Bringing to you. We would like to ask private employers to match to help supplement. You are taking this from street resurfacing funds . Does that decrease ability for street resurfacing . No, we are adding 4 million. It goes from 4 to 6 million total we would give to public works to do resurfacing. Where is the money coming from. We had 6 million of public money. Then they would give the 4 million to us four managed us. That leafs them up 2 million. So they are taking it away from Something Else . They are to receive 4 million of prop k for resurfacing. This keeps that hole and 6 million adds two more. It is a funds swap. They would release the 4 million to allow it for managed lanes. It is not officially eligible in the prop k program otherwise. Maybe it should stay that way. Since you are swapping money. Leave it and not use the money in that manner. Commissioner yee. It is a moment where i really do appreciate where this is going in terms every surfacing. I notice quite a few streets in district 7 finally. I am curious, when do the issues that we try to push is the undergrounding of the line and somehow in recent months or about a year ago there was a decision to maybe take a sabbatical from thinking about it, and i am trying to find ways where we could reactivate our thought process and get it going again because i feel like if we keep on assuming that why take the next steps with no money . Then you are never going to the next steps beyond that. You need a vision so we could go after the money in the future. I have been sort of disappointed that it seems like we are going to move to take a step backward from that concept, maybe two steps backward from the concept at this point apuse basically some funding that is sitting there which is substantial. It is not quite enough to make a dent on the whole program, but i think is it 70 million . It is 70 million as part of the development agreement. The plan now seems to be, okay, since we dont have enough to do the tunneling, then this just wastes that 70 million and moves the tracks to the right side then we dont have 0 0 70 million that is community was supporting, which was the tunnel. I appreciate your reminding us of the 70 million in the developer commitments and that the public needs to move it forward to commit those. The underground project is moving along through the studies we did provide funding for. Mta at some point a year ago decided to put it on hold pending larger priorititization conversations we need around the rail investment strategy. My understanding they were moving forward with the central subway to go to Fishermans Wharf and the m undergrounding that is one of the highest priority projects, four car capacity an chronic the diagonal of the city. I assure you they are interesting in it. It is in capital investment. The work that we have been doing with mta has shifted to city wide transit planning and particularly rail planning. You saw earlier this year the transbay corridor. How does the rail come into the city in district one, for example. We are looking at rail extensions to the second transbay tube. The m line continues to be a high priority system for mta, downtown expansion and potentially a southerly correction to connect to third street light rail. These are set up through the scoping word. Jeff hobson is leading that with the Planning Department and mpc and bart and caltrain. You can expect a scoping and early planning round information in the outreach hopefully in the string. I would appreciate any movement as quick as possible. When we are talking about other people that they mentioned the situation and we are looking at the apartments, 20,000 more people in the feature living in that area. The m is already at capacity. If 2 0 280 is clogged now. Thank you, sir. Chair peskin commissioner fewer and then commission near sheehy. Piggybacking this does nothing to alleviate the traffic concerns running through district seven for one and two on the highway 1. That level of congestion is almost unbearable now. I just want to mention that although i understand that we are studying another other door. I wanted to shine attention on the fact highway 1 continues to be a nightmare. As the commissioner said we are going to experience a lot of new housing. I would like to see what we have in store for that plan, and it looks as though we are a city that is grow very rapidly through a lack of planning that we are hit where we are now and alsandbecause we are not lookint transportation while we are approving development and housing plans. District 7, 4, 1 and 2 will experience more congestion on highway 1. Point taken. Commissioner sheehy. Final thoughts before the motion. I just want to understand. If that 4 million isnt allocated fo for the managed lae study, that has no impact on the resurfacing, right . Correct. The resurfacing money would be there the 4 million for resurfacing. And the additional 2 million . That could be there as well, exactly. What would happen if we didnt spend the 4 million on study . What happens to the 4 million . Through the chair the supervisors commissioner sheehy would be available to resurfacing projects. Okay. Thank you. Chair peskin so colleagues, i hear the discussion that we have been having. I think what staff has proposed and is before us has been discussed. I think the crux of the policy consideration is whether or not as expressed by some of the commissioners we want to start a longterm planning investment in the 101 280 managed corridors. Some of you do and some do not for what little it is worth as your chair, i think it is a long term worthwhile investment that over time will be needed as you heard with over 100,000 people anticipated to be coming up the corridor we have to do more than caltrain extension. At some point we have to bite the hov managed lane bullet. That is my thought. Why dont we see where the votes are. Is there a motion to move item 9 forward . Okay. If there is no motion we will not consider item number 9. Is there any Public Comment on item number 9 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. I will ask one more time is there a motion to approve item 9, the fund swap of 6. 08 million in local Partnership Program funds . Made by commissioner cowen and seconded by commissioner tang. A roll call please on that item. roll call . It dies on a tie 44 vote. I would like to schedule this at our december 12th meeting. I will ask staff to talk to all of you and we will vote on it again when we have a full complement. Would that, can we have the next item, please which in some ways may inform the previous item. Clerk item 10. Chair peskin is there a motion now that commissioner kim is back and we had a tie vote. Mr. Taylor i need legal advice. In our other incarnation we would need a majority of the body in the board of supervisors, six. In this body we would only get to five is it a majority of those present and voting or majority of the body at the Transportation Authority commission . Since this is a procedural matter a majority of those voting. If we go to the trouble every sending the vote. You still need six votes, yes. There is no reason to go through it in my short as chair we will reschedule for the 12th. Commissioner cohen your name is on the roster. I was going to make a motion to rescind the vote. Stephe receive if we get to e majority we wont have enough. My name was on the roster you acknowledged me. I want to be on the record that i make a motion to rescind. Made by cohelp and seconded with kim. Without objection. The vote is rescinded. Seconded by commissioner tang on that motion a roll call please. roll call . This is on the motion to approve. That fails on a 54 vote because we did not get a majority of the body and i will as i indicated previously schedule this for december 12th. Next item, please. Clerk item 10. Approve the 2017 San Francisco congestion management program. This is an action item. Chair peskin mr. Sana the floor is yours. I am a transportation planner with the Transportation Authority. I am here to provide an update on the congestion management program, cmp for the year 2017. Chair peskin this is a housekeeping matter. Can we have a motion to excuse the commissioners breed and fewer made by commissioner safai eand seconded by commissioner sheehy. We will take that without objection. As a Management Agency of San Francisco we are required to monitor and report the Performance Matters related to congestion every two years. It including monitoring the lol the delay from auto speeds. We are unique. In addition we monitor the traffic performance metrics, transit speeds and transit speed ratios. We are aware this plan that San Francisco has seen rapid growth in the past few years in both jobs and housing. However, the jobs growth has out paced population growth by a factor of three. All this can be expected to have a Significant Impact on vehicles during peak hours. Not surprisingly, we found that automobile level of service has declined from the past cycle in 2015. We observed that average speeds have decreased across radius facility types and in the order of 4 to 8 . However, this is much better compared to the 15 to 20 drop in speeds that was observed in the previous cycle of monitoring cycle for the period of 2013 to 2015. Looking at the longterm trends it appears like it has declined from 2009 and looking at the maps it appears like the most significant hit areas are downtown and south of market. Transit speeds have remained steady at 7 to 8 miles per hour. Auto to trap it is speed. Transit is more competitive related to auto. The transit ability to maintain performance is due to the radius transit priority treatments the city is make anything the past few years. Considering this for the transit first policy especially in the light of the rapid jobs and housing growth in this period. It includes updates in the initiative and improvements in the forecasting model. In the cycle for the first time we have moved the cmp to a database solution and created a web based tool for both exploding and visualizing this data. I would like to take this opportunity to quickly demonstrate the website which went live this morning. It shows a radius Automobile Service mapped on San Francisco cmp road segments for the latest monitoring cycle of 2017. Years later it can easily update this map for the past monitoring cycles. In addition, it can be switched between a. M. Or p. M. Peak. One could look at the specific segments by clicking on these links and this will update the chart on the right and i have clicked on the 280 segment. You can see the speeds have been declining over the past few years. Other metrics including transit speed, transit liability and auto to transit speed ratios. This will increase accessibility to this data for both the planners and the general public. Thank you. With that i will take any questions. Thank you for taking my suggestion and including the url. It is congestion. Sfcta. Org. Is that correct . Thats correct. Thank you for that presentation and for that tool that is only the bearer of bad news. Are there any questions for staff . Seeing none. Are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this dismal news . Seeing none. Public comment is closed. Okay. Thank you. Next item, please. This is an action item. My apologies. We need to approve the 2017 congested management program. Is there a motion to approve the program . Made by commissioner yee, seconded by commissioner sheehy. Roll call please. roll call . Item has been approved. Chair peskin i am sure commissioner safai ewill click on 280 and research it very carefully. Next item please. Clerk item 11. Approve the 2018 state and federal legislative program. This is an action item. Chair peskin it seems like we just finished last years legislative program. We come to you monthly with proposals for recommendations on state legislature and the program. It is an opportunity to look back at what happened in the prior year and look forward to what the opportunities and direction we as an agency want to take to inform our motto month actions over the next year. This also provides us an opportunity or you an opportunity to guide us and us an opportunity to also give direction to mark watts in sacramento. 2017 was really the year about senate bill 1. That was a fantastic passage but we are still looking at significant challenges funding transportation. I think revenues will be a theme next year. We a that cap and trade will be one of the major measures discussed as the expenditure after 2020 is to be established in the next year. Other themes we anticipate will be on the forefront next year is continued talk about the regulation of new technologies, we saw many bills last year and we want to make sure to stay on top of those and look to advance the San Francisco interest. Also, on the near material her eye don is the opportunity to roar eye don. The Speed Enforcement pilot the city has a priority for next year. Also seems the pricing and project delivery improvements that are a regular item. Sponsorship of bills, things that we in particular might look to lead the effort, the first is related to the managemented lanes effort. It would be as they have mentioned there is an opportunity that santa clara and san mateo are moving forward. They have authorization. We would like to keep the door open to join them and maintain the local involvement in that effort extending to San Francisco. A second bill would be to authorize tolling on the crooked part of lombard building on a study from earlier this year. With the Transportation Management on Treasure Island to pursue a Pilot Project for automated vehicles. And the task force is developing recommendations soon to be released and we anticipate there may be necessarity of Going Forward and getting authorization for more revenue measures next year. I am happy to answer questions. Any questions from commissioners . Any members of the public to testify on this item . Seeing none Public Comments is closed. Is there a motion to approve the 2018 state and federal legislative program . Seconded by commissioner sheehy and we have the same house, same call. The item is approved. Next item please. Clerk item 12. Accept the audit record for the Fiscal Year Ended june 30, 2017 this. Is an action item. Good afternoon. It is still morning. I am proud to present this. I am the Deputy Director for finance and ministration. I would like to thank or finance staff. This is the first year we produced a comprehensive annual Financial Report versus the basic Financial Statements you have seen before. The audit is now more comprehensive with an economic narrative. I would like to thank the finance staff and auditors for this year. They have gone above and beyond in any other year we have seen this item before the board. We hope you find this more digestible and user friendly. To the audit results. We have the lead auditor here to answer questions or present how he came to the conclusion of the clean audit for the Financial Statements and for the interchange and the bridge structure projects. Would the board like to hear how he came to the conclusion or just take action . Chair peskin i suspect my colleagues getting ready for a board of supervisors per visors meeting would not having said that this is an important thing to do publicly. If we can have a brief presentation that would be very helpful. We are dealing with fiscal issues as the ta, it is important to do that. Please approach. I will turn this over to our lead auditor. Lead auditor. Good morning. I am in charge of the audit. The purpose of the audit is to share the Financial Statements. Meaning that we audit the balances that you will see on the Financial Statements, confirm the balances, confirm the sales tax, look at project expenses, ensure the important numbers are stated in all material respects. The audit includes additional audit scope, single compliance audit and opinions were clean opinions, meaning we are no exceptions or findings to the audit for the current year. I could go through the financial numbers reported within the Financial Statements if you would like me to. I have reviewed it with staff. Would any of you like that or have you all looked at it . Okay. I dont think you need to do that. I want to thank you for your work and congratulate miss fong on another clean audit. It is nice when we have no material weaknesses or comments of any kind. Hats off to miss fong and her staff. This is a annual Financial Report that gets sent out to an agency that reviews the statements to make sure that it add heres to the accounting principals out there. It is a bigger package this year compared to prior years with additional information. Kind of like on a competitive bases over the past 10 years. Many is nonfinancial which is the purpose of this report. It is a comprehensive annual Financial Report. I want to thank the staff for helping us out in completing the audit. We had no issues or findings to report with respect to the audit. I would be happy to take questions. Any questions on the auditor of the oncation. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none. Public comment is closed. Is there a motion to accept the audit report for the fiscal year ending june 30, 2017 made by and appropriately so commissioner tang seconded by commissioner yee. Same house and same call. It is accepted. Thank you again. Mr. Clerk. Can you please call items 14 and 15 together. Clerk item 14 on final approval evaluation of Public Performance for 2018. This is an action item. Item 15, final approval set annual compensation for the executive director for 2018. Action item. Chair peskin i dont believe we need a closed session. If you want it we can