51 percent who said they had downloaded a muni related app. the top two were nerks bus at 49 percent and radacy at 22 percent. people may have given more than one app so the chart is more than 100 percent. this was a new question that was added in the survey relate today submitting complaintory suggestion. the question was, if you submit a complaints our suggestion how would you prefer to submit it? hoor you have about about 43 percent through the website or through a website. 29 percent call agphone number and 15 percent a phone app. ect. finally, we asked how would you prefer to hear back from muni about a complaint or suggestion. here you have the top by far means of communication is e-mail at 65 percent. over the phone and u.s. mail are the ones that come up after that. with that, that concludes my presentation and happy to take questions. very interesting. thank you. >> thank you, very good presentation and happy i have to retain my 168 from 64 percent drivers to 70 percent. that is a retaining of myself i'm very happy to do. i'm pleased to see the occupyerator helpfulness is noted and high because i think our operators are fantastic. when we kind of drill down on the rail riders since they seem to have the lowest or lower satisfaction ratings, can we using the chart that you showed of the impact do we know what we need to do to get the rail users satisfaction up? >> we are not see a huge differentiation there. sometimes if we see difference of 15 percent between certain segments you would say you have a issue but to answer your question there are couple ways to look at it. one is looking at the cross tab squz seeing which attributes rate differently from the rest the rider jz the other is apply the same chart where we look at the value or importance levelf lerfbl and that could be a interesting chart. >> i knee we are expecting the new rail cars which will help because i know the buses have help rider perception mptd the frequent riders as we saw were only as good at the last ride that we gave them so that isn't prizer surpriser so if you take the bus more often you encounter a issue more often. i'm pleased to see the results so thank you very much for the work on this. >> i think this is great and thought it chs interest toog note the bus rapid transit people were overly happy and interesting to drill down whether those were areas with red lanes because the issue comes up and nice to be able to show whether there is a correlation between the red lanes and the perceived speed of buses so think that would be interesting to drill down on. one thing is mode shift hasn't significantly increased over time and i wonder if you thought about asking the people who say they don't ride muni why. i think there is problem with percension and realty. people have a perception muni is bad because they dont take it and remember the days when we were not great so don't know if we looked at a survey starg targting those that are car drivers to understand why they perceive about us that we might be able to then help them mode shift. >> we do a have information on that. one of the qualification is if they used muni in the next 6 months. if they said no we ask a question which was the biggest barrier to muni use and so we do have that in the report. the biggest barrier people perceived from muni is muni trips take too long. 15 percent. the next one and remember we were calling throughout the city is commuter travel out of the city. they are leebing the city. that was the reason they gave us and that was 13 percent and then the next one which came up among 8 percent is rural such as seating, eating, fair payment and enforced on board which is a interest one. you had about 8 percent saying that. >> what the time of the percentage on that? >> 8 percent. >> no time. >> 15 percent. >> i think when we talk about speeding up muni and increasing on tinal performance i think we have to remind people the biggest reason from your on survey results that people dont take the system is because they perceive it takes too much time so time does matter despite the fact people say it doesn't matter and that bears out in this survey and also bears out for the happiest group of riders being the rapid bus riders. rail has the challenges because the congestion in the tunnel which impacts satisfaction at some level there. i'm guessing here, but i know more often there are issues in the tunnel where the buses on the streets deal wg other car squz other things. >> director ram os. >> thank you for the report, it was very interesting for sure. i think like director borden the fact most people feel like frequency and crowdjug travel time are the most important things is really interesting because from my perspective the transit only lanes help with that tremendously and we should make sure we remind people when we talk about this that that's the reason we are doing this. we can't reduce the crowding and frequencies-we can put more buses out but they bunch up and the trips are not any faster and it is not as efficient as just creating the transit only lane so think it is helpful information. i also think that it is very interesting that affordability didn't come up as primary concern. i know that is issue in the past i like to think it is because of all the headway we made with making transit more affordable to people especially people of lower incomes. however, i'm also interested in knowing a litm more about the logic behind it being a random survey opposed to targeting our rider base in terms of like a demo graphic that reflects the actual base itself like in terms of income and languages and maybe geography. i wundser wundser if there is interest in doing that in the future because i do want to make sure that we are talking to the folks that are most in need of our assistance. >> i think a value in sampling it in a way by phone, it is relatively unique to do a transit survey this way and a biggest benefit is you can do it every year and do it at a reasonable level versus onboard survey we do where maybe it is every three years. to cover-especially geographically to do that coverage through telephone survey is realistic. on-board you can do it but you have to deploy surveys to the bus squz do the surveying so it becomes a much larger effort. in sampin'ling this way get a good geographic representation and get representation in terms of languages and socio economics cross the board so from a sampling perspective, it is pretty good. can you do a larger sample size or different way tooz do it? without a doubt. we have on-board surveys. the value to do something like that is you can look at it in more detail. say you want to compare folks who use one california versus those who use another bus line and get sample size at the level to compare that and drilling down deeper. to do annually it is a pret eeffective way. >> we do that. the last one was 2012 and about 22,000 riders including on-board and getting to to early next year another one. it isn't something we can do every year, but every 3 or 4 years and that's how we have some of what when we bring you projects and muni forward projects i can tell you some the demo graphics of the lines and where that data comes from. definitely with you on just hard to do every year. >> i can aimanen. it is great work and appreciate the findings for sure. it is intdication we are headed in the right direction and it will make for supporting the efforts of muni forward projects we have been trying to move along. lastly, i always have been pronouncing the app routey and never had it pronounced routeacy but maybeimeer the one wrong. y >> i think ratacy. >> i wonder if you saw a difference from one of the 5 zorens to the other. >> we have by zone but didn't break it down in the presentation so there are differences. we didn't see glaring differences but we have a broken out by the 5 zones and something we can provide. no major differences there but there were differences. >> also, i didn't see questions but there was a data collected on car ownership? >> good question. i have to get this back in my head. i'll check that. >> i see the parts about choosing whether to drive or not and curious how many people owned how many cars. >> i don't think on this survey we asked that question. >> i had a question. you brought up about affordability. do we ask people who dont use clipper cards why? i think that-i know one thing we were concerned about is increasing the cash fair but make thg clipper carbd fair not so and trying to shift to clipper cards and interesting to know why people dont use clipper cards or if it is perceived too difficult to get one or whatever the issue is. >> on this survey we didn't ask why. we did- >> we have asked that in the past with a survey we did in 2014 and one also the mtc did and think when we were bringing the fair differential and other things to the board we may have brought forward the data and happy to share. but we do have information both for the region and from muni what some of the peoples reasons are they dont use clipper. >> just 29 percent is still a high number of people to not pay with cash. >> thank you. members of the public? >> nobody indicated on this matter. you do have-- >> please come forward. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you tom gillbirty. couple of questions. no paper chart for us? printout? then the alternative rider on the chart was that ride share is that uber lift? i didn't catch that if those are two defer categories. next, more trains, more buses. i they think that will help emensly. losing federal funds if we have another 2008, sustainability. keeping our cost, keeping our product online. losing seats. i am not in favor of this new sardines happening. if the developers want to develop and we can't have our muni have seats for them, then they either have to pay more or they have to slow down their development. four, on us wheelchair users, signage underground signage at stations what elevators are working and what are out. sometimes i appear that is somebodys asleep at the wheel and the elevators i love to have them cleaned and love for them to be part of the station undergrounds instead of out and arounds. elevators are tough. glad we have them, but it's-ativan ynez it is very easy to get to and it is rank. corporate buses, those riders need to have a muni pass, a paid muni pass. 8,000 riders. they can help pay our system. our system deserves it. they are a part of the city. thank you. >> anyone else care to address the board? seeing none, thank you again very muchism excellent report. >> moving to item 16, which is aprubing sfmta 2017 legislate v program. >> good afternoon mr. chairman and director. kate green direct orphgovernment affairs. this program which a number have heard meprint on this before really is our guide for the upcoming year. it is our work plan. we try to anticipate based on the work that we are doing, what may be presented to us and to you in the coming year. certainly at city hall but also in the halls of sacramento and washington dc and it will be exciting. let me start in terms of what is included in your material today on a local side i have my colleague and partner dill en oyoung, our local government affairs manager for questions that may come up. but just to highlight that the san francisco department of elections will be satisfying the election results today and snd them to the californiasic ruitary of state. there were outstanding questions as the weeks went by following the election and confident all the races have been decided. the new supervisors in seats will be sworn in beginning of january in district one, sandra [inaudible] hill ree roanen district 9 and [inaudible] dist rblth 11. supervisor wiener was sworn yesterday as the new california state center sen center and look forward work wg him in sacramento. his seat will remain vacant until the mayor appoints someone beginning of 2017. the priorities in the local program and the local arena is so dynamic. every two weeks or even weekly all of our staff are dealing and managing and addressing issues that engage departments of the city as well as board of supervisors and those are outlined in general terms. we will focus on city wide interest of vision zero and key priority projects brt which you hear about in other briefings but will be needing contract jz other action before the board of supervisors. on the state side following the nrfb election we have a super majority in both houses of the legislature which hasn't been the case for some time and it doesn't guarantee that there will be outcomes we may not have had the opportunity to have before. certainly the 2/3 democraterize not homogenous in form but it gives a opportunity to consider initiatives that were not able to get the 2/3 vote. yesterday was the first day of the current new two year session so start the clock all over again, which is great. you have to really whipe the slate clean, but many issues included in the program are carry over issue jz i remember one of the key staff persons at that time and senator mark leno's office said even those this issue isn't taken over the line it is the hardest ish oo as that take the most time so keep up the good work and sometimes you need the encouragement. there are issues in the pranl that i think fall into that category. the first one really is always first is transportation funding and there was a special session effort over the course of the past year that did not result in a agreement that got to the governor, but without wasting any time both chairs of the senate transportation and the assembly transportation respectively did put across sb 1 in the case of center sen senator bell a transportation package similar to the one introduced in the essential session. the high level elements are a myriad of fund sources including increase in the gas tax, which has not been increased for many years. increase in the diesel gas tax. vehicle registration fees, increase in the sales tax which is what funds the state transit assistance program so have a dog in the fight and redirecting the funds to transit-additional funds from cap and trade program. i think that it is notable whether this ultimately is successful will be important gibbon we just found out curbt projections for the state transit assistance is down because the price of oil is down and the revenues are driven by the price of oil. where that hits us is in our operating budget and those are fund sources that are critical to smaller agencies throughout the state, but still important part of the agencies budget. we'll keep a eye and working with other transportation partners and region on overall transportation funding. obset of that's is cap and trade and the cap and trade program really we have come to expect it to be there but it is operating under a cloud of litigation and the real threat that it may not be made permanent. so, there will be-i expect last session there was a proposal by then senator pavly to make the program permanent but may see legislation to make the cap and trade program permanent and there will be whatever transpires from the litigation pendsing. the cap and trade program is important. we received about $95 million out of one program funded by cap and trade which is going to our light-rail vehicle program so have a stake insureing the transportation fundsed programs from cap and trade remain viable based on the auction sales. and then another set within cap and trade is concept orphdisadvantaged communities and how funds from the cap and trade program required to be directed to on a percentage bases, how are those communities defined. there is a very specific scientific metric developed by the california environmental protection agency called the cal e virow screen and irk wg mtc we continue to make sure san francisco's communities of concern are captured within that analysis and not left on the outside. right now many of the communities of concern in the bay area are not captured under the current model and so again i would acknowledge our colleagues mtc are leading the conversation in the context of regional planning but san francisco has a specific interest in the conversation as well. in terms of other new funding measures, there is a active conversation around a new toll bridge increase. regional 3, we have 1, 2 and look at regional measure 3. the talk is about a $1 increase and $3. the talk is about a $1 increase and potential additional dollar so total $2 and look at regional measure $3. the talk is about a $1 increase and potential additional dollar so total of two. the grant and project staff are working to develop project lists that may be eligible for increase in bridge tolls. i think it important to remember the nexus has to be the bridge corridors. it can't projects on the other side oof there city, but those conversations no election is ovhave begun to see if there is support for raising the bridge tolls. i would have togo to the bal td. the other projects under the transportation funding are large project jz continuing to make sure that as conversations continue on fundsing the downtown extension of cal train and high-speed rail future discussions about another transbay crossing we are monitoring that and figure out to the degree those will involve legislation. the second priority area at the state level and find this is where i have spent most of my time over the last few months is automated speed enforcement and a number of you have worked directly on this in support of thish this work with us and leading us and we need that. we are-i would say we made great progress over the last number of months meeting with interest groups, stakeholder, opposition, support, really building a coalition and that would not be possible without the work of our advocates in particular the dedicated work of walk sf and san francisco bike coalition as well as vision zero task force. really brought the community to the conversation. the recent formation of families for safe streets will bring a important voice to this conversation. they have really declared that as a new organization their number 1 priority is seek state authorization for at mated speed enforcement and look forward bringing those individuals up to sacramento and engage in the advocacy on the issue. there will be many or bills on vision zero bill squz will engage and monitor those as they come along. shared mobility, this is a basket and lurd about it in different ways even in todays meeting. i think for this year in thinking about how we engage on legislation relate today transportation network companies, how do we monfer what the cpu c is doing and transition the governor is interested seeing and moving oversight of the functions to the california state transportation agency. we don't know. how is the state our cities engage and weigh in on atonms vehicles? we know the department of motor vehicles are very interersed hearing from cities. on the broad range of topic, shared mobility we engaged over the last year in a i say a peer exchange fashion so far with 7 other large city departments of transportation in california to try to bring the big city vice-not that we have it figured blut the impacts and issues for city on this range of issues. to be continued and certainly a dynamic realm and rely internally on my partners at the agency for guidance. i would say that what we are guided by in all this realm are goals this board declared and embedded in the strategic plan, safety, accessibility, exwuty, transit first and environmental leadership. that sp where we start the screen and from there proceed to pick apart in the details. the last arena and it is big one and see what leads this year is parking policy. there are conversations going on in southern california around a issue this board has done a deep dive into that is disabled placards. we know there is potential interest in legislation coming out of southern california and the work san francisco has done on this will be a valuable resource for the work underway there. on the-move to the federal now and we have clearly a new landscape in washington dc for us to manage and navigate. the first work that we have done since the election really and this is really across the city is look at what exposure we might have in terms of the transition and where we need to be mindful what has to be closed out and what we have to look forward to bogetd in terms of project and fund sources rchlt we know that it is really too soon to say what the new administration will emphasize but the themes of infrastructure investment, public private partnership and streamlining are continuing to be touted and it is news over the last 2 weeks former labor secretary under bush 1 or bush 2, elaine chow nominated as the secretary of transportation and experienced in washington dc so we'll look forward building relationships with the team that she puts together. the areas within the federal program are also very dynamic. traditionally we focus making sure appropriations are funded at the level they are authorized making sure our major capital projects are funding. central subway is in all most in close out. if we get the grant amount of 150 there is only $23 million left on that project. it is excite toog think that project made it all the way through in termoffs the federal funding but there is more on the on deck circle so lots of capital fundsing to be mindful of. the administration tiger grants, innovation, we don't know what this administration will want to do with those programs so we'll watch that closely and also shared mobility at the federal level. nitsy issued the guidelines on automs vehicle jz we see federal agencies involved in that realm as well. i have notes to myself here about anticipating whether the question of whethersuch being a sanctuary city will result in federal funds being withheld and think we don't know the answer to that. there is a question of maybe. there is some thinking that any funding that would be cut off has to be tied to the funds that we are talking about. law enforcement and community development fund, but there really isn't a nexus like that for a threat to federal transportation funds. so, that's the landscape we are looking at going fl to the next year and know there are other issues probably on your mind but i am happy to answer questions. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for the great program. i am interested in shared mobility and of course what you said is exactly what i want to hear we will push for our usual values of inclusion, accessibility and public safety but i want to repeat my request we do what we can to make sure shared mobeltd includes people with disabilities, we have a ijaing population and think eeben in the best of times the taxi industry was forcloseed to wheelchair users, there is only in the best oof of times there were a small percentage of taxis accessible to wheel their which a irjz facing more limited transportation choices rchlt folks with mobility issues will only increase in size in the population so hope what we are doing what we can pushing for legislation that will require accessibility and move that forward. i know it is a huge docket and dynamic landscape but hope we can take a leadership position there. >> thank you. anybody else? >> thank you. good legislative policy and program there. as you know, automated speed enforcement near and dear to my heart and sound like this could be the work you have done getting sacramento adjusted to the idea and other cities on board and with super majority maybe this is the year for the pilot program. i think the family for safe streets are fam plaez who lost loved ones to traffic violence is a realary pornts voice in that. do we have sort of a unique ability since we are a city and county and one of the most-we are the most dense urban area in california to really be the ed loor leader and have people understand we can be the leader in the pilot program and be the testing ground and greenhouse to see if that work snz does that argument hold or does it not matter? >> you mean let us do and let you know how it go snz we can use that argument for sure and i will be super clear. now the proposal is for san francisco and san jose which is a two city proposal. wloo knows where this goes because you start and all the conversation begins, but i think we can always use that depending on how thinks go in the debate. given the foundation of support that san francisco has in expressing the 110 percent willingness to try this from the police department, the police commissioner resolution, to the public health side to transportation and all our elected officials, pretty compelling but i will also say there at least was up through the last session and characterize it as [inaudible] it is good enough for you it should be good enough for everyone and i think that we should be mindful of that. having said that, this could be a case where being a experiment zone on this particular issue as it's defined to be specific where the system would be and provisions in the bill that relate to privacy and reporting out, it could be a great model and others can choose to opt in and not be required. >> one last question, the regional measure through ballot, that waits to the 2018 election, croket? >> correct. >> thank you. that's all. thank you. >> now that the majority changed at the state and now that we got a transit champion who has been elected as our state senator, i wonder if it makes sense to reapproach the idea of the enforcement of the transit only lanes by cameras on the buses that are getting ticket frz the moving violations and not just the parking violations and if that is viable or on the radar. thinking about van ness, brt, geary brt, you don't have to look for very long to see abuse on market street with the red transit only lanes and mission, so wondering what hope if there is any. >> it is on the radar. it isn't something that is even in the back of our mind, but i talked about this as well. i think for the objectives that we have to advance camera enforcement in this coming year, not in the session but in the coming year, knowing how we confronted opposition on that particular use with the toll cameras, we are trying to tackle the use the cameras for the purpose of speed enforcement now. i think that to try to change the law as it related to additional authorization would undermine that. that is just my perspective. >> the cameras on the buses themselves. >> yes. >> the concern is that the automated speed enforcement is a uphill clime and more a years of work to get it ted up for possibly getting through in 2017. we are 100 supportive having the on-board cameras to do the moving violations, i think trying to introduce that and get people taejz attention and focus and education trying to do the at mated speed enforcement the former may detract fraught the latter so as much as we want that we need to focus on the number 1 issue which is being able to address speed. eeben in the past where there were not super majorities but majorities with local legislatures we not able to get the toll cameras through so the first order of business is focusing on speed enforcement and speed is the primary collision factor for serious and fatal-if we get that then we can move on to others. it isn't a matter of not being sure of the value of those cameras, they would help in a instant. >> i hope we are communicating this to the partners out there and etalling them know we are pult putting things on the back burner. >> 2.2, ac transit got the authority to use transit only cameras and will come online. a partnership with ac transit will be important when they discover how the system is working in terms of misuse of the lanes as well. >> [inaudible] >> i wonder if in light of the fact we need to back burner the red transit lane travel ticket enforcement could we do a campaign of the billboard on the back of the bus are call snd i feel if we remind people it is a $70 ticket for riding in the red transit lane that shows the police officer handing a $70 ticket to somebody because we have so many people who come from elsewhere and we are the only red transit lanes around. i'm sure a number are willful but sure some are through ignorns so maybe give a pictorial of a $70 ticket and maybe that will clear out 10 percent sthof cars in the travel lane. you >> you mentionedic wuty and disadvantage communities but i don't think we spell out equity over all in a more pronounced action and may be worth doing so especially if we have reduction fund to pay for seniors disabled and youth. we have money from google. don't know if that will happen again but think on our agenda the issue around equity it would be great if it were more of a official statement of our focus. >> that has come up. it comes up in different propose als such as automated speed enforcement and a conversation we are having now is around that issue. i don't have a answer for you today, but i think as we look to what the agency has already done equity decisions on our programs maybe we can be informed by that. do you want to make a amendment to this or to any changes? >> we can just it formally put somewhere. i think it is important because it is something-we have it bullet points of goals but don't mention equity so maybe that is just something to think about. >> i think we'll talk about it at the february workshop thinking about the next strategic plan. i think not just for a legislative agenda because ploest most of what we are accomplishing for equity we do locally ourselves, not with someone else. with the exception of the [inaudible] issue i don't know how much there is that we will get out of sacramento or how washington dc with regard to equity but i do think it is point well taken and think it needs to be a more prominent part of the work of the agency and may be the strategic plan is the right place to create that focus because it would apply not just to the the legislative agenda but everything we are doing. >> great. mr. hsu. >> on the red light enforcement or automated speed enforcement i wonder if you see difference in demo graphics or plitdical culture from the jurisdictions? i know what the opposition is. just curious what you are seeing in terms of why that plaid out this way in california. >> historically and there have been past efforts to pass legislation that from our own legislators seen the light of day. i think it comes with some of the historic taint that has undermined other programs when they are not run effectively and that is that they are seeing purely as revenue generators and that they are not fair in termoffs the types of images they capture that they are not accurate and those myths continue to populate around conversations and find when we sit down with people regardless of you know, who they represent, they come to the table with these preconceived notions and it is pretty much how is this not going to be that. how is this not going to be just lining the cougherers so think what is important for looking at best practice of implementation around the country which we have a fantastic report by the controllers oufs how 6 cities imp l.ed their speed enforcement program and what were public perception issue squz what had to be overcome to get the approval we are seeking. number one, i think was the perception of that it is just for the money. to answer how we are addressing that just spichckly specifically and think all these are embedded in the draft legislation still evolving is all the money is cover the cost and any additional money is directed to safety improvements and tying it to the purpose ofor which we are doing this is important and there is precedents for that as well in other systems. >> thank you. members want to address the board on this? >> no one indicated a interest. >> thank you very murch. >> thank you all. >> we have a resolution before us. >> motion to approve? >> is there is a second? all in favor aaye. >> iletm 17 is adopting a naming policy for sfmta. >> who is presenting this? >> a very special-- >> okay. >> good afternoon. >> my name is roburta boomer with also of mta board of directors. fun to be on this side of the podium for a change. so, the iletm before you is asking you to adopt a namer policy for sfmta assets. over the past few years we received several requests to consider various-naming various assets. let me remind you our assets include the transit stop and stations, garages, lots, operating and maintenance facilities and our rolling stock. so , at the request of chairman and vice chairman we put together a policy that is before you today. where we started is with a survey. we went to various properties across the united states and asked them whether they had a policy. bhen many did not the largest transit properties more equal to the sfmta do. those includes transit properties such as dallas, houston, washington dc, marta in atlanta, vta in santa clara and bart have naming policy. what we found is there a remarkable consistency across these policies in that it is generally agreed the primarily purpose of a station name is to provide users of a transit system with information in a very straight forward and unified manner to allow them to successfully navigate the transit system and the region. that is the foundation of the policy that we are bringing before you today. so, the common criteria used is geographic location. nearby intersection or major cross street. the nature of the environment, a well known destination such as the san francisco zoo. we want it to be well recognized by customers as a designation. we also had consideration such as the names must be easy to read, easy to pronounce, brief to fit on a head sign and so those were some of the considerations that we looked into. so, the policy before you today really draws a distinction between transit stations and stops and our other assets. so, as you know, the policy today says transit stations or stops will be named based on a geographic location. so, it will highlight a nearby intersection. it will be easily understood. it will help our passengers navigate to where they want to go. now, that said, we are drawing a distinction because there are some assets at a transit station or stop that may lend themselves to being used to recognize a individual or a group of individuals. so, this policy basically while the transit station or stop will have a geographic asset there may be asis set within the stop used to honor somebody or a group of people. so for example harvey milk plaza at the castro street station or fredeal cluzman tern around at the cable car stop, holiday plaza. another aspect of the policy says we are recommending today does say that if the mta board were to consider recognizing a individual or group of individuals it is based on achievements at a state, local, federal, national level because they have been broadly recognized to have made a social historical cultural or political significance. and of course we would also recognize people who have may recognize people who have made a significant contribution to san francisco's public transit system. so, again, transit stops in stations will be geographic, however, they may be an asset. we dont have recommendations for you about that at this time, however, there is other physical assets such as maintenance division and rolling stock and consideration may be given to a individual or group of individuals based on their extraordinary cuntbution to local public transit or other such purposes. the last part of the policy has to do with sponsorships. let me be clear at this point we are not pursuing sponsorships but the policy outlines the conditions under which the sfmta would consider a sponsorship in the future. so, all naming right proposals have to be evaluated with customer navigation as a priority. any such proposal will need to be a long term contractual agreement and of course anybody who wishes to have a asset so renamed will have to cover all costs. one of the foundations of this is we would ask the board to consider whether or not renaming a-not a stop, but a asset whether that outweighs the inherent advantage of something already wellknown for our riders. as part of this, we are making it clear the mta board of directors will have the ultimate authority to approve all naming rights. with the exception of one area and that is the paratransit coordinating council names their vans after individuals who made significant contribution to paratransit and accessible service in san francisco and that will continue to occur. that concludes my report and happy to answer any questions. >> thank you very much. very comprehensive report. could be very difficult issue and think it brings clarity to the process. we had a number oaf requests in years to name thing jz this spells it out as well. the issue of sponsorship jz all that thing. the key thing is named for geographic areas. that is the intent of the board. >> just one clarifying question, if we pass this naming policy, then does the actual naming of stations become a administrative question or- >> no. the policy states that the mta board of directors must evaluate and approve. >> okay. just wanted to check that. >> members of the public who wish to address the board? teaka. >> we'll start with shilly lee, followed by chris kitsy. >> mrs. lee, good afternoon. >> good afternoon members. my name is shirly lee. i'm the director of [inaudible] center foundation. i came here today to gain your support to name chinatown subway station after dr. [inaudible] or place his portrait or statue inside of the new subway. dr. [inaudible] is the founding father of modern china. he proposed the famous [inaudible] of the people and nation civil right jz the people [inaudible] he is a philosophy has huge and deep impact in china's political history so he is a revolution in 1911 rescued china and ended china's 2 thousand year monitor. dr. [inaudible] established a newination, the first republic of china. so, this year [inaudible] marks 150 birthday of dr. [inaudible] naming the station after dr. [inaudible] is exceptionally meaningful at this special time. all chinese people rounds the world [inaudible] came to [inaudible] 150 birthday. all members of all the [inaudible] are on the board [inaudible] of this great petition as it has great impact to chinese community world wide. dr. [inaudible] station will be in the heart of all chinese community in the world so we urge you to support this petition. thank you. >> thank you. >> chris kitsky. wi, may. >> who is speaking? >> chris kitsy followed by wei may. >> good afternoon. >> thank you board for the opportunity to speak again about the naming policy for the chinatown station and rose pack situation. my name is chris kitsy and live in marine and spoken before. names are ainary important way to preserve the memy of people and places and also to help people navigate. i like to share thoughts about this. if a place is going be named after a person, the person should be dead for at least one year. that is pretty common. i did research online with universities to do naming of buildings and that is very common. the reason is because after someone dies all the bad things come out about the person, the good, the bad all these things happen and this is actually the case with rose pac now. her sisters are now in a fight over the estate. here is what sf gate said about that. the size of the pac's estate is a surprise said. disfite influence she was surprising to have wealth. my other concern is we shared before is rose pac's kidney transplaent how is it people go to china and find a marching organ donor in as little as a few week squz schedule the time of their operation. we have world class medical care in san francisco, why go to china. there is only one answer possible. a huge data bank of live unwilling donors. it would be a shame to risk good reputation of the fine people of sfmta and city of san francisco by naming anything after someone like this. and when i heard earlier about mr. de sousa, the hero, those are the type of people that we want to honor. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> wei may follow alled by dairfb udbu. >> good afternoon dear members the board of mta. my name is [inaudible] on market street. first i want to commend you for your listening to the vice voice of the community and want to commend your good judgment named the central subway station geographly rathser than a person. this served the best. i also learned from the press and the [inaudible] about the guidelines and you plan to adopt today also including naming certain assets of mta of the concern people who made a significant cuntbution to the transportation. i don't object to that idea, however, i suggest that you add one basic condition. such person should not be someone who undermines the fundamental valueoffs america. as we all know, a public naming doesn't only recognize a contribution, it highlights what a person stand for. rose pac stands for bullying people and harming people and also stands for extending persecution and claims the lives of 10s of thousands of insents practitioners in china to the land of san francisco. she has done [inaudible] and hurting fellow chinese americans because of foreign regime wants to do so. she is a person who undermines the very value this cuntsry was foundsed on. freedom of belief. the sfmta [inaudible] any proposal that is offensive, discriminatory or promounts particular religion our political view. to name any asset after rose pac if is every raised will [inaudible] rose pac was a public known to be officerive and-that thank you very much. >> david bu followed by allen zang andinose are the last two people who turned in speaker cards. >> good afternoon, sir. >> afternoon, sir. afternoon chairman and board membersism my name is david bu and a resident in san francisco. i was arrested in china twice for 3 years because i practiced falun gong. three of my personal friends died of persecution in the past 17 years. after i was arrested, 8 congress persons wrote letters to me to chinese officials requesting them to release me. with the help of the u.s. government and other organizations i came to the u.s. 8 years ago after i was released. even if those who are not persecuted in china chinese come to us not only for the better quality, better education for their kids, but also for their freedom. san francisco airport there is a sculpture of the former congressman tom [inaudible] i respect him and he deserves this. rose pac doesn't. other people said before here today and before rose pac helped to extend persecution of falun gong. she helped the foreign government to do that in san francisco. what she did is against the core value of this cuntsry. if rose pac's name or picture is on the central subway, china station or any other public transportation assets people like me fell like being hurt because it reminds me of the brutal persecution experience said in china. thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> next speaker. >> allen zang and the last person who turned in a speaker card on this matter. >> good afternoon mr. zang. >> dear board member jz director of mta. i'm aums here to applaud the proposed naming policy and i want to address naming any other type of asset such as a yard or a division or a room after rose pa c if god forbid it ever happens. i'm not here to express a subjective opinion i believe orep argue for fallen gong in the cont vrssversey. what is happening in china about fallen gong is real and well documented. what rose pac did to fallen gong in city of san francisco is well recorded. we are talking about the facts that happened in the city. if you have any doubt about the facts that would bring to you please let us know and we are more than will toog sit down and help you with the details. rose pac may have contribute today the central subway construction, however that doesn't mean mta should honor with asset naming should you ever consider that. such naming should be based on the contribution and has to consider social impact. today, national high way in germany named after a doff hitler. he was successful building high ways and some were so wide you can land air crafts. history remembered hitler killed millionoffs jews for the crime of being jews so the issue of moral value cannot be ignoreed. i want to thank you for doing a thorough and quality work on the naming policy, i just wish arch the naming policy is adopted mta will not consider naming any asset whatever size it has after rose pac as her behavior against insents people deprived her of such honor. thank you so very much. >> dave snider is the last person who turned in a speaker card. >> mr. snider than mr. gillbirty. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i'm not sure i can -one of the finest books that i have ever read about the history of san francisco. it is called the silent traveller in san francisco by ching yee. he came here many years ago, traveled through san francisco and wrote a book about it. squt became 5 bet acapa order at harvard. right at st. mary's square in san francisco i think off [inaudible] i know how to get there by cab, i don't look at apps, it is in the back of my brain. there is a statue of sunia chin by benny befawno who is one of san francisco's great luminary artists and presian people. he met personally with sawnia chin. i suggest if you want a real treat and you want to honor san francisco, go over and see the statue of sun yeah chin in st. mary's square by benny befawno. >> last speaker, tom gillbirty. >> thank you. chinatown is known as chine atown. we have 16 million tourist that visit here and they can understand chinatown. all the people in the bay area understand chinatown. know it as chinatown. i agree with the geographical naming of the place. a number of times now i heard dr. sune being mentioned. i think the community of chinatown should kind of vote what they want in the terms of a stuchue. you come out of the station, if a statue was part of that intrenz and exist, it has a dramatic moment. we have gandhi at the ferry building. i don't know if it is placed right. i rather see it closer to the bottom of market street where many more people pass it by and remeend us what we are trying to do here. de-escalate from war and what not. but chinatown has-if they decide to have a statue on the ground by the station or across somewhere where it is dramatic, they should have that choice and do what they want but chinatown should be chinatown. thank you. >> do we have a resolution in front of us? is there a motion on that? >> motion to approve. >> is there a second. >> second. >> all in favor say aye. the ayes have it and think for your research. >> directors going back to your closed session be appropriate for discussion and vote whether to invoke the attorney clieant privilege and conduct closed session. >> such a motion. >> second. >> all in favor say aye. >> we'll take a tiny break before >> if you frequently travel before i van ness i might be surprised van ness will goodwill go the first transit corridor to have brt as more frequently known the goal to get conveniently van ness and geary boulevard one of the most reliable transit systems in the country van ness avenue is a major connecter between potrero hill and mission on the south side of san francisco correcting connecting us to the marina and state highway in the financial with the western edition neighborhood it is mostly residential a lot of the geography of van ness the rain that is wide it was uses is a firebreak in the 1906 san francisco earthquake a lot of building occasion that helped of hoped to stop the fire from jumping van ness had a light rail or sprash separating and along geary 0 when we came to the question of how to address the needs on haven because of its cost effectiveness we have found in the brt system with the new vehicles. >> the new mr. secretary is a change we will actually have transit in the middle ♪ the far legal unit and a broadly prom >> one of the reasons it is in the center a was it is an clouf right-of-way a set of pedestrians will cross from the sidewalk to the middle of the street a. >> to move the reliable along the corridor with this travel time had been signifying reduced we think the ripped will go from 16 thousand a day in that portion the corridor up to 22 thousand and we'll have those beautiful new one like this one. >> with the dedication of the signal and lighter saying that between stops we were able to estimate a .32 improvement in travel time and a 50 percent reliability improvement as a result. >> we're pitting u putting in a up to date modern system of new thirty foot high light fixtures and pedestrian lights on the same pole again inviting a comfortable environment for pedestrians. >> it has become a 3 dimensional street project. >> the water that is my understanding under the ground and the emergency firefighting water system month will be replaced and new street lights and traffic lights and the paving and stripping the trees both in the medium and on the side. >> the main core of the project goes from market it lombard that's where we'll be replying the sidewalks. >> there are a number of trees that need to be replacedit's 1:12 p.m. and this is the regular meeting of the commission on community investment and infrastructure and successor agency commission to the san francisco redevelopment agency for tuesday, december 6th, 2016, welcome to members of the public. madame secretary, can you please call the first item. >> thank you, mall chair, the first item of business is roll call, commission members he please respond when i call your name. >> commissioner pimentel. >> present. >> commissioner bustos. >> mere. >> commissioner singh. >> vice-chair mondejar. >> here. >> chair rooses. >> here. >> all members are present. the next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on december 20th, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. at city hall room 116 and announcement of sound-producing electronic devices during the meeting. please be advised that the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibitedat this meeting. please be advised that the chair may order the removal from the meeting room or any persons responsible for the ringing of one or use of a cell phone, pagerer or other similar sound-producing electronic devices. it's strongly recommended that members of the public who wish to address the commission fill out a speaker card and submit the completed cards to the commission secretary. the next order of business is item 3 report on actions taken at a previous closed session meeting, if any. there are no reportable actions. the next the order of business is item 4 matter of unfinished business. there are no matters of unfinished business. the next order of business is item 5, matters of new business consisting of consent and regular agenda. first the consent agenda, 5a approval of minutes, october 4, 2016. madam chair. >> thank you. do we have speaker cards for this item? >> no, we don't. >> commissioners, we have the minutes of october 4th, 2016. does anyone have any edits, comments? motions? >> i approve. >> a motion by commissioner mondejar. >> second. >> second by commissioner pimentel. please call the roll commissioner mechanics please announce your vote when i call your name, commissioner pimental >> yes. >> commissioner bustos. >> yes. >> commissioner singh. >> yes. >> vice-chair mondejar. >> yes . chair rosales. >> aye. >> the five ayes. >> the consent agenda is adopted. please call the next item . 5b, authorizing an exclusive negotiating agreement with tenderion neighborhood development corporation a california nonprofit public of pb yuan young community developers, a california nonprofit pba and prein an amount not in to exceed $3500,000 for the development of 140 affordable rental units including one manager's unit, for a low-income families and formally homeless households at candlestick point north, block 10a, bounded by ingerson avenue, m street, earl street, and a mid-block break, and providing notice that this action is within the scope of the candlestick and hunters point shipyard phase 2 disposition and development agreement and that the program environmental impact report for the dda adequately describes this action for the purpose of the california environment quality act k bayview-hunters point redevelopment project area, distancing action, resolution no. 52-2016. madam director. >> thank you, madam secretary and good afternoon to the commissioners and good afternoon to the public and thank you so much for joining us. commissioners we're very pleased to bring this item before you. as you recall, you selected a suite of development teams and we're bringing forward an exclusive negotiating agreement and pre-develop loan with tndc and ydc before you now and you should expect to see block 11a shortly in next couple of months. we have the development specialist in our housing division and she will walk you through background, the terms of the ena loan, as well as the pre-develop loan. >> does she work for us? >> yes, she is in our housing division. >> good afternoon directors. as director bohee mentioned i'm gretchen beckman for the authorization to enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement in the amount of $3.5 million for candlestick point block 10a one of the first ocii affordable parcels to be developed in the candlestick neighborhood of the bayview-hunters point redevelopment area. i'll start by orienting everyone to the future candlestick point neighborhood. as you all know candlestick point is located in the non-vested southeast jennifer tip of the city of the shipyard. [tpha*-upt/] shipyard phase 2 and candlestick point project complete with residential, community and park space served by new transit lines and infrastructure. the first slide shows the plan for the candlestick point neighborhood in detail. when complete the candle stick point neighborhood will be anchored with my the candlestick center, outlet retail space, featuring ground floor space leased to community-serving and mid-sized chain retailers, as well as cafes and restaurants. in addition to the retail amenities the neighborhood will also feature a grocery store, four family child units serving approximately 60 children and internationals african marketplace and to be planned community space. existing amenities of the neighborhood include brett heart elementary school, gilman playground and true hope church approximately half a mile away to the northwest of the site. 3rd and street and numerous shops located there is located approximatingly one mile to the west of the site. finally candlestick point recreation area is approximately a quarter mile to the southeast of the site. the 10a site falls under the phase 2 disposition and development agreement. the phase 2 below market-rate housing plan requires that 32% of the total housing units built in phase 2 be below market-rate. these units will either be built as part of 100% affordable ocii-sponsored projects or they will be workforce and inclusionry units to be included by the developer. they are of the first of ocii's 100% affordable lots and units will finish construction this winter. this slide is meant to review the rfp and developer's selection project. as you know, staff released a single rfp for two ocii lots earlier this year. respondents were encouraged to partner with organizations operating out of the southeast. two teams complied with this requirement very well, and scored high in the rfp process and thus were recommended for selection including the $825,000 max -- when we started this conversation, wasn't it about $250. >> that was -- sometimes that was your portion of the subsidy or if we had other sources. it used to be 2 and now it creeped up to maximum $250,000 but that is your side and multiply that -- you leverage your dollars -- costs commissioner bustos? commissioner sink. singh. >> vice-chairmone jarr. please call the next item, but before you read it, i need to make a statement. after -- yes, that is right. so please call the item and i'll make a statement. >> the next order of business is item 5c, authorizing the issuance of new money tax allocation bonds as permitted in section 3417.7a i a and b of the california health and safety code to finance one affordable housing obligation in , et cetera. okay. i'm taking over. madam secretary, call the next item, you have called it already. >> through the chair, chair mondejar, i will give a brief introduction and turn the presentation over to the deputy director of finance and administration for ocii. commissioners, again, i am so pleased to bring this bond item before you for this first issuance for affordable housing bonds one of which was the project you approved that is in the bucket along with other important housing in the shipyard and candlestick point, as well as critically important neighborhood-serving infrastructure for the housing that we're building in transbay. so we have incredible open space and public improvement and so our thinking has evoltched evolved. just as a reminder, a credit is the revenue stream against which the issuer, which is ocii says we're going to work to pay back the bonds, to pay the principal, which is the amount that we borrowed and the interest, which is the debt service cost. so which the market is looking at the bonds and determining whether or not to boy them, they are looking at the strength of the credit. we have five credits, the first is a credit we used prior to dissolution and we pooled all of the dollars from our many project areas to create one really diverse, really strong credit against which we issued our bonds. but then along came dissolution, and dissolution changed our credit structure because the requirement that we spend and so a new credit was created and that is called the redevelopment property tax trust fund credit. we refer to as the rpptf credit. then as i mentioned before, that credit didn't -- because of the limits of dissolution, didn't allow us to do the kind of financing that we're proposing to you today. so ocii, reached out to the state legislature and to the governor, and we asked for this special authority to issue bonds in support of affordable housing of our enforceable obligations, we call them our enforceable affordable housing obligations. and in support of issuance of trans -- of infrastructure in transbay. we refer to this as the sb 107 credit and lastly we have two special credits you have seen before. last year when we issued the 2016 bonds in mission bay and utilized these credits and these credits are special, because the property tax increment in mission bay is pledged. which means we have promised the city, and the developer that we will use all of the property tax increment, developed or generated in that project area in furtherance of the development of that project area. and we separate that credit into the infrastructure credit, and the housing credit. so we have in summary we have five credits. we have the cross collateralized credit, which we used prior to dissolution. that was replaced by the rpttf credit post solution and you are new credit we're using today and mission bay north and mission bay south credit and housing credit and the reason it's important is because across the top line of the slide you can see that those were the credits that we had intended to issue against when we presented our budget to you last spring. we said that we were going to use $185 million in bond proceeds to fund affordable housing and asked for the authority to reissue bonds in the case to achieve debt savings. and to do that we planned to use sb 107 credit which was newly awarded to us. once we hired the financing team and we started talking about this new credit and understanding the technicalities behind it, we realized that the obligation to protect the mission bay pledge, because remember, we have that requirement? because of the pledged intentionment. increment to spends the dollars in mission bay to, spend them in mission bay that we wanted to peel out that portion of the tax [-frpbgs/]. increment >> in issuing this separate set of bonds helps us really protect those dollars, and ensure that we're implementing the pledge. so whereas we originally conceived of issuing two bonds a transbay under sb 107 and affordable housing bond, what we're now doing is we're issuing a single set of sb 107 bonds in two series. one series is 2017a, and that is because it's for affordable housing, which means it's a taxable bond. and one series for 2017b, which is to fund the infrastructure. and that means it has to be a tax exempt bond. so you can see in this little chart that the sb 107 credit which we had originally conceived of as fundings -- as covering all of our affordable housing bonds is now being split up slightly into the mission bay bonds, which we'll talk about later today, the box directly under the housing bond. so the mission bay portion is going into c and thes other housing bonds we're going to issue is going into 2017a and then the transbay issuance that we had originally planned in the budget goes down into 2017b. so we're basically taking the same pie presented to you in the budget and cutting the slices of pie slightly differently, but with the same ultimate outcome, which is providing dollars to fund affordable housing and to fund infrastructure and transbay. so what we are presenting to you specifically today with that background in mind is bond issuance of $112 million to funds affordable housing and bond issuance of $150 million to fund infrastructure in the transbay. the affordable housing bond as i said before is a taxable bond and we're estimating about an 8% total interest cost for those bonds. currently we're looking at about 5.8% interest rates, but there has been a lot of market volatility since early november. so we have given ourselves a wide margin to ensure that we can still meet our project fund needs depending on which way the markets go over the next few weeks? we won't be able to issue until spring, and that is four or five months away. a lot can happen in those 4-5 months particularly with the new administration coming in in january. so wasn't to -- we want to make sure that we have the room to meet our significant project fund needs. the second bond we're presenting is 2017b. that is $50 million of tax-exempt bond to fund infrastructure in the transbay and there we're looking at a slightly lower interest rate of 7%. a total consider cost of the 7% in the market right now we're seeing about 5% interest rate. as a reminder, tax-exempt bonds have a lower interest rate than taxable bonds because the holders of the bonds get the tax benefits of the tax-exempt bond. going into a little more detail about 2017a, there is a list on the right of the projects we intend to fund with the proceeds. it's about 536 units, all of which are in hunters point and candlestick point and of course as our housing program evolves, these numbers might change, but in this moment, about we're looking at where our funding needs are and the number of affordable units we can fund, this is what we're seeing. if you -- to talk in a little bit more detail about 2017b, those proceeds will be used to fund improvements of the folsom streetscape, the transbay park, essex park and underramp park and it's the first of many issuances that will be coming before you to fully fund the project. but we anticipate that these dollars will get us through the remainder of '16-17 and '17-18. our financing team you have met many of the members before in prior commission actions you approved. psm as the financial advisor and kit hara as the co-advisor and [speaker not understood] and in a third prior commission action you have approved urban analytics as the fiscal consultant and we'll hear more about that later today about we talk about resolution 55-2016. and today for the first time you will be meeting our proposed underwriters, who have steeple, as the senior managing underwriter and back strom and stenson, an lbe as our co-managers. all these of these underwriters were selected through a competitive process that was run by our financial advisor in participation with the city's office of public finance and of course our finance team. and all three underwriters have provided excellent service to us in the past. so next steps pending your approval today, we'll be presenting the two bond issuances to the oversight board next week december [#12*-7b8/]. 12th and depending the oversight board's approval we'll send to the department of finance for their approval. pending their approval, we'll return to you with a second set of documents, our official statement, which is the document that we use to describe the issuance to the financial public to our potential buyers of the bonds. and pending that approval, we hope to issue in february and close in march. so if you have any questions, i'd be happy to answer them. >> thank you. before we take commissioner questions, are there any speaker cards? >> yes, i have one speaker card, oscar james. >> excuse me, oscar james again. i asked for this commission to approve this particular package, but i do have some concerns with some of these firms. not troubling things, but can you kind of get them to do some scholarships or some training programs for places, like college track? who teaches or prepare our young people to go to college and what have you? some may want to be in the financing business and what have you, to do some of the summer jobs, training for summer jobs and things like that? where we can train different people in our community, young people in our community to advance their expectations, their minds, or what have you? a lot of these firms we have dealt with before, and they were successful and they completed and did what the commission wanted them to do. but i think it's time for us to start looking at our young people and bringing young people in, especially in the third-world neighborhoods like bayview-hunters point, or mission, soma. to get them some of that training and a lot of young people want to get into financing and don't know how to get into financing and other things. another thing we like, as i was saying before, we had started programs with the model cities. we had 21 programs in bayview-hunters point and 21 programs in the mission and larry decarlo and some the programss we started in model cities. i was on potrero and 24th and i looked over and saw the building on the corner of potrero and the housing -- mission housing development corporation built that. we were one of the model cities that started development corporation and what are they doing now? do they have the obligation to do some of the construction and some of the things -- we need all of the programs that we started in the '70s to participate in some of these programs now. they have hire a lot of people and trained a lot of people and we need that to continue, okay? on some of the things that we did. you guys have to pick up the hammer and make sure these programs we have done in the '70s, which were very successful and brought them to can college and other things, to bring them -- and we used to have south park or whatever you want to call it back then -- we called it south park, running from 7th street to where south park is now. you go to south park and don't see any of the people there. it was filipinos and african-americans in south park and go down there and see how many people of those races were trained and had the opportunity to buy or do anything successful? they all had though move out and the next couple of years no mexican-americans or african-americans or chinese in the mission who have been there and we need to do something to make sure that those people stay there and the kids get educated. i am fighting to make sure that we do what we need to do for the young people, and i look at the commission, and the director, and everyone here in this audience behind me to do their part to make sure that these young people have the opportunities that we didn't have. thank you very much. >> thank you. are there other speaker cards? >> yes, i have ace washington. >> good afternoon commissioners, how is everybody doing? i originally came to speak on the issue and i wasn't here for the earlier one, but since we're talk ing about mission bay runs the same message and what i am going to say to these people i haven't said in last 20 years? well, most weren't here, except maybe one or two. first i want to say glad to be here, because i had to go through a medical situation the last three months, but i'm back. mission bay and all of these other developments that this agency and the rest of the city is working with has to adhere to something that i have been involved with since its inception and that was with the newsom migration and is it something that was been swept or the rug or neglected. i am back and my doctor said you can cannot do the micromanage, because i used to do 20 things, but i look at migration that covers everything. it covers every department in this city and county and it's going to go up the stream to california where newsom is because i he will be the next govern or and he has celebrated what he did for the black african-american. i am the czar -- self-appointed if you want to call it that. anyway, get back to what we're here to talk about mission bay. two years ago, three years ago, i had mentioned we need to put something together. maybe because i haven't brought it forth, but jim jones, because mission bay was put together by a black man as a consultant. i don't know if you all knew about that? jim jefferson, so i think that we need that history for the younger generation to be exhibited at mission bay and not only with developers, but all the rest of them. that is something that i'm going to be working on and i will put that on the rug with migration. anyway, my name is ace. i'm back, and yes, i'm on the case. thank you very much. >> thank you. are there any other more speaker cards madam secretary? >> no more speaker cards. i will close public comment and go to commissioners for comments and questions. >> i have a couple of questions. >> commissioner singh. >> first of all, i want to know what the length of these bonds are? >> 2017 we anticipate to be 28 years and 2017b we anticipate to be 30 years. >> the other question i have is 2017a, $112 million. is it taxable? yes. >> and the other $50 million, is it tax-exempt? >> that is right. affordable housing bonds are also taxable and infrastructure bonds are always tax-exempt. >> do you happen to know how many obligation we have so far? how many billions of dollars we owe? total amount. >> multiple hundreds of millions. >> huh? >> multiple hundreds of millions. for example, you know, just last year we issued $135 million in new debt. this would be $165 million. so we're already up to $250. so our total outstanding -- are you asking what we issues total? >> yes, total. >> since the beginning of the redevelopment agency? >> at this time, after this is approved. >> i don't know the answer to that, but i would be happy to get back to you. >> i would say commissioner singh through the chair, approximately $100 million of debt service as part of our budget, i mean our debt service is about $100 million each year. >> that is correct and i was reminded our total outstanding portfolio is $950 million. >> and the other question i have, you said market-rate is 5%, and why we're paying 7%? >> we won't know how much we're going to pay until we actually issue in february. and there is a difference between the market-rate and the true interest cost. the true interest cost is a measurement that tells you what you are truly paying to borrow the money, because it includes financing costs. so you have to pay both the debt service, that you paid to borrow the money and you also have to pay for the financing costs of all of the services and staff time required to issue the bonds. so the true interest costs will always be higher than the market-rate. also, currently over the last -- for the last few years we have been in a very, very low interest rate environment. arguably the lowest that any of us have seen in our lifetimes, and we're about to go through a massive political shift at the federal-level, which has already caused a lot of movement in the market. and there is is a lot of uncertainty about what is going to happen after january 20th. so to use a lower interest rate we could end up way project fund too small and can't meet our funding needs. so we have given this in the resolutions before you you are approving and a not-to-exceed amount and if the market moves and we won't cross this back because if be cross the bar, we won't be able to issue. to have this buffer will give us a wide barrier in which we can work, because the market is so unstable right now. >> okay. thank you. >> wow. any other questions? from my fellow commissioners? comments? okay. so i do have just one clarifying question. so if you are not able to issue you are going to come back and let us know? >> we would have to then revise our resolutions with a higher not to exceed true market interest rate and we would return to the commission for a revised approval. we would go back to the oversight board for revised approval about and back to the department of finance for revised approval. i want to emphasize this interest rate was selected in very close consultation with our financial advisor, who is an expert -- psm i believe is the largest financial advisor in the country and issuing with issuers nationwide. so they are constantly watching interest rates, and constantly thinking about what is going to be happening over the next few months? in addition, our underwriter steeple stenson and back strom are experts in their field and we have worked very closely with them. it's their job to watch the market daily and we're depending on their well-founded expertise to set that number. and we have set it at a level that we believe is appropriate. so that we will not have to come back to you in february. >> okay. very promising. so i need a motion to approve this resolution. >> i move that. >> moved by commissioner bustos and seconded by commissioner singh, madam secretary please take the roll. >> commissioner pimentel? >> yes. >> commissioner bustos. >> yes. >> commissioner singh. >> yes. >> vice-chair mondejar. >> yes. >> vice-chair, the vote is 4 ayes and one recusal. [ gavel ] >> >> good job. >> thank you. >> so our madam chair is going to return. >> the next order of business is agenda items 5d and e related to bonds will be heard together, but acted on separately. 5d, authorizing the issuance of new money and refunding tax allocation bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to skeet $55 million. approving and directing the execution of an indenture of trust, a bond purchase contract, and redemption agreements and approving other related documents and actions. mission bay north and mission bay south affordable housing obligations. discussion and action. resolution no. 54-2016. and 5e, authorizing a first amendment to the personal services contract with urban analytics a california limited liability company for fiscal consultant services to increase the contract amount by $27,500 for an aggregate amount not to exceed $197,500 to facilitate bond issuances, discussion and action, resolution no. 55-2016. madam director. >> thank you, madam secretary and thank you again to the members of the public for your continued participation. commissioners, this next set of actions are again critically important to implementing your work program that was approved not just by you, but the board of supervisors and mayor as part of your budget so we can move forward with our affordable housing program in mission bay. very exciting. the first new bond issuance in mission bay for affordable housing. since dissolution. and a series of consultant contracts, the amend with urban analytics to do the necessary due diligence to move forward with this issuance. again, i would like to invite deputy director of finance and administration to walk you through this miss bay bond issuance for housing, as well as refunding. >> thank you, executive director bohee and commissioners, i'm the deputy director of finance and administration. today we are here to dive into a little greater detail on the bonds that you authorized in the '15-16 budget, as well as amend one of the contractss for a member of the financing team that is critically important to issuing the bonds that you approved in fiscal year 15-16 budget. before you particularly you have two resolutions. of the first resolution is 54-2016, which authorizes the issuance of 2017c, which is mission bay housing bond. and resolution 55-2016, which authorizing a first amendment to our existing contract to urban analyticks who are our fiscal consultant . so resolution 54-2016 is the resolution that authorizes ocii to issue 2017c, the mission bay housing bonds which will be utilized to fund housing just in mission bay. so we're taking pledged property tax increment that is generated in mission bay and using it solely to fund affordable housing projects that are going to be built in mission bay. that is a requirement of our tax allocation agreement, which is a part of our overall agreement with the mission bay developer. in particular, you'll be taking four specific actions, if you approve this resolution. firstly, you'll be authorizing ocii to issue $55 million in mission bay housing bonds, and those bonds will two things. firstly, they will fund affordable housing in mission bay and secondly, they will refund a number of outstanding mission bay housing bonds at lower debt service costs. reducing our debt service and therefore, enabling us to issue more debt in -- we're reducing our debt service costs and then also allowing us to issue more debt in future to continue to fund affordable housing in mission bay. you'll also be approve something of the legal documents that are necessary in order to issue the bondses. first indenture of trust -- and our underwriters were selected in a competitive process, where our financial advisor issued an rfp. we received a number of responses, evaluated those responses with the team composed of our financial advisor, the office of public finance, which is a part of the city's controller's office. and of course, our financing team. again, i'll go into a little bit more detail later in the presentation. so some of you have already heard this, but i do want to provide a little bit of context. if you will recall in the '15-16 budget we had originally planned to issue $185 million in debt. and that debt was composed of affordable housing debt, and transbay infrastructure debt. and at that time, we thought that all of that debt would be issued under a single credit. the sb 107 credit, which was awarded to us in the fall of 2015 through legislation passed through the senate and signed by the governor september 2015, but because this credit is a new credit that we're using for the first time, after we hired the financing team and started to think about the technical in implications of the credit, we thought to structure the bonds in a slightly different way and i want to briefly explain that change because it becomes relevant to the financing team and to the fiscal consultant con tract. just as a reminder, a credit is the revenue stream that we promise ocii, the issuer the promises to pay back the bonds and those are the dollars that we'll use to pay the principal and debt service payments on the bonds. so we have to explain what is the source of that revenue? and the source of that revenue is of course property tax. but that property tax can be cut in a lot of different ways, and the way we cut that property tax is called "the credit." so prior to dissolution we had something calleds the cross collateralized credit that pooled all of the property tax from all of the different redevelopment project areas into a single pool that was very big, very diverse and very strong. post-dissolution, we do not use that credit anymore, because the requirement that we spend property tax generated in a property area -- in that project area has been lifted and all of these funds are pooled into a single pooled, called the redevelopment property tax trust fund and that is where we're spending from every time we talk about spending rpttf and spending property tax. so now post-dissolution we issue bonds against the rpttf credit, but that credit was limited because we were not able to use that credit to issue new money. and san francisco is in a very unique place of having lots of enforceable obligations that we're still required by law to implement of the of course, it's our many affordable housing could begations and our infrastructure in the transbay and in order to fund these important programs we worked in concert with the city. and requested a special authority to issue bonds to fund certain infrastructure. the infrastructure in transbay and to fund our affordable housing obligations. we were granted that authority in sb 107 last fall and now when we issue again through that authority, we call that the sb 107 credit. we also have two very separate and apart credits that are issued against our pledged property tax. as i'm sure you recall, in mission bay, we have signed a pledge agreement which are says that all of the property tax increment that is generated in mission bay will be utilized to either fund infrastructure or affordable housing in mission bay. and so to protect and sort of cordon off that credit and ensure that dollars generated in mission bay are spent in mission bay, we have the separate credit, the mission bay infrastructure credit for north and mission bay infrastructure credit for south and the mission bay housing credit, which is a pooled credit for both mission bay north and south. it was the emergence of this idea of protecting the mission bay property tax credit that led us to think a little bit differently how we would issue the bonds than we were originally thinking at the time of the budget. so i have a slide, which hopefully helps make that more clear. on the top of the slide, you see three boxes. that first row is what we conceived of our 2017 bond issuances at the time of the budget. we thought we'd be issuing a single affordable housing bond, a single bond for transbay infrastructure and then single bond to do some refunding. as i said, as we explored that idea, we realized that we really wanted to cordon off the mission bay pledged tax increment and issue a separate bond. so we could ensure that those pledged dollars would only be spent in mission bay. so if you look at the chart above, you can see that we have sort of peeled off a tiny piece of the pie out of what we originally thought would be the housing bonds and are now issuing this separate mission bay housing bond, which is 2017c. so it's kind of -- we originally conceived of a single pie for affordable housing. we have cut this little slice that is just for mission bay, pulled it out of the main pie, the rest of the pie is 2017a and this piece of the pie that is just for mission bay is 2017c. to go into a little greater detail about 2017c, it's an affordable housing bon. so it's taxable. but as but as i mentioned before, it's a '$55 million bond some proceeds funding affordable housing and allowing to us pay lower debt service costs. we're anticipating like the other taxable bond we're anticipating a total cost of 8% and we have listed projects where we anticipate using the funds. in the use of proceeds chart on the lower right, and we anticipate that the dollars will be used to fund 316 affordable units in mission bay north and south. in turning to the financing team, the financing team is composed of a number of members, which of whom play a specific and unique role requiring special knowledge. you have approved the selection of psm will be our financial advisor, assisted by kita hara as a co-financial advisor, john hall is the bond counsel and the other is the disclosure counsel and approved that in a prior action as well. to highlight in that approve the disclosure counsel, alexis chou will be working on 2017d, which is a separate refunding financing that will be coming back for commission approval in the spring. however, alexis will be participating in the issuance of 2017a, b, and c as we discussed this new sb 107 credit -- he'll be participating in those discussions and compensated on an hourly basis so he can become immersed in the knowledge and to assist us for future issuances for those bonds against the sb 107 credit. we have a financial consultant whose contract we'll be discussing in just a moment. the role of financial consultant is to look at property tax increment, and produce what is called an fiscal consultant's report fcr. that report looks at the revenue and tells us what -- how many dollars we can anticipate being generated in each real development project and has in-depth knowledge of property tax rolls and what challenges to the property tax rolls are being made? and that fiscal consultant's report becomes part of the official statement. the official statement is our communication out to the financial markets about the bond that we're issuesing and the financial structure and the underlying credit underneath it. the fiscal consultant also issues -- does the work for our annual disclosure reports required by the sec. and the fiscal consultant for this issuance 2017c is urban analysticss analytics. we had a very productive and successful relationship and we have worked with piper in the past. and we look forward to working with them again. so our next steps are pending your approval of 2017c, and the accompanying resolution. we will present this same information to the oversight board next week on december 12th. pending their approval, we will send all of this information to the department of finance, and request their approval to issue the bonds. pending their approval we'll come back to you with the official statement for your review, and approval. and pending that approval, we'll issue the bonds in february and hope to close in march. so again, because you have a number of resolutions before you today, the action that we're asking to you take now is for resolution 54-2016, which would approve the 2017c bonds, which are to fund affordable housing in mission bay, and to refund existing mission bay housing debt to achieve debt service savings. so we have another resolution that we'd like to ask to you consider at the same time. this is resolution 55-2016. and this resolution is the first amendment to our existing fiscal consultant contract. as i mentioned before, the fiscal consultant's provides a number of reports required for the issuance of bondss and he works on annual disclosure reports for the sec once those bonds are issued. and what we'd like to do today is amend the existing contract to add a scope of service to provide fiscal consultant report and this annual disclosure for 2017a, which are the bonds to fund affordable housing, 2017b, which are the bonds to fund infrastructure in transbay, 2017c, which are the bonds to fund affordable housing in mission bay and 2017d, which is a refunding bond that we'll be bringing before you in the spring. this additional scope of service would require an increase of the contract not-to-exceed amount by $27,500, bringing the total value of the contract to $197,500. as i said before, the additional scope of service is the fiscal consultant's reports for the bonds that we have discussed here today, as well as the refunding bond that you'll see later this spring and sec-mandated disclosure reports for those same bonds. the original term of the contract went through 2018, which is the same -- which would remain unchanged. all of these bonds will be issued in the next 6-9 months and we originally conceived of the fiscal consultant doing the annual disclosure reports for three years, which would bring us to a term of december 2018, which remains unchanged. so we would like to recommend approval of this resolution. so that the fiscal consultant can perform this important work in support of issuance of bonds to fund affordable housing, infrastructure in transbay and reduce debt service. that is it. if you have any questions, i'd be happy to answer. >> thank you. speaker cards? >> yes, i have oscar james. >> mr. james takes a pass. >> okay, no other cards. >> no other cards. oh, >> i was just thinking what i want to say in three minutes as regards to all of these plans, new plans that has been set forth that you commissioners as a rule just okayb [ inaudible ] i was just going back to memory lane sitting there. i'm 62 years old now and i thought about all of the great leaders that were before me and when i came on, most of them are gone. there are only very few of us left. so i have to get straight to the chase. i have to implement some things that i've been seeing over the years. i see mr. gamble back there -- see? what the city and county does, people that have been with city government, they go and work with the developers. so therefore, let me just tell you the plan that i have with migration is community reform. it is much-needed now because of this administration that is coming in january. i hear your presenters talking about the administration but what in the hell about us? i'm also like trump says, what do we have to lose? i'm also saying with them, do something for us. here you have -- decade after decade of redevelopment, done changed the name with lawyers and consultants and all of these niceties used against the community. so we need -- remember to implement community reform. flip-flop and drop it and everything that you did in past has to be reorganized. you guys have been talking about millions of dollars going for this and goes for that, but what about the community? not to say what you have already done to the black community in the fillmore and now the rest of city has seen what we have seen in this city for over 50 years through redevelopment, renewal, we call it negro removal. and i hoping that i'm bringing my point across -- i think i mellowed out a little bit about going to the doctor and having surgery. i'm able to deliver my message in a way that it could be received. but the deal is outmigration from this administration from room 200 and filtered down to the city department heads. therefore, these developers are oh, there is a new situation in the city? we have to adhere to whatever things that are going on with the migration and it ain't going to cost that much. you would rather have that than have me put together some briefs and sue and stop everything -- because it can be done. it might be fun. but the real issue is here we as blacks are in a state of emergency here in the city of san francisco. >> thank you. no other cards? >> no cards. >> does any member of the commission have questions? comments? commissioner singh. >> i just want to know, our financing team, i know a couple of people actually. i know mr. bob gamble -- [inaudible] >> sure, of course. if we could have our financial advisors from pfm stand up. this is bob gamble. gary kita hara and also from from joe's team and erica was not able to come today, but i believe she sent -- did somebody from crowells bartling here? i'm sorry. so you met erica many, many times before. we have from stehle john and from blalock -- thank you. from hyper, we have cara, i'm, katy costner and then we have loni oatum and backstrom, we have do so many conference calls, it's like disembodied voices from the phone. if i see them in the hall i probably would not recognize them. does that provide some context? >> thank you so much. >> you are welcome. >> any questions? no? i don't have any questions. i think it's a pretty well-stated proposal. there are two different items. yes? >> i move it. >> we have two separate items and i think we can take them each separately because they are distinct actions. so commissioner singh has made a motion for agenda item 5d. the issuance of new money, and refunding tax allocation bonds. is there a second? >> second. >> commissioner pimentel has seconded. please call the roll on 5d. >> commissioner members please announce your scrot when i call your name p commissioner pimentel. >> yes. >> commissioner bustos? >> yes. >> -- roll call . madame chair the vote is five ayes. >> it is adopted. with the commission's permission, we can have the same motion and second for 5e, commisioner singh moved it and commissioner pimentel seconding. (roll call) madam chair, the vote is five ayes. >> 5e. the amendment to the personal services contract is approved as well. thank you. please call the next item. >> next order of business is item 6, public comment on non-agenda items. madam chair. >> do we have speaker cards? >> yes, oscar jams. james. >> mr. james. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. first of all, happy belated thanksgiving. >> thank you, same to you. >> we were able to not surpass in bustos' group, but we were able to serve 480 people that were homeless with no place to go thanksgiving day and hopefully we can do better next year with commissioner bustos's group -- we're on your tail. the other thing that i would like to say, you know, and i brought it up earlier, we have a lot of programs that came out of model cities. and you know, i look in this audience, and i committed myself to trying to work with my community, and the city to try to make things better. i don't know if i have or i haven't, but i'm trying. but when we were model cities each program that we had, we made sure a representative from each one of those programs came to our commission meetings. i don't know if you guys can do that, but it would be nice to have people who you funded, who is going to be requesting funds to at least send one person to find out what is happening within this commission and the city as a whole? because we need input. i don't know how we're going really get people to start coming to these commission meetings burke they are important. you know, ace and myself, which it was a lot of people before that use d to come to the commission meets and when i came, nobody of this color was on this commission -- desks were turned over to get people who were being represented to participate as commissioners and things like that. now we have this, we have the people who care and we had people to me that are more caring about our community than ever before. you know, for us, for you to sit up in this commission and i know a lot of this is volunteer time and we have all volunteered time. a lot of people think you are making money coming up here, but you know, you leave your jobss and things to come and to make this city better and the communities better. we need to make sure that young people start participating in this. i was young when i started coming to these meetings. i was i was about 25-year-olds when i started coming and you know, i think a lot of things have changed just by putting your input into things. you know, so i don't know what this commission can do -- i know we have an agenda out there now that all of the meetings that we had in the community, ocii meetings, the cac meetings and different things like that, we don't get brochures anymore that tell people that they are having these meetings. i had to ask jaman today and they have a very important meeting at the board of education and i will bring these same things up. they are having a meeting tonight and if he wasn't here, i would have never found out about this meeting. we need to make sure that meetings that are important to our community are being announced where we have people in our community being able to go to these meetings. you know, this to me is my job to, make sure i can come and a half voice my opinion. but it's a lot of people that need to come or should have come then we're going to have the audience like we have and you won't have anybody sitting out here, just commissioners that put their hearts into it. we need to find out how to have other people coming to the commissions. thank you very much. if i'm rambling, i talk from the shoulders and i try to talk from the heart and please try to understand and read in between what i'm saying to say. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. >> let me start by saying that i do appreciate this commission. as oscar said, i think this commission has more respect for the community, has more input -- not taking away from the prior commissioners or anything. but i have been around for over 20 years. but i have seen this one is really balanced and it shows of caringness and i'm not saying that the last commissioners were rubber-stamps, but this commission asks questions and the staff brings back the answers and that is a good thing. there is a lot of game-changes that took place. a lot of game-changes. myself, yourself, ace, have changed and hoping and praying that we can get the commissioners to come to the western edition. that has been my primary objective and it's not going to stop. it's due time, it's overtime. i remember coming to this commission and almost had you there until behind called and she told you she'll handle it. she has been handling it and maybe i'm definitely going to go downstairs from here to have partnership with this agency and others to do a state-of-the-art -- how can you do it? state of the filmore and yours truly ace washington is fully prepared to bring videos, tapes, and interesting subjects. now the other thing i would like to talk about is -- maybe i won't. i'll just keep it basic to the outmigration is going to be my campaign for the next few months, particularly since they are getting ready to change over seats in all of the city administrations is the outmigration, because that connects everything that is going on. i just wanted to stop to let you know that i do appreciate this commission. you guys are doing a wonderful job and i know you guys were just that close to the western edition and i think your cord was yanked. so i understand what is happening. you were yanked and now london has had enough time to say let's sit down with everybody and let's partnership and go over what happened in the western edition and how can we change it for the better? so our younger generations can see that wow, you commissioners are not like what they read about all the time, what redevelopment has done to urban renewal. it's a new day, new era, but we have no times for errors and the three things i call errors are misguided leadership and failed efforts and i am telling you is undermining the community. thank you very much. my name is ace, i'm on the case. >> thank you, mr. washington. we appreciate your participation. all of you. consistent participation, i should say. please call the next item. >> the next order of business is item 7, report of the chair, madam chair. >> i don't have a report. >> next item. >> the next order of business, item 8, report of the executive director, madam director. >> commissioners, just an announcement, on november 29th as you heard in news reports, the court of appeals upheld the lower court's decision to uphold the environmental impact report and related approvals from this commission and the city for the golden state warriors events center and office project. i certainly want to commend the leadership of this commission, the guidance from our mayor, and our sister agencies in that effort. i do want to applaud the efforts of our general counsel and out counsel, tina thomas and assistance from the city attorney's office, for this resounding affirmation and dismissal of the plaintiff's lawsuit. we certainly look forward to the groundbreaking and the addition this event center will have to the vibrancy of the mission bay community. >> can i ask a follow-up? any word whether the petitioners will petition the california supreme court? >> president rosales, members of the commission, the litigation team expects the mission bay alliance to file a petition for hearing with the supreme court. and they have until the 14th of december to do so. actually january. january 9th. they have until january 9th to file a petition in the supreme court. they have until the 14th of december to file a petition for rehearing with the court of appeal, which we don't expect, but we do expect an attempt to try to get the supreme court to take the case. but as director bohee indicated the project is moving forward, and we expect that permits and other activities to continue early next year. so that we can begin the project. >> okay. [ inaudible ] >> no, no, no. they have until january -- beginning the january, the mission bay alliance, to file a request toed to the supreme court to take the case. we expect that they will ask the supreme court to review the matter. we don't believe there are any grounds for the supreme court to take the case andment the supreme court has basically a couple of months and if in the unlikely event they were to take the case, it would be many more months' of litigation. >> the project moves forward in the meantime? >> yes. >> okay. next item, please. >> the next order of business is item 9, commissioners' questions and matters. administrate chair. madam chair. >> does any had a question or matter? commissioner pimentel. >> for the meeting in january, would it be possible to move the time and many community members have asked if the time can be changed from 6:00 to 8:00. >> certainply through the chair we can poll the availability of the commissioners and check the meeting available? we haven't published any notices yet for the special meeting. historically when we have been in the bayview in the southeast it has commenced at 4:00, but certainly commissioners if you have heard from folks that they would like it to start later we would be open to that to ensure community participation. >> i attended the parking lot meeting last weekend. it was heavily attended with community members, who voiced their opinions on the location of the parking lot and the impacts to the community. so i'm looking forward to hearing more of their opinions in the upcoming months. >> thank you. does anybody have another or any other matter or question? no? no? a christmas party, [laughter ] hint. please call the next item. >> the next order of business is item 10 closed session. there are no closed session items. the next order of business is item 11, adjournment. administrate chair. >> the meeting is adjourned at 2:59 p.m. very event [ gavel ] very efficient supervisors. >> okay welcome everyone to the san francisco board of supervisors welcome back and thank you all for your patience ladies and gentlemen, we have having at this time meeting as a committee as a whole a joint malia cohen between the san francisco board of supervisors and the san francisco police commission and at this time madam clerk can you please call the roll. >> for the board. >> thank you madam president supervisor avalos supervisor president london breed supervisor campos supervisor cowen supervisor farrell

Related Keywords

Mexico , United States , Philippines , Chad , Germany , Essex Park , California , Washington , Mission Bay , Togo , China , Sacramento , Houston , Texas , Bayview , Dallas , Spain , London , City Of , United Kingdom , San Francisco , Americans , America , Spanish , Chinese , Mexican , Filipinos , American , Kate Green , Gretchen Beckman , Santa Claus , Dave Snider , Phillip Nguyen , Samantha Robert , Oscar James , Tina Thomas , Tom Mcguire , Santa Clara , John Hailey , Jim Jefferson , Malia Cohen , Ching Yee , Falun Gong , Yan Linn , John Hall , Jim Jones , Herbert Weiner , Allen Zang , Alexis Chou , Katy Costner , Mary Square ,