Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Special Rules Committee 71816 2016

ins this measure would still be within your purview. thank you. >> thank you. >> that's c-3 6799 -- c-3 699-11. >> i'm david, i'm a member of represent us and i would like to very much thank you guy, thank the commission for taking into consideration this action to try and bring some conference back to government, we formed our group about a year back, this is our first full reign trying to see how government works and how we can make our mark on it and attempt tog make sure that every person in the city of san francisco has an equal voice and no one is given preferential treatment because of the amount of money they can contribute, in what way and what manner and what rules they circumvent is important to us, we've been working to make sure that people's perception of government which is currently rock bottom both in the city and the state and nationally in terms of corruption and in terms of undue influence of money, we seek to curtail that, and we are very glad that you are helping us in trying to pass legitimate reform that is address this issue and helping turn the boat around and getting voters confident and excited about the direction that city government is facing. i would like to thank you from my heart that what you're doing is bringing a lot of hope to us and we hope that you stay on the right course. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, my name is jonathan and i'm a marital elections law attorney mere in the city, i have two minor comments to make with regard to the gift prohibition and the to the campaign contribution and bundling prohibition. reflecting on a comment i made last month during this meeting, i believe you guys should consider amending the gift prohibition to only apply to contact lobbyists as oppose today expenditure lobbyists, the reason for this is reflective in the kind of government purpose for passing this regulation, and that we want to ensure that those who contact city officials cannot curry favor with them through gifts, as i discussed before, an expenditure lobbyist is indirectly urging others to contact in the public usually to contact public officials for purpose of influencing legislation. there is no risk of quick pro quo in this situation and corruption in this situation, i feel by having a broad definition of lobbyist for the gift prohibition, you may run some constitutional or legal issues in that respect. i can't see the reason for this legislation and i encourage you to look at that, if a small non-profit spent 125 thousand dollars to say contact your legislator, your sports supervisor about affordable housing, that should not have them have a gift prohibition, the state prohibition that applies to all local and state officials, i don't see much of a difference by limiting a non-profit to 460 versus 0. another kind of just very, very technical cleanup and i believe theses the purpose of law and i wanted to make sure that it's clear, with regard to the campaign contribution prohibition, this is page 13, subdivision e, line 4, it says no lobbyist shall make any campaign contribution and it says if that lobbyist is register to city elected afflicting or have been [inaudible] in the past 90 day, expenditure lobbyists do not contact officials directly, they will never register to contact an official director, a small technical cleanup that miektd provide more clarity to the law, it's also more noting that there is a corporate ban on contributions in san francisco, so most expenditure lobbies cannot make contributions to begin with as well, thank you very much, i appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> hello again, michael petrelis, i would like to see this move forward and i am really concerned that if the matter goes forward before the voters and it's approved, it doesn't make effect until 2018, that's what i'm reading in your documents, okay, and i think that is a reason why you need to move this forward now, you need to get it on the ballot for this november because by the time 2018 rolls around and these changes go into effect, we're going the discover that the lobbyist and some politicians have found new ways to get around whatever it is that's hopefully going to be approved in november, like many of us have been reminded in the past few days thank tos the hillary leaks of all these e-mails from the democratic national committee, the system is rigged, the system is rigged against the public and when we have that as our philosophy with we're looking at what this commission is doing or wants to do and then the proposals that come from the supervisors, every step of the way and every person who's involver in your process is part of the system that is rigged. these changes that you're going to bring about, they're relatively minor in termser of bundling and funding and things like that and you know what it's also telling me? it's telling me that the supervisors are not doing their jobs, that they are trying to put this matter before the voters and again i hope it passes when the voters get a chance to weigh in on it but if we had the supervisors doing their jobs and creating the laws that we need, we wouldn't be putting the burden on the voters to weigh in on what is going to be a pretty complicated issue i believe for the average voter, so you guys, i believe here at the ethics commission have to look at radically changing how you do business and that also goes for the supervisors and all their aids. they need to figure out a way to address our problems, modify the laws especially in terms of ethics at the board of sups and i hope we get to see that change happening very soon, thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, i'm alex kaplan, the policy directly with first national, i want to thank you for your time and devotion to this, the open process of crafting this correctly and to give a big thank tos the staff who have done an enormous amount of work on this, i want also to do a quick cleanup of my own, page 12, line 11 televising assist a doubling up of the word less, it says less $25 or less per occasion and should say worth $25 or less per occasion, very quickly also i want to respond to the last two comments and urge the commission to retain and continue to apply the travel -- the gift pensioner especially travel gifts to expenditure lobbyists as well, the idea that an expenditure lobbyist who is in many ways augmenting their lobbying power to spend money to get other tos do lobbying for them could give a gift or a travel gift, a significant one, ask try to leverage their influence that way, i think the -- especially from talking to voters in the city and the many represent member that is have shown up today, the idea that one trying to exert specific influence by content or expenditure on a city elected official is -- really blows their mind that that's possible, to the travel gifts as well. i would like you ask you to apply the travel gift prohibition earlier than january, 2018, talking with the director, the january 1, 2018 start date is so the staff and so the computer systems can take enough time to make sure the registration tailoring can apply, because the gift ban is purposely and rightfully not tailored, it applies throughout should apply relatively immediately. thank you. >> thank you. >> good eve nonlinear, alana smith with friends of ethics, i want to join the core lus for thanking me for what you have done and call out the work staff has done to get this in front of the public enough so they could hear comments, respond to comments and show us revised language. it's made a big difference in terms of your final product and you can tell from the comments tonight that getting that kind of very good public process makes a difference, so i thank you for that and friends of ethics obviously thanks you for putting this forward. >> thank you. >> again, for the record, i'm charles mar ston, i wanted to say there's a caveat to the question of aggregate expenditure limits and i realize that question is a little off topic, but i wanted to explain very quickly to the commission that on july 11, 2011, you considered the mckuchin decision and vote ted 4-1 to repeal our law, that was blocked at the board by a coalition that was formed called friends of ethics, and that's our origin and that explains why we are still here. i did want to say i left the room, that meeting was taped and i have strong opinion on that matter because i'm aware of other events that occurred with other commissions in the united states working with the bren nan center to develop legislation to be both constitutional and respective of local law dealing with aggregated limits, so it's not as black and white i -- even though we were in fact sued, that would require a separate issue to be put on the agenda to be discussed so that we could get into the details, but i wanted to tell you at one point, i was planning to raise again the question of aggregate limits because there are constitutional ways for addressing the concerns of mchuchin, so i wanted to give you the heads-up on that. >> thank you. >> good evening, anita mayo, as i've testified before t proposed lobbyist relates changes are not needed. the current gift limit of $25 per lobbyists is so low that it cannot possibly have a corrupting influence on a city officer, notwithstanding the foregoing, both versions prohibit lobbyists from making i any dift including dift of gravel to any officers, this is a broad prescription, it is not narrowly tailored and apply ifs the lobbyist will ever lobby a city officer . the proposed ban could prohibit the mayor or any city officer from attending city related meetings, if the city and bay area corporations are interested in bringing the olympicess to the san francisco bay area and a for profitbacker profit corporation discussed the olympics, city officers would not be able to eat during the luncheon or dinner meet ifing the for profit contributed as an expenditure lobbyist. with regards to contributions by lobbyists, the proposed revised june initiative would prohibit a lobbyist from making a contribution to a city canadian kate exceeding $100 in an election cycle since the current $500 limit applies on a per election basis kh*s clear and straight forward, introducing a limit based on an election cycle basis will create unnecessary confusion, both versions of the initiative contemplate imposing limits on contributions to lobbyists to candidate controlled committees including local bat lot measure milt tees, imposing limit on contributions to lobbyist tos a ballot measure committee could be unconstitutional, regarding the ban on bundlings, the proposing ban is not needed since bundled contributions are subject to detail, disclosure requirements on the lobbying reports already. there is federal court precedents that a banning on lobbying and the green party of connecticut, the city court not only invalidate add ban but prohibited lobbyists from soliciting contributions on behalf of state candidate and is reach thirsting conclusion, the court stated that "a limit on the solicitation of otherwise permissible couldn't bourses prohibits exactly the kind of expressive activity that lies at the first amendment's core". that is because the solicitation of contributions involve speech, to solicit contributions on behalf of a candidate is to make a statement "you should support this candidate not only at the polls but with a financial contribution. ". speech uttered during a political campaign requires the most urgent application set forth in the first amendment for these reasons, i urge you not to impose a ban on bundling of contributions by lobbyists. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you so much, my name is joshua strong mansion i'm with artist of alliance with democracy as well as with represent us and i want today thank the commission and thank the staff for taking up this measure, and i really want to say i've heard a lot of comments, i came here in support of represent us and i come here in support of good government and i come here so that -- because we're in a time where our citizens as we said earlier, do not have the fullest confidence in our elected officials and in our city governments or our local governments to give us a government that we voted for and inspires us to believe in, to want to contribute to, making san francisco and making the bay area a place where everyone will want to come and live and raise their families, this is about restoring integrity to this process. now, i've heard many people come up here and talk about the various ban that is are already in place but obviously they're not working so one of the things i wanted to stress to the commission and stress to the staff is enforcement. now, commissioner [inaudible] brought up a good thing, those are questions that you should know, we should understand how these laws have failed z. you should know why all these people are in this room. you have failed. the ethics law that is are currently on the books have failed. that's why we want this measure, we're not ta*ub asking for it out of the sky, it has failed so we are taking it upon ourselves as citizens would care about san francisco, would care about the bay area, would care about our future to say, look, whatever you had going on first, whatever laws barer policies or protocols that were in place, they have not worked. i am strongly if support of this measure going forward in july, give the voters a xlans to vote on this. it's obvious the folks that have been elected to involve this problem has failed so it's time for the voters to have our say on this. i'm strongly in support of this measure going into the july ballot and thank you for giving us the time to speak and making our concerns known. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, my name is greg [inaudible] i'm with represent us and i wanted to say one thing -- add one thing, i think there is a sense of urgency, whatever the language is needs to be worked out tonight so something can get on the ballot, whatever the little nuances with regards to language, at least something can be agreed upon tonight so things don't get pushed out to 2018. thank you, and thank you for all your hard work. >> thank you. >> hi, i know it's against protocol to come up again, i want today directly respond. i can't? okay, at all? alright, sore -- sorry. >> you're saying he couldn't if he used his three minutes the whole time. >> not to say mr. kaplan didn't have good feedback t commission would be obligated to provide everyone in the room with a second opportunity as well. >> alright, any other public comment? if not, there is a motion presently pending and i take it that that grammatical error on page 12, line 11 where the word less should be deleted, i will call the question which is to approve the option -- the july option as presented by the staff, all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> opposed? alright, the record should reflect that it has been passed unanimously by four commissioners as required. and that we should now move forward to see that it qualifies to be placed on the ballot in november. [applause]. >> thank you, mr. chair. i would just like to acknowledge that the city of san francisco and all of us owe a great debt to represent us. it's an organization said by you to have been formed about a year ago and the most refreshing thing to me is to see the vibrancy of a bunch of young people coming forward on good government measures. there are other organizations like friends of ethics and the civil grand jury and the rest of us who have been involved with it over the years ask have been talking about this, but for the most part, most of those folks have hair like mine, so to see all of you is really great and i just want to thank you and encourage you the keep up the good work. i think you're an inspiring group. >> commissioner hayon. >> i would like to second what commissioner keane has said. the atmosphere in this room today is completely 180 degrees from the atmosphere when i first came on this commission, and i don't think this commission or its staff can do the proper work unless there is full involvement on the part of the community. i am an average voter and oncern is that my concern is that we passed this and it will go ton ballot but i hope you will do the same kind of work to inform and educate the a*frmg voter. from my understand, it's going to be at least 30 ballot measures, in situations like that, the average voter just says, i'm voting no on everything, so unless there's a real major concerted effort to educate vote and he iser to get them to vote particularly on this ballot which is of concern to you, then i'm concerned we may not succeed. and also a lot of this is quite arcane, so you need to find a way to get the message out in a way that's really comprehensible to the average person out there because otherwise they throw their hands up and say, okay, i don't understand what this is about so i'm not going to vote for it, so that is your challenge now and i think that's a much, much greater challenge than getting it on the ballot, but i wish you luck. i'm sure you can do it and it's great that it's young people who are engaged and we need that because otherwise we're in deep trouble which i think we are anyway, but -- so, that's another story, we don't need to address that, but thank you so much and it's a huge difference having so many really well informed and expert members of the public participating in the process, so thank you. >> and i on behalf of the commission also join in thanking all of you for working with the staff and i want to thank the staff who spent hours getting this into the form, but for those of you who may be new to the pr kress, once this goes on the ballot, the first thing is there's a ballot simplification committee that meets to word the way in which the description of this is put in the voter's handbook and that's very important because that's really what people look at in the voter's handbook, so that when that meeting takes place, i urge you to be in attendance to help draft the language, there are five members and believe me, they are very dedicated but they're like your high school english teacher and they parse every word and they will spend a long time whether or not they can use this word or that word, and either vice chairman keane or i and ms. pelum will be there, but to have some support behind making sure that we get that, but even more importantly, san francisco has hundreds of political clubs and the months of august, the last part of august and the month of september and october are when those clubs meet to either endorse or take a position against or for ballot measures, and they -- it's very important that proponents and supporters of this ballot measure turn out at those meetings to show the community the support because under the laws of san francisco, if i go to those meetings or commissioner keane goes to the meetings, we can't urge the voters to vote for it. we are constrained from taking a position. all we can do is tell them information, what it's about, but we can't at the end of it say -- and we want you to vote for it. i know that may be ridiculous, but that is the rule, so that what's needed are people -- voters, people who can say after we may make a presentation at one of these community meetings and we advise them of the restrictions that we're under, but i mean, it should be obvious that we put it on the ballot and we can point that out but we can't urge them to vote one way or another, but you can, and the more people who show up at these community meetings in support, the more likely it is that these organizations will support it, and when the ballot -- when the handbook comes out, it will show what organizations support it and it's very important, the more organizations we can have behind it and the less opposition and i think in this case where we ao*f had as much public input, the kind of opposition that there was to proposition c, even that, it passed by 75 or 78 percent, i would like to see this pass by 90% and show that truly the public is behind this initiative, so with that, i will -- >> before we move on from this item, as you may recall, the last time when we did proposition c last year, the commission had a formal vote on who would be the spokesperson representative for the various political club meetings you mentioned as well as media inquiries and such about the proposed measure. i don't know if the commission want tos do it now since as you mentioned, a lot of the endorsement meetings are coming up fast and furious and the ballots committee meeting you mentioned is schedule today discuss this measure this friday, so a lot of naoez public arenas in which the commission or whoever the commission decides to choose as a representative will be asked to speak are coming up quickly, so i don't know if the commission want tos designate that spoe, person tonight. >> any commissioners, any comments? >> i think remembering back on c, the reality of what happened was that commissioner renne wound up taking on an enormous amount of effort in regard to going to all of o those meetings, you went to so many of them, and because what we did is we formally authorized commissioner renne to be our spokesperson for these presentations, vice chair andrews also went to a few and there were two i think that neither chair renne or vice chair andrews could go to so i went to. my suggestion would be that at the direction of the chair, we all be empowered to go and explain this to any group that the chair might want it to be explained to, either for the chair to go or if he can't make it, for one of us to go, whoever he designates, mainly because he wound up just breaking his back last time going to all of them and taking the pressure off of him so i would be glad to go to as many -- >> i appreciate that suggestion and i have a call for a vote on it, but i would add the executive director as also being authorized to -- >> i don't want to add to her burden, but i think it is important. >> yes, e *f i agree. >> and certainly i want to remind the commission that we can have those kinds of scheduling discussions following the brown act, xhaoun sauteing amongst yourselves about the substance of any presentations, obviously we want to remain very -- strictly observe the brown act and all its public meeting restrictions. >> right. >> do i hear a motion that -- along the line of what commissioner keane said? >> moved. >> i think under the bylaws, i'm authorized as a spokesman and the sense of the commission is if i can't go or if i want to assign it to somebody else, i can assign it to any of the other three commissioners. okay. and i appreciate that because i will tell you, there are times when there are three or four meetings a day or at night, they're usually at night, but they're interesting and you see local politics at its best. alright. let's turn to discussion -- >> we need a vote on that. >> alright. >> so moved. >> second. >> alright. public comment? hopefully none. alright, hearing none, i'll call the question, all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> opposed? it's carried unanimously. turning to item 5, discussion and possible action on ordinance introduced by supervisor peskin to amend the campaign and governmental conduct code to require members of city boards and commissions to file behest payment reports, and i think mr. hepner is here from supervisor peskin's office and bring us up to date and tell us what you are looking for from us. >> absolutely, thank you very much, thank you, commissioners, chair renne, director pelum, i do have copies of some amended pieces of legislation that i'm happy to distribute to you, i left 10 or so copies on the table for the public, but i'm hoping that somebody can distribute those and could i grab just one of those? we can walk through some of the changes we made, some of which were discussed expressly in the department staff report. but jumping in, i mean, i do want to thank you for taking this matter up again and for staff's report and from soliciting comment from the fppc all of which is going to be invaluable as we move forward with this. there are a lot of stakeholders with this legislation and it's become very evident we need to strike exactly the right balance to make sure this is furthering the aim of transparency and openness while not imposing a burden from commissioners or ethics department staff, so i do want to walk through a couple of the change that is we have made, just in the past week, i'm sorry, this did not make it into your packets. we set forth on the first page a definition for auction nao*er and explicitly exempted auction nao*ering later a little further down as an activity that does not count as a solicitation, just because there was some concerns about that. on the second page beginning at line 8, we defined interested party as any person who is the subject of any administrative action taken by a board of commission, we defined non-profit organization as 501c organizations. under section 3.610 subsection a, we did as we indicated last month, we expanded the filing time from 30 days to quarterly or 90 days, 90 days from the date at which the 5 thousand dollar contribution was made or a series of -- and then in the next subsection 2, we left it at 30 days for those solicitation that is are made to solicited -- to interested parties. on the third page, we have that exception under subsection d for auction noes, we also undertook a definition and tried to carve out full time employees of non-profit organizations who have fundraising responsibilities and are soliciting charitable contributions on behalf of their non-profit employer, if you're working for a fundraiser as a none profiteer, that will be your job and you will be exempt from reporting every solicitation that you make with the exception that we do want you to disclose any solicitations made to interested parties. and lastly, ethics department staff request, we allowed for this not to be just reported on a form 803 but on some other electronic forms as staff sees fit, there's a reporting mechanism and per staff's report which i'm happy to get into a little bit, i understand that might take some resources ask some time and we're more than willing to take that into consideration. with respect to the staff report, just a couple of comments. i thought the reference to the fppc's report i thought was particularly instructive on one point and this is a point that has raised concerns from several of our board members and commissioners and that is well what if my name is on a -- that goes out in a mass mailer, i raise money for the san francisco ballet or some other organization and i'm selling 10 thousand dollar ticket tos a charity night and my name is on the mailer that goes out, is that a solicitation, and the instruction from the fppc is in fact, if you're a board member of the ballet for instance and every board member's name is included, there's no particular distinction to your name from the other board members and that does not -- that would not count as a solicitation. on the other hand, if there is some distinction made whether your name is highlight separate from other board members or looks like there's a fact specific determination that is made i suppose if the board member or commissioner personally signed it or crossed off the mr. so and so, maybe details like that may make it look like a direct solicit tai, more like something that should be reported and those are the circumstances that would give rise to this reporting obligation. anyway, i thought that was very interesting advice from the fppc and kind of confirmed what was both xho*en common sense and what we had talked about and now there was another concern about twitter solicitations, just briefly i thought i would throw that out there, what if somebody saying donate to green peace on twitter, i think there are certain aspects of this where there is going to be in effect on a board commissioner orbacker or supervisor's behavior are going the have to change nair behavior in some ways and maybe hey don't tweet out donate to green peace, might be that's something that person should not be doing in our public facing role, whether or not green peace has an item before the board or commission, it starts to be a little bit sticky, i don't want to say suspect but at least maybe behavior that a commissioner or board member should not be engaging in. there was a mention -- >> could i ask a question about that. >> yes. >> engaging out about that behavior about twiting out between graen peace, what is that with the commissioner's role with deciding matters against it, what's the conflict or matter? >> i suppose the nexus would have to be there would have to be a secondary sexbacker nexus in that circumstance, maybe graen peace is supporting the caoe byways of a new park downtown or there would probably have to be some secondary nexus to make clear sense, but -- >> currently drafted -- if the commissioner were to tweet and were to generate contributions of 5 thousand dollars, they would have to file a report, is that right? >> that's correct. that's correct. >> even though the green peace activity may or may not have anything to do with the work of the commission on which that commissioner serves? >> yes, that's right, and the portion of the staff report which i thought was well written talking about how narrowly to craft this reporting requirement and we could craft it even wider was one option that ethics staff set forth, and any political donating active or any solicitation for candidate to elected office, that could be included theoretically. >> wouldn't you want to narrow it down that the commissioner would be deciding upon, if it's an out of state alma mater and alma mater has no business in front of the commission, why would we need to know about that? >> right, and i think that more often than not, this reporting requirement may capture behavior that is entirely innocuous, there's no suspect -- >> why do we need to capture it then? >> by limiting the scope of the reporting requirement, what we're doing is essentially putting the onus on the commissioner or board member themselves to be the judge of whether this is something that should or should not be reported and from a policy angle and i think there are fair room for disagreement here, i don't think that putting the onus on the commissioner or the board member in a self-reporting context to make that tough determination is where we want to put that balance, so yes, a lot of this behavior may be innocuous, but furthering the aims of transparency and openness, i think it's probably the public's obligation to make that determination of whether that solicitation is suspect in any way. so, i think that that's kind of where that ideological or principled view comes from is i don't think it should be the commissioner or board members' role to make that judgment. and i'm more than willing to hear push-back on that of course but that's where our office was coming from. >> i would hope we would have more trust in some of our commission members to be able to make that determination and i have a follow-up question with regard to the privacy of those donors, particularly out of state donors or the example i gave last month of parents at a school for example, when they make the contribution to the charitable organization, i think they have a reasonable expectation that their name won't show up in a public database. >> so, this requirement does exist for elected officials in various contextess. i don't think it's that rare or unique to require the reporting of people who make contributions over 5 thousand dollars, i think that that threshold is set relatively high, so that you're really capturing -- >> but are those examples, do they require all donations or only those for contributions made with some sort of connection, a nexus back to the government organizations? >> correct, and maybe staff or city attorney shen can correct me if i'm wrong. >> yes, to respond to that, currently elected officials are required to file behest reports, 5 thousand dollars or more, it doesn't really matter what the source of that contribution whether that source of the contribution has any business before the elected, it's a pretty wide net. >> and i think we're get hinting the territory where strike thing balance is important, we don't have the desire of [inaudible] if you're a board or a commissioner in a public facing role and this is not about trust than it is about trust in our political system, but if you are in that public facing role you are in a unique position to leverage your public facing role and the decisions you make at public hearings to raise substantial amounts of money, we don't know the extent to which this is going on anecdotally, i know it's out there, our office knows this is something that does occur and in the interest of public disclosure which the ethics department staff also recognizes the high demand for more publicly accessible information, electronically or otherwise, i think that's where this legislation is coming from. i can wrap up my comments fairly soon, i did have a comment, there was a note in the staff report noting that this is going to be -- this requires filing these reports with the ethics department as opposed to with the individual commissions, the only reason why we put that in there is because i think it's -- it would be pretty difficult to ask our boards and commissions to develop their own mechanisms for receiving and processing this and i think having it centralized is probably best for the sake of uniformity, to that end and along with the recommendation of ethics department staff, we are happy to support additional funding for the ethics department, we are always happy to do so in order to further the aims of this and certainly are amenable to a start date or an effective date of january 1, 2018 to allow the ethics department staff some time to get these mechanisms up and running, we're more than amenable to that. just one additional point, there was mention made in the discussion on the ballot measure item number 4 with respect to whether we were considering prohibitions in this. we weren't really until a couple of days ago or rather until we read the letter from friends of ethics. i think that our office would be amenable to a prohibition, a flat-out prohibition on solicitations to -- solicitations of interested parties or solicitations to maybe specific types of 501c4's i think is one that came up in particular, that said, it's not in the legislation right now and i'll leave it at that and take the recommendation. the question that i had is how does that -- does that obviate a disclosure requirement f you're prohibiting activity out right, does it obviate the need to disclose your other behavior and my thought process ended up with, probably not, when you're committing something to paper and you're required to do so in the form of a filed statement with a government entity, that is kind of causing -- it's creating another honesty mechanism, another little self-check, this is all self-reporting again and i think that a lot of this, while we trust our board member and is commissioners, we want to make sure that we create the most fluid mechanism for that reporting. >> let me ask you a question, and that is if there's say an invitation to the opera gala and it goes out and it lists names of the gala committee and it asks for 10 thousand, 5 thousand, 1 thousand, whatever the table is, and my name is on it as one of the committee, is that a solicitation? >> no, and i think the fppc letter addresses that point directly and at risk of misquoting it, my understanding is no, that if there's no distinction between your name and the other names, if you're just part of a list of the committee members, then it would not be a solicitation requiring reporting. >> and particularly if it doesn't identify any city office, it doesn't identify me as a commissioner. >> i think that's -- yeah, that would be another distinction. >> okay. >> procedurally, i'm happy to hear the discussion tonight, if you have any questions, i'll hang around. i don't think it's necessary for you to take action, but while it is before us, i would be grateful for any oak -- recommendations this body has. thank you. >> commissioners, i just had a quick couple of comments. the -- one of the questions that the memo tried to outline for discussion tonight is the question for breadth and nexus, and mr. hepner talked about the distinguish of commissioners that might have [inaudible] with the nexus, one of the things i wanted to subjecting, there's form 700, the statement of economic interest, commissioners are routinely require today consider what the reach of their work might be because their conflict of interest code disclosure categories identifies the kinds of interest or should identify the kinds of interests that they could potentially influence and it doesn't include the breadth that an elected official would have typically because commission and board roles are triply more prescribe today certain functions, so i think it's maybe not as difficult as on first blush it might seem for commissioners to consider the ways their particular mandbacker mandate could translate to the kinds of solicitations they would be disclosing, that's what i wanted to throw out there, whether that burden is too great or whether it might be something that commissioners are familiar with already. >> thank you. >> do any commissioners have any comments or questions, if noted, i'll call for public comment. >> good evening, commissioners, back again, [inaudible] it's fascinating how this issue is growing, and i think our elected officials have been really put in a difficult position because they're out fundraising in some cases for private sector activity which is perhaps in their districts that would support their local home based home grown grass roots organizations which is a very good thing, on the other hand, the first people they were going to think of to call would be the lobbyists or the people that are making comments to them that are trying to get them to influence administrative and legislative action. that said, i have always been won to personally and i think many people in foe have felt that disclosure is where we start, so building a basis or a database of disclosure to see and track this type of activity, much of which now is reported anecdotally or in the press is probably a good start so we can start building our database and following this activity which is very robust. in our communications to you, we have given you a list of contributions that have come in or have been issued by the behest say for google in the millions of dollars, like 6.8 million dollars, and i believe that was for one item. so, this is not small bucks. routinely, some supervisors are going out and going through a list of organizations or rather lobbyists or people looking to influence legislative action because they are in fact registered lobbyists to make donations so they're bringing in the bacon where there's five or ten contributions that have been made in 5 thousand dollar increments that goes to the 501 c-3 or the philanthropic institution in their district, so my point is that clearly this is maybe not the way they want to go when they see it in print and when they have to disclose it to the ethics commission, and then we have a much better sense of what's going on, so i would urge you to support this and i would also ask whether or not it would not be a good idea for you to seek an amendment to the current law to prohibit such activity from lobbyists. >> thank you. >> i'm bob plant hold. i wanted to echo what mr. hepner said that you don't necessarily need to take a position, ubd just offer comments or raise question, you like this, you don't like that, you wonder why, so you need to make a decision, no, should you? a lot of us would you like to make some sort of supportive decision separate from in addition to comments. i want to call attention to the supplemental memo from item 5 that came from larry bush and friends of ethics questioning part of the staff analysis and recommendation, so in looking at the revised text that mr. hepner has brought forward, maybe it's being addressed even if he hasn't linked to our comments or to the staff, i want to note on page 3 with d exceptions, the number one issue, i think it's helpful that there's that second part that says commissioners -- provided commissioners will have an obligation to provide behest payment reports, so on and so on, so i'll give you archival history n the past sfrj ri, i was an officer on the board of a non-profit, the executor was on a major commission, there's several commission that is have perks, that can give away or provide services or things of value, of significant value to people, and so that person would solicit contributions to a major fundraising event which is handled by somebody else, then that money was brought into the non-profit. at the same time, that commission like i said did have different business that people could benefit from when they went for a decision before it, so the idea of requiring a filing of behest payments reports even if the donation is not specific to the commission and the duties of commission but is part of the fundraising activities of that staffer, i think it's helpful to keep in mind and i think this is an acceptable start towards addressing that option. i'm trying to be vague because i don't want the name name, this is like i said in the past century, so everything is just dusty records, but as a person who was an officer on the board of directors, i was on ec sh uneasy on how some of this was happening, but at least there's a klans to bring light to it. thank you. >> good evening again, my name is jonathan mince s*er and i'm a political attorney here in the city, i didn't plan on speak on this issue until i heard something that concerned me from the presentation, the phrase that we don't know the extent to which commissioners are soliciting donations to non-profit organizations and the degree to which that interested parties may be appearing before them. that's particularly, particularly concerning. i truly believe that this is a solution in the search of a problem. i also am scared that this is really just going to be a trap for the unweary, it's worth noting that elected officials are already suj to this requirement, most major contracts or most things where there's a concern of this goes before those elected officials. i'm afraid this is a trap for the unweary, i'm afraid this can be used as a tool to levy fines, administrative action against small commissioners who don't know this law exist, who don't know that the -- by raising money for their pta, they're implicated in any way. there's enough disincentives not to go into public service, why add another layer when we don't know there is another problem, is there such an evil of somebody soliciting millions of dollars contributions to donations of an art commissioner to a non-profit support to an art commission or some other small commission, is this something we really need, and again, i don't want to start to brainstorm -- try to understand the legal issues that may come by a prohibition on behest payments, i encourage you not look that, for every evil scenario that i con ko*kt kokt in your head, think about quha's happening, we're talking about donations to non-profit organization, to 501 c-3 organizations that do great work in the community community, to the extent we know funding is limited, non-profits step in at a time of need, i don't think we should take as to limit contributions to non-profits nor do i believe there's really a purpose for this, nor do i believe we need another disincentive to public service. thank you so much and i appreciate your time as always. >> thank you. >> commissioners, debbie lur man from the human services network. i did speak to this somewhat in july about the need to encourage non-profits to serve on commissions and share their expertise for the good of the community and to balance that with the ability to raise funds for their organizations. we do not wanted to hamstring the ability of non-profits to raise money and the city is on our case all the time to raise money and to enhance whatever funding we receive from the city, so that leaves us with this need for a balanced approach. i do praoeshtd the staff memo suggesting that the legislation apply only where there's a nexus but we have worked with supervisor possess -- peskin's office and we appreciate the exemption of this for non-profit staff who are fund raisers and who are simply doing their jobs and the reason to balance that for donors to want non-confidential, we would have preferred that applies to board of directors as i suspect some of you do serve on boards, some of the most civically engaged people in this city both serve on commissions and serve on boards, and we need our ports of directors to be leading our way in our fundraising campaigns. it is a relief you can still be listed on an invitation but it would be nice if you could scribble a note to your buddy saying hey, tom, how about coming to this event, so i think we would like to see that be a little broader but we are appreciative of this exception and we'll work with supervisor peskin for whatever final measure goes to the board of supervisors. and we do agree with the interested party exception, that was the compromise that made a lot of sense as the way to resolve any potential, again, undue influence. and the other thing i want to say, there were some comments here about a ban, whether it's a lobbyist or anybody else, i think we would have a problem if there was any kind of propose salt to ban contributions by anybody to 501 c-3 organizations, and so i hope that that does not gain traction as a serious discussion. thank you. >> i don't think you have to worry about that. i think it would be constitutional. >> thank you. >> good eve anyones i'm bob docent door f, former friends of *it ix commissioner, i'm here to talk about 501c4's and 501 c-3's, 501c4's are the issue that we're looking at with beh*is payments that are in the tens of millions of dollars in some cases. when you have a 501c4 that requests a contribution from an elected official or a commissioner for a pet project, that needs to be recognized and needs to be brought to the public, you can't hide these kind of things from the public. i think we need legislation that brings us out into the open. thank you. >> thank you. does any commissioner have any comments or want us to take any action this evening? >> well, i don't think we've been asked to take action by supervisor peskin's office. we've been asked by his staff member and also by several of the people who are in favor of the measure to indicate by comments and other things as to whether or not we believe that the measure is on the right track, whether we would endorse it. it's not something that's going to be part of the ethics commission's bylaws or any part of us doing anything. so, i can say that just personally as one commissioner, i think supervisor peskin's on the right track in regard to where he's heading. there are some concerns that are pointed out both by our staff and other people by the interesting parties, that compromise could be reached out in order to reach the transparency so that someone doesn't lefrj their position as commissioner or as a san francisco official in any kind of improper way. there's a necessity for that and in my opinion, supervisor peskin is on the right track and is going in the right direction. >> i would only add to that, that i agree this is on the right track. i would like to see it a little more narrowly tailored so we can get at those -- the nexus of the behest payments and the conflict that arises when the matter is coming before the commission. i think that to cast such a broad net is almost like trying to boil the ocean and you will spend a lot of time sorting the weed from the chaff, if you can be more targeted, i think you can be more effective. >> yes? >> with regards to the last person who commented, why not limit this legislation to 501c4's? >> as opposed to including 501 c-3's? >> i'm happy to venture a guess at an answer there. i think that that would be narrowing it too far and in fact we're not only interested in the entity to which money is being solicit tainted for but also the individuals or entities for which charitable contributions are solicited of, so it could be a 501 c-3, 9, 12, 400, i don't care if you're soliciting it from somebody who has a matter coming before your board or commission, so that's the other element of this that i think is at play here. >> the staff in your memo made a list of recommendations, i think it's on page 7, and i would make a motion that we adopt those recommendations and have them transmitted on behalf of the commission. >> i second that. >> any discussion? any public comment? i'll call the question. all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> the record should reflect that it was passed unanimously and that the staff recommendations will be transmitted to supervisor peskin with i think a clear indication that we support the intention of the legislation but those concerns that the staff has identified should be understood. >> thank you very much, commissioners, i appreciate it. >> alright, item number 6 is continued to our next meeting . item number 7 is a discussion of the executive director's report. >> excuse me, chair renne, even though we're continuing item 6, we need to take public comment on it. >> pardon me? >> even though we are continuing item 6 to the next meet, we do need to take public comment on that item. >> i thought the item was moved but i'll call for public comment on item number 6. hearing none, we'll move to item number 7. >> thank you. and i just would say for the record, our apology sos the commission and the public to item number 6, we thought it would be prudent to make sure the public had full opportunity to be here, so we posted the notice and we will continue to do that as necessary, so again, our apologies. in terms of our agenda item 7 and the executive director's report, i think the most important thing i would like to share with you, i'm please today announce the hiring of our new deputy direct torx jessica bloom who is here with us this evening. >> welcome. >> she's going to be jounbacker joining our office on august 15th, she's assuming day-to-day management of our investigative and enforcement program and will head our enforcement and legal affairs function. i'm very delighted she's going to be joining us with her legal skill, her enforcement experience and her insights and her mentoring talents as well to our growing staff over the coming year. as you will recall from my update last month t commission received over 120 applications for this position, so it was a competitive process, she comes highly regarded as a keen legal mind, a fresh thinker and a collaborative problem solver, quick experience approaching complex issues from different angles, the work will unfold in all that we have to do. she spent six years as an assistant attorney general working for the missouri general attorney's office where she enforced state, environmental and animal welfare laws include thing cleanup of the state's water, landfills and hazardous e waste and through the creation of a new unit that dealt with animal cruelty preveption where she mansion and responded to complaint, invest gated violations and successfully prosecute add number of cases to uphold state law, she received recognition as an outstanding achievement award in 2010 and 2012. most recently for the past three years, she has been serving as the senior staff attorney for the non-profit animal legal defense fund in the bay area region but works across the country, she's applied her legal skill to win major cases, worked with conservation groups protecting wild and endangered an maol malls. her law degree is from the university of iowa college of law, and she holds a ba from the university of iowa where she majored in organizational ethics and [inaudible], so i will look forward to providing more information for you in the coming months about the structure of the office and how we're going to align ourselves to get all of our work done but i was delighted that she's here tonight and i hope you join me in giving her a warm welcome. >> well, welcome. would you like to say a word or two? we'd be happy to hear from you. >> thank you, commissioner, i'm -- thank you for that wonderful introduction, leeann, i'm pleased to be here, i'm very excited about the work, *ib it's a little bit outside of my wheel house if yu heard from my background, i've already started diving in and found this riveting, this debaitd that's been going on and learning all the key players and i also wanted to mention that i brought my husband and my daughter earlier, so if you heard a crying child as she was etc. courted from the room, that was may, she's two years old and we just rent add house in berkeley so we're excited to be part of the community and to be part of the commission -- or staff for the commission, thank you very much. >> welcome, and we look forward working with you and you have a big job because i think we have what, two openings for enforcement? >> three. >> three, with one enforcement officer left and we moved to two, so hopefully we'll give you the resources so you can really turn two and some of the criticism that if you attend our meetings, you will hear from time to time is that we have been a sleeping tiger or something that they call us, that we didn't do enough enforcement but a lot of that had had to do with personnel, so -- >> well, i'm your gal. >> okay, great. you have a delightful two year-old also, she seemed to be commenting justifiable on the merits at the time when she was here, but bring her whenever you would like. >> thank you. >> alright, thank you. >> and i guess i would make since it's an evening for correction, one other note on the memo on item attachment 2, i provided the charts showing the number of open formam complaints on our caseload as of july 20th as well as the matters under preliminary review. those numbers are accurate, we have 22 formal complaints still pending, 56 matters under preliminary review, the memo however says 55, so my apoll jis for that, i diced the data after the memo and i did not correct the memo, so -- but we want to keep providing this information for you so we can keep track of where we are and with the additional staff resources coming on board, more hands to help get those members moving along. i'm happen my to answer any questions but i wanted to make sure to introduce our newest staff member to you. >> any questions or comments? other than to compliment ms. palum and the staff for continuing to provide us with great support. any public comment on the executive director's report? hearing none, item 8, discussion and possible action on items for future meetings. it has been the practice in the past for the commission to skip one meeting during the summer because of the vacation schedules and it would be my recommendation subject to comment that we cancel the august meeting. i know one of the commissioners is going to be unavailable in any case and that we defer all matters that i think there are only one or two matters that we were contemplate ining the august meeting, that they be continued to the september meeting. any comments or concerns? any public comment? >> just a reminder, you're not off the hook because of course you have 30 club meetings or whatever to go to, so you'll be very busy with that. it's just as well you're not worrying yourselves with the agenda. >> thank you. and i do feel that considering the amount of work that the staff -- we put on the staff over the last few months, hopefully some of them can take vacation. alright, so that will be -- the notice will go out that the meeting for august has been cancelled and we will -- our next meeting will be the fourth monday in september. any other comment or public comment? then item 9, additional opportunity for public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. hearing none, i will entertain a motion to adjourn. >> so moved. >> second. >> alright. public comment? hearing none, all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> the record should reflect that unanimously we adjourned at 7:45 which is pretty early. thank you very much. ( meeting is adjourned ). it or unfinished business by board members. >> members of the board are we good? >> item 7, directors report >> good after chairman nolan and members of the board and members of the public could i want to start out by recognizing some of our employees and a couple other quick items for you. first i like to ask don ellison to come forward and recognize a long time training spreadable of ours who's decided to retire after mere 39 years of service. >> good afternoon. director nolan and fellow directors good it's my honor today to recognize a gentleman that was for this agency for over 39 years. that is paul peterson. he was a superintendent of operator training along with him is a manager of operator training kim anderson. they were together for six years and operator training but much longer within the agency. all began his career as an operator in march 1977. in 1983, he was promoted to transit supervisor in central control and then later to operations. in january 20,000 2000 he was superintendent of operator training. paul peterson's 39 years and four months in operator training is marked by core value of supporting people and their job and careers, making sure the public transportation needs are met and if you ask any of his colleagues, patience and persistence. paul success includes restarting the sfmta eight the bus radio in april and peevishly managing all bus rodeo. with this he graduated 1000 new operators in the last five years with a record 481 in 2015. training operators and also training operators who are now or past managers in the transit division. paul says his favorite position with the agency is the one he retired, now i'm a but a close second was his work as the evening shift transit supervisor for cable cars. without setting the standard for keeping service on time and working with groups and conductors on customer service. on june 22, paul was honored with a banquet attended by current as well as retired staff of sf mta and muni. i was protested up her certificate of honor from the board of supervisors and a plaque from his coworkers. paul has two children brian and christian. brian i'm his own works were with sf mta in the maintenance department good christian words with the sheriff's department of san diego. in his retirement paul plans to focus on his family-tthe grandkids >>[laughing]-his family and his two 1956 patterns with these risk conditioning. as a member of the packard club car shows on paul's future. i want to take this time to congratulate him wrapping up a great career at this sfmta a and kim apperson will speak a few words about all. >> mr. anderson. >> thanks very much. appreciate the opportunity. paul has been more than just being a great employee. he has been the person you can look up to. i mean you've got that many years on your belt in this business, you're bound to pretty much have an answer for just about everything that comes along. there isn't anything he has not seen we certainly still take advantage of this today. just because a zero tired we still outlined to his home. so we still call him. but for me personally, it is been a fantastic journey and i feel like i would not be what i am today it wasn't for his guidance. so, to paul and to his family and everyone, it does my heart good. so, he deserves more than what we could possibly give him. so thank you very much, paul >> mr. peterson come on behalf of the board of directors and the entire agency all people of the city thank you so much for your very impressive record of service for 39 years and four months. wonderful. we're very grateful to you and wish you all the best in retirement. >>[applause] >> thank you very much. good afternoon directors. i appreciate this recognition. a couple things i want to mention good one is changed and the other one is gratitude. as far as change, you can imagine after 39 years have seen a lot of change here. i started to transit operator and there was $.25. the discount there was five cents. there were still very interested i could not believe it. it was very reasonable done. i think we have one of the lowest fares back in that day. so it was pretty amazing. then-another thing about change is i want to mention that this agency has moved so far forward in all these years, it's kind of stagnant for a while. we did not get to find then suddenly we just took off. especially in the last 15 years or so it's been really really much better with many many improvements in this agent. that i've seen. i first started with 345 brand-new trolley buses, electric trolley buses, and i was told 12 of them had a radius. the rest of them did not. so, late-night run musical central control could i make it on the logic i do not endorse residential area because there was no payphones around her. when the were payphones available, they were $.10. that also tells you how long ago did we were told we be reimbursed by the $.10. so, next is gratitude. i just want to thank all the board members for this recognition. i want to thank all my coworkers from all the divisions at mta. i could i do anything by myself. all i am is a part of team. people that work here at the agency these days and all of the desert divisions are mutually hard workers. strong work ethic and good character and just amazing what i've seen in the years how hard people work these days. especially managers and supervisors and of course, the operator is out there on the front lines. i do want to recognize our training team here. they been like family to me. that's one of the things i feel bittersweet about is as and 30 i is i know it's time to go but i hate leaving these people get it you would please, stand up our management team from training. >>[applause] >>[calling names]. great people. just great work ethic. i could not get measure of success without people like this. backing me up and backing us up. we were together as a team in this agency. it's a wonderful place to work. i used to tell the new operators when they first came in, with a would introduce me they would say and how superintendent he's been here for 30-39 years. i would get in front him and told him the reason i been here so long and have not left because there's wonderful people to work with. i hated to go but that's like it you have to block it once again, thank you for much for this recognition it is very much appreciated. >>[applause] >> thank you. next i like to ask tom maguire sustainable streets directors come forward and recognize another long-time employee one who is also among the best rest city employees of 29,000 us. >> good afternoon directors.. i've the honor to recognize howard johnson. mr. johnson, please. join us. mr. johnson is retiring after 16 years of service to a crossing guard program. he is wonderful crossing guard, conscientious libel energetic and respected by the students and school staff at the schools.. he worked at rosa parks elementary for 10 years and the last six years he's been at-elementary. he says he enjoys working as a crossing guard. he certainly was be around children. prince will come teachers students and families at mckinley. he's got a report as far as we know there's ever been a crash or pedestrian integer injury on his wife. that's of course the most important part of the job of crossing guards do. they refer to howard as a neighborhood institutions aim is always courteous and is a kind word for anybody who passes answers the community and school well. in 2014 but the irb report with a blog who wrote a very nice piece on howard entitled, meet howard johnson, the best dressed crossing guard in town. >>[laughing] the article highlighted keen fashion sense but also the great job how seriously he takes it. he's a great family man and his family is with him today and he served his country in korea from 1950-1953. so we take our first 16 years of service with the city and we missed wish him nothing but the best in retirement. >>[applause] >> mr. johnson come on behalf of the board of directors and the entire agency novel people in the city, thank you for your outstanding work. it's hard to imagine more important position in taking care of the children you've done for so many years. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> how about your family? >> my wife. this is my daughter. and my son and my other daughter went out. >>[laughing] >> will thank you again. >> thank you very much. >> the clapping >> >>[applause] >> mr. reiskin >> finally, in terms of recognition, a couple weeks ago on july 7 in union square we hold the 53rd annual cable car bellringing competition and championship. we are pleased to have a winner here today. we have a great turnout. as you know there's two different categories. there's the professional and amateur. the mature category was won by a woman named fast cut for 96.5 radio. her proceeds the proceeds from that category go to the charity of their choice of the person who won. she had a actually an amazing performance but a whole bunch of cows. it was really wonderful. but we also want to recognize the professional winner good one thing of note with this years, edition, we have the first ever female entrant as a participant because sandra griffin. we were really happy to see her there while she didn't win or place we're hoping to see her and others follow in years to come. but we did want to recognize that the winner. third place went to johnny whitaker a previous winner. second place went to last year's champion and previous winner byron cobb. but we are here today to recognize the first-place winner, who is now i think a four-time worm 85 time champion , and we have for him i think he brought it here himself but we cut out very large trophy but also his own cable cartel. so please join me in congratulating leonard oakes. >>[applause] >> we have a bell here in case you might be able to entice them to giving us a little- >>[applause] >> congratulations. wonderful. >> thank you. think you very much. thank you very much. >>[bell ringing] >> >>[applause] >> more difficult job of carrying that back. the event is meant to celebrate the cable cars but also the extraordinarily scale of the folks who operate and maintain the cable cars system and is i think you know, it takes a lot of physical strength and agility . it takes great customer service skills. it's a very challenging job and to be able to do all that and master bellringing is spectacular. so we look forward to seeing everyone at the 54th annual next year where leonard will be accepting his championship. two other quick items. today, at the downstairs at 2 pm with the board of supervisors meeting and under very large agenda are essentially, all the budget related items for the next two years including our budget and every other city agencies budget. as well as large slew of potential ballot initiatives, and i think today is our first opportunity to vote on both budget and ballot initiative. i think it's necessarily their last so that may or may were may not votes today. our budget is with the rest of the city's budget and we hope will be approved if not today, soon thereafter. the other two ballot initiatives that i've mentioned to you previously are still, are alive and at the full board. one of them would change the appointment process to this very board. that would give the board of supervisors 83 of the seven appointments. all which are currently in the mayor. it would also change the thresholds required by the board of supervisors to eject an mta budget which is currently requires seven members of the board of supervisors. witching that requirement 26. so, that is of the board today. as well as charter amendment that we worked on with the transportation authority, with the mayor's office with numerous stakeholders including the transportation justice coalition. that would provide for dedicated funding for transportation and homeless services. about $100 million a year for transportation and 50 million for homeless service. these manager plan on the hundred and million as i share with you before, was based initially on the recommendations from ayers 2030 transportation task force which recommended just this kind of measure. also, it was a justified modified with input from the transportation justice coalition provided for some regional funds such as for parked cars and cal train electrification. also for muni service affordability inequity funding so for example we can ensure the continuation of our free and reduced they are programs that we could fully fund muni equity strategy and protect against service cuts in the event of an economic downturn. so there was a great process to get to what seemed to be a consensus measure. there was also in front of the board three quarters cent sales tax which would generate incidentally about $150 million a year. which could provide a funding source for that charter amendment. alternatively, there is also a have sent sales tax dedicated to transportation following largely the same expenditure plan that is before the board as well. so, just want to remind you that is where things are in terms of how the votes will turn out it is anyone's guess, but the first opportunity to vote on those is a full board will be today at 2 pm. two other quick things. in terms of vision zero, and will be endeavoring to bring new vision zero updates at the board meeting get just a brief one today. education efforts will soon kick off a conference of vision zero safety media campaign. beginning with the radio campaign starting in early august, in time to coincide with back to school, which for san francisco public schools is august 15. the ads will run on drivetime radio, focusing on increasing the public understanding of traffic safety in the city, focus on increasing the knowledge and belief that it doesn't have to be this way. working to build support for actions both personal action that we can take. also, systemic changes to create safer streets in the subject the idea with the vision 01 odds is accepting people get hurt and die on our street. so, changing kind of reinforce it doesn't have to be this way. this things we can do individually and as that agency as a society to make that change. we will follow that in september with kickoff of an enticed beating campaign. we should have been campaign messages for other four campaigns every month which include vision zero, before the partition zero awareness anti--speeding and motorcycle safety, and pedestrian yielding. this whole campaign is based on a lot of research that we've done in terms of one of the issues to address and how best to communicate and engage people in understanding. so, look out for that or listen out for that. starting next month. finally, just to note, our sister agency, bart is going to be shutting doing some weekend closures between guilty city and glen park. during starting this month and running through october. these will be weekend closures and a part of a tract work that art started throughout the system earlier this year. for this section will be seven weekends. delete" begin in july and the weekend after next july 30-31 and after that the weekend before school starts august 13-14 and one on and off on select weekends through mid october. during that time, trains will be providing free express shuttle returning the stations between daly city and glen the project muni will be providing free local shuttles between the two stations as well as balboa park which is between the two. the part will have extra staff and signage at stations to assist the writers. regular caltrain service will also be available for people going to the pencil. there's alternatives and of course there's the regular muni service that serves the stations such as the verge 08-14, 49 and 54. i just went remind folks that happened you were all collaborating across the region caltrain, and bart to make sure it's painless as possible but it's great to see bart doing this important infrastructure work such as will soon be doing on the twin peaks tunnel. that concludes my report. >> thank you. members of the board, questions or comments? >> one member of the public has indicated a registered addressing the board discussed by mr. reiskin. herbert weiner. >> [inaudible] >> only on matters addressed by mr. reiskin, yes. >> so, howard strasser. i want to recognize my neighbor is your newest member. then, i want to go back to what reiskin said about this charter change which would change how your appointed. you know, if you go back to when the transit advocates wrote proposition e we could not get signatures on the streets ourselves we went to the supervisors as it would you put this on the ballot for us. david changed anything. this is a big step. i think they really know that they don't want to get involved in muni. because when they get involved in muni three, their involved you see you want to make a little improvement someplace and the neighbors come to their office and say, we can do this and can't do that. you actually by the way your appointed you protect them from undue influence and we have to make progress in transit first. our supervisors ,, unfortunately, think they will not have that push forward fast enough to make more progress. so i would hope each of you would take a moment and talk to your favorite supervisor and say, look, you don't want to do this. it's what to trip you up eat. you're going to appoint people and i don't want to stop transit first and too often supervisors .. signs up and you have to take them out good all this crazy stuff constantly happens just to clean up after the mess. so, we should tell them they don't want it. it's not good for them. or us, thank you. >> they could anyone else. to address the board on the directors report? seeing none, mdm. clerk >> item a. item 8, citizen advisory report >> good afternoon. we did good afternoon. today of the two motions to report on. first is pretty straightforward suggestion but the sales tax charter amendment which combines homelessness and transportation separated into two different but equal amendment. that's more directed towards the board of supervisors but i thought i'd share that with you as well. secondly, we are presenting a motion about which follows up on a number of motions over the past year since we been created and support of the historic and vintage fleet at the municipal railway. sf mta,, cac recommends that the mta proceed with planning and engineering work for this to work streetcar extension to fort mason. that the mta be visit ridership projections as appropriate based on recent and projected changes use of space, and non--commute events at fort mason. the increase in ridership anticipated to result from upgrade to the stork streetcars on market street. finally, the mta-cac recommends the mta work with us house and senate delegation to secure funding for the design and engineering phase of this project. that's it. >> thank you very much. this is the second recommendation for my totally support that. i think we ought to move on that as quickly as we can. it's a great base. it moves people across the city. i can see caltrain going out there several kinds of events. so i know director reiskin has a response to that as well but thank you for that. i support that. members of the public get to address >> yes that you have several. will speak on >> >>[calling names] >> mr. chairman and members of the board, my name is white mike wilmot. i'm a marina rested a regular muni rider and i strongly support this extension. as a longtime spur member, i've continuously involved in muni planning since 1995 including spending many hundreds of hours drafting proposition e which of course without none of us would be here. that includes many hours in meetings with howard, and if you permit me a slight digression i feel i agree fully with everything he said about the split board, split appointment process. it took a while for this board and this agency to get rolling. but under your leadership in the leadership of director reiskin, your publishing more now than we ever have. when i g with respect to the extension into fort mason, the 30 and 30-x still serve the chestnut corridor and 30, the banas corridor and incidentally to my appreciate the sensitivity which you handled the recent improvements along the chest that corridor 430 and the 30-x. the fort mason center is still not very well served but no direct service to fisherman's wharf were downtown. the proposal to extend the in f-924 mason just one more minute-when not serve marina residence downtown but serve thousands of visitors to fort mason. we are transit first city and fort mason still depends on too much on the audible. please prioritize the extension of the trolley onto its close to shovel ready then they'll accept it the decision is completed that the mta and national park service have all signed off get there's always two federal resources and there's no other monies for >> thank you. >> thanks. next speaker, please. >>[calling names] >> good afternoon chairman nolan and directed my name is ivan and manage capital budget at 4 mason ctr.. the center's mission is to support the nonprofit arts community. we have over 1.3 million visitors come through our campus. we house over 21 tenants including one sitting tenants a blue bear school of music, city college, restaurants [inaudible]. along with a bunch of short-term events geared towards the arts community and were excited to bring [inaudible] art is. jewell school campus construction has commenced an open their 60,000 square-foot graduate campus in 2017. despite a volume of activity and the activity of our neighbors, national park service in san francisco back and part, were situated in somewhat of a transit desert along the northern waterfront. the narrow pub to downtown a least half a mile away. additional public transit service to the toolkit is would bolster our attendance. our iceberg and most importantly will better tighten the heart of the city to northern waterfront. prodding our audience and strengthening access to our and far commuted as scrabble in fort mason center provide tourist improved public transit options. in the marina neighborhood residents will have additional means of access for commuters traveling to downtown. i incurred you to support the citizens advisory council recommendation to continue planning and securing funding for the streetcar extension 24 mason ctr. affirming our collective commitment to building a transit first city. thank you. >> thank you. >>[calling names]. those are the last two people. >> i'm jim chappell chairman of the board of fort mason center for arts and culture. as you just heard. we are very vibrant place. we have 1.2 million visitors a year right now. only the young resume attacks more of that a cultural institutions in the city. we are doing quite a bit of re-tenants as people are moving. transit is simply not very good. we've recently had two african-american cultural organizations, who have wanted to come to fort mason and both of them said but how will we get our people here? we can't get our people here. we believe there are two programs that are possible to start funding the historic streetcar line. the federal lands transportation program and the federal lands access program. neither of these would cannibalize any other muni rail extension because they're only available for the projects on federal land and half of this route is on federal land. it might also be possible to get a tiger grant for this and as you've heard, it's fully entitled and luminary engineering would probably be $5 million. we really like it to be prioritized to find the money and to move this project along. thank you that much >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> last person to turn in a speaker card regarding this topic. >> good afternoon chairman nolan and directors. i'm rick-present on market st., railway. sfmta is nonprofit preservation partner. we have been advocating for this extension for over 10 years. it was originally in muni's plan for historic streetcar service going way back to 1980 date we think it's time to build it. we think it's unique project the kind of got lost in the shuffle because the planning was done by the national park service at the environmental level, but that was agreed to because there's a lot of sensitive historic issues having to do with the federal land, but half of the extension is on city streets. so, it's really a hybrid cooperative project and now it's been turned over to sf mta for implementation. so, we support this cac and we would note that this cac is comprised of members from each supervisors district in the city would make their unanimous decision perfective of the factors is something that really benefits all san franciscans. it provides access to the northern waterfront for people from underserved neighborhoods in a very attractive and easy to connect weight provides connection to caltrain, bart, and other regional services. so we support the cac's motion. thank you >> thank you. >> mr. chairman that the last person to turn in a speaker card. >> you can't know everything that can be spoken on this is really a great project. fort mason wants this so badly that they're ready to give up some parking places to get the terminal a place to stop. that's really commendable. the other thing that is unique singletrack i think that's pretty cool. you may place up ever seen it is in turkey. then, per chance to go on to provide additional service to the presidio really is even worse transportation place, then fort mason would be very useful. >> thank you. members of the board any questions or comments on the citizens advisory board report? mr. ramos. >> did you say that there was half a mile walk to transit and him look in my mop and from what i call the 43 stops very close to their if i'm not mistaken. can you maybe articulate livermore about-the >> yes. i was physically talk about >> state your name >> it's a half-mile walk to a bus line that would take you downtown. you have to connect. it'll take 45 min. >> thank you for clearing that up. >> anyone else? thank you mr. weaver and members of the citizen advisory committee. appreciate your. mdm. clerk >> moving on to item 9. public comment this is a member of member to the public to address the board of directors on matters within the boards jurisdiction and are not on the today's calendar. >>[calling names] >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. thank you for the chance to speak to you today. my name is--i live in mission neighborhood in san francisco. i've lived on and off year for about three years to really love this city. i love the public transportation. i am also a writer of the commuter shuttle program. i just want to express how much i appreciate that program. and it benefits me personally. it allows me to live here without a car, and because i care deeply about the environment and also about the city that's important to me. there have been some shuttle stops moved in a laminated and that does affect me personally. my commute has been made a longer but any potential stop or elimination, especially in the dolores park neighborhood, might force me to reconsider whether i need a car in order to get to and from work. so, i just want to reform the value of the program. the importance of the continued existence of the shuttle stops and just how much i appreciate your work in considering this matter. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >>[calling names]. >> good afternoon >> good afternoon. thank you chairman nolan and directors for your opportunity to speak. i live in san francisco. i live on their oak street near 21st. i use the commuter shuttle to go to work every day and i've seen over the last few months the shuttle has moved further and further away from item. these three shuttles at 18th and charged and 24 than valencia. now, they been moved as far away as shaw has and 26. and as well as 16th and sanchez. so more than half a mile away. i think i would prefer not to drive to work. some of my coworkers that did i still want to the shuttle but as it's become less can be nothing more and more people are going to do that you i prefer not to. there's an area now between douglas street and brian street, between 18th st. at 21st st. which is zero permitted commuter shuttle stop. i think that a lot of people live there. there's over 40 other transit stops so it's obviously demand for transit in that area. i like to see if economy moving stops further away to a lease find something in that area, probably in the space between dolores park and mission for a shuttle stop. there used to be a stop those being planned one people have talked about the lords and 19. people have talked about the lords and 18th, 18 that church. something in that area i think would really do well to sort of serve the demand for transit in that area for people using the shuttle system. so i also just in general i think density is required for this to work, so they're not part of the city also northern part of the city people talk about canceling the stops that-. i think we also like to see that not happen. to better serve people commuting around this it. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >>[calling names] >> good afternoon >> good afternoon. i'm a san francisco rest of you have been living in the bay area since 2000 and here in the city proper since 2009. i just want to say how much i to enjoy and appreciate the commuter shuttle program. it's made a big difference in my life since february of 2015. i started job on the penance will. it was only because of the commuter shuttle program that job was a possibility to me. so i just want to affirm it's a very very beneficial program and i hope it continues for many years. i do want to comment on the recent changes to the shuttle stop locations in the mission neighborhood and how it's impacted me personally. removal of the stop your my apartment which was 18th and charged street is dramatically change my lifestyle and my commute. i've gone from not using our car only driving on the weekend to now driving to and from the park every single day. this comes at tremendous expense to me from a gas and car maintenance perspective good as well as a tremendous sense of guilt from driving the automobile every single day. i don't want to be a part of the problem with respect to environment so impact in the bay area traffic problem. the much want to be part of the solution it would be my preference to ride a commuter shuttle every day. if possible. so, i'm here to kind of request this group's consideration for restoring commuter shuttle stops in the mission neighborhood. somewhere around dolores park or a comparable location though provide coverage to residents of the neighborhood who may be living east of the park and you want to take advantage of the commuter shuttle program without needing to take a taxi or another form of transportation to a shuttle stop. i'll leave it there and thank you guys again for your time and consideration. >> thank you. next speaker, please.. >> >>[calling names] >> hi. thank you for the opportunity to speak. my name is scott thompson. i been a mission residence for four years and am a strong supporter of the commuter shuttle program. it helps take thousands of cars off the road every day which is great for the city. i hope we can find ways to get more people to leave their cars at home and utilize options but the commuter shuttle pundit unfortunately, some of the recent changes to the program and the missionary made it a lot harder for me to use could i live at 19th and guerrero and use the stop at 18th and church every day for four years now need to walk all the way to 26 and valencia to get on a commuter shuttle. that's about 2.5 hours a week to my commute. i don't have a car so i don't have the option of switching to that but i notice a lot of my coworkers and start writing the shuttles less than switching to driving which is obviously not what we want. what specific change made the to program that would help a lot with this is restoring service to the dolores park area. i've seen a couple months ago there was a pending stop on 19th and dolores but then i don't know what happened to that. that would be great. i think dolores park is a great road for this. this 20to pull over. it's not a bike lanes away when not be a safety issue that. this would dramatically improve my life and the lives of other people live in that area and by the commuter shuttles. lastly, i would ask in the future to look at ways we can improve soliciting feedback from people who ride the shuttles. i saw on the agenda today there's a possibility the 25th and valencia evening stop might be removed and moved to cesar chavez if i understand correctly. i get off that stop every day and i'm on your e-mail list check the website regularly and i do not know that was a possibility i think if you reach out to people ride the shuttle directly in getting the feedback and consideration to these changes would be really helpful and hopefully improve the decisions we make it. they three opportunity to speak. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >>[calling names] >> good afternoon. my name is jean under resin of richmond district and carless sigh ride muni regularly every day if not more than once a day. mirror to talk about the shuttle bus so they could switch gears for just a minute. this has to do with a quality-of-life issue related to using muni. really focuses on the bus shelters. i've talked to muni to several people i muni at various times at meetings and public discussions about this. so far, nothing has been done. i thought my come and get your attention. they may seem like small matters but really does impact the ability to use the buses within each good one of them has said with a digital pen outward the digital readout but are frequently inaccurate when recording the bus arrival time. sounds like you already are familiar with that and i don't know what can be done but want you to register a concern about that and hope there is an effort made to coordinate the information on those readouts with the actual arrival time. i know it's possible. but does. buses and other cities do it so maybe there's some way of coordinated this. another issue them a which seems a minor and petty, but it really does have an affect on those of us who rely on the buses has and it's complicated because clear channel are believed runs these shelters. it has to do with the design of the shelter. that resulted in the maps that are important for those of us who need where to go and writing on unfamiliar reach, they are placed so high that you have to be a basketball player for the warriors in order to be able to read where you are going to those on the bus today and in order to figure out where to go from .8 to point b i do, to the seats and were to read the top of the map. looks like you're also familiar with that. i talked to people at muni about this. i know it's a major redesign but maybe something could be done sooner rather than later to try to make both of these issues take care of both of these issues. your attention to this would be appreciated. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >>[calling names] >> good afternoon directors. mark leeson with cancer six if you dive and san francisco. i'm here to talk to you about an aspect of the commuter shuttle program. that has to do with the permitting process itself. as you may be aware, later this week there's going to be an appeal from one shuttle operator concerning the revocation in what we are believing is a violation of the labor harmony ordinance could pass by the board of supervisors last year. i want to say, first of all, we had hundreds of drivers who are members of the shuttle program and many operators who don't face this kind of situation. but unfortunately, in the case of one operator bowers transportation, we've had numerous e-mails, meetings, facilitated we appreciate by some in the department heads and city families here, but all to no avail. we find ourselves in a situation where this process will be going forward later this week. i'm here to assure you that our union on our side of it is done everything we can to make sure this would not be the outcome. but unfortunately, from our point of view, the operator in question here has done everything to push back and to really not be offering the terms and really the values that the other drivers that are in this program are enjoying right now. none of us would find ourselves in a situation if this company had decided to mirror what the terms and conditions that those others hundreds of other drivers are enjoying right now. so, we just want to put it out there we have tried to everything we can but unfortunately the case of bowers transportation we don't find any other route to go. that you continue to use our free speech rights to protest the conditions that are happening at that company. >> date. next speaker, please. >> >>[calling names] >> if i could put something on the overhead, because i've never used this before? >> sfgov tv monitors that. let me- >> my name is paula katz. could the club start from when i start talking instead of the time on the overhead, please? thank you. my name is paula katz. the residents of the outer park side near the zoo. i write the caravelle and with ours say our caravel stop. the caravelle rapid project will be on your agenda soon. because our engineering of the curing is this friday. we want to make you aware now that there is great community opposition to this project. i am delivering to you save our caravel stop petition that signed over 1600 caravel writers do who do not want any of our stops are limited. will be turning in more signatures in the coming months. a copy of one of the additions is on the overhead. ms. boomer said she would scan in the petitions and forward them to each of you. we strongly urge you to look at these petitions and read the e-mail of the comments you will be receiving it they represent real people with real concerns who do not want to lose any of our oh caravel stops and opposed to many of the other aspects of the caravelle project. as can be expected, many of the signatures on petitions from writers whose lives will be negatively impacted if they lose their stops and have to walk in at block or two when they are catching the l and if they shop at the local merchants, library, post office and local safeway which were some incredible reason all are losing their caravel stops. made the signatures however from l writers were not losing their stops in young healthy writers who use the stops will be removed. many of them told us they were signing the petition because they cannot believe that taken away all the stops which would save less than only 2-3 min. and that it was not worth it compared to the hardship that seniors and people with disabilities would face having to walk that extra block or two. they told us about their aging parents >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >>[calling names] >> good afternoon. hello. sfmta good minds albert chapter dominator of vinton other business on-been there 33 is good i'm also member of the parkside sunset. i just want to state as paula just said, the [inaudible] project is rolling out soon. we are requesting that this early implementation with it are going to put out the. roadways and put on the some of the features of the caravelle plan is just a paint them on the road or not to do the hard construction yet and what we want to do is have a six-month time we can evaluate as a neighborhood how we like these changes and how we can live with it or not live with it and hopefully after that, but not done, sf mta can have another series of community meetings where we can vote on these things these features going on our roadways and neighborhood and make the changes we can all live with it and i'll feel comfortable with it the new van scapegoats: leon on a terrible in our community. so once again, please i want to ask you guys to if you can have an evaluation period after six months time that it's out on the street. so, please take that into consideration. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >>[calling names] >> good afternoon my name is dallas-in my family has been on caravelle street just since 1947. it's like sheet-metal and to that through the course of all this work paula said my friend albert, the way that merely has been rolling out with their agenda, i personally have seen they've done to the mission and other neighborhoods and was granted because i drive about 150 miles in the city every week preparing air-conditioners boilers and so and so forth. i really strongly suggest that the moral out plan that they're trying to do and what albert chose suggested is really followed ray closely. i think that's very important because of business owners in san francisco i think it's very important that we are heard and that we contribute a lot to the city. we really do. we really believe strongly in our community. we really embrace our neighborhood, our community and the people that patronize us. so, again, please take it into consideration. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >>[calling names] >> hi. my name is [inaudible] i've 30 years expense as a design construction project manager. i am with the save our caravel stops. my concern today , and in general, is a design elements of the plan. which i think need a little more review. one of them i'm going to explain today. [inaudible] >> ma'am, please speak into the microphone >> thank you. i'm sorry. this amount of accidents have occurred in the last five years that were measured by sf mta. the largest being 19th and caravel. with the busiest stop on the line. now, the plans are to remove one-stop, three stops in total. one inbound and inbound and outbound. one inbound on 21st, one inbound-how come on 17th. causing at least half of these people to now use the 19th ave. stop. already the busiest stop the most dangerous corner on the line. so, even half of the people that use the outbound and the inbound-outbound taken away either side of 19th could be 1000 more people on 19th and caravel every day. i think that's a safety issue. there are other issues i have it should be considered and reviewed more carefully. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >>[calling names] >> my name is margaret dietz. i post were moving bus stops around the city including the caravel stops. when i read into the record the text of the save our caravel stops petition was submitted to you earlier with over 6000 signatures. petition to mayor ed lea supervisor katie tang and norman gee. as chairman of the board tom nolan and the sfmta board of directors, do not take away our code will stop. we ride the caravelle and we pose as of mta's revised proposal to limit 86 stops between west portal and the zoo. outbound on caravelle 35th and 22nd, inbound on caravelle the 24th, inbound and outbound a terrible at 17th and 28, and at 15th. whether a particular stop is eliminated or not we do i think we want to keep all the else stops. currently, the l terrible stops on average every two blocks. under the proposal it will stop every 3-4 blocks. as of mta already plans to save 6 min. each way on the underground between west portal and then asked speeding up the turnaround by 12 min. and that the frequency of the l. sf mta estimates that other changes to caravelle street and limiting our six stops will save us less than 3 min., less than 6 min. round-trip between west portal and the zoo. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >>[calling names] >>hi. thank you for letting me speak. my name is carolyn lee. i been in the city since 1972 and lived in various neighborhoods including the sunset and now cathedral hill. i'm just going to continue the reading of the petition. let's see. market-we believe less than the 3 min. savings each way, 6 min. on iraq that is not adding to the commits of hundreds elderly disabled and held writers who lose their subject many other writers walk 5-10 min. to get the else to do and we should not have to walk initial 1-2 box because. many writers are elderly and disabled to walk. the blocks were hills. many elevators don't want to look at the block were hills and neighborhood can be dark and cold, foggy and drink it here mostly at night is dark and lonely not a reassuring walk her personal loan. we does not lose our stops are local businesses many many these corners but the safeway at 17th get outside branch library at 22nd with the parkside branch the post office at 28. we do not wonder local merchants to lose customers because the dell longer stops near solution. speed up the altera between the zoo and west portal during rush hour by spinning express rapid shuttle buses were l cars would limit is up to add extra illegals because it is doing on other lines but let us keep our l stop. as a side note, i also within another paper. i feel but many these argument applies also to the 38 geary >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >>[calling names] >> her big whiner. san francisco native. welcome [inaudible] community or mta has one unique town. that's civil disturbances at public meetings. the mission cultural center was the latest example of its. there was face up. people were in each other's face. it was ghastly. this is an outcome of mta policy. it occurred on the polk street does. occurred for the potrero street district. caravelle. you name it. now, this is a result of unrealistic planning. now, and mta says the public support said. referring to their supporters the bicycle coalition , vision zero, other groups. and they're funded by mta. so, this is basically a form of lobbying, a very particular form of lobbying. now, basically, i really am outraged by this because it's working against the public. i think it's really terrible. now, here's some of the mottos of them to get you break it, you own it. mta, portraying next ahead and now in this case with this caravelle run, it's more takeaways and had. you should be thoroughly ashamed of what you are doing. i can only express outrage about it. you really should think it over. i was unit more public commotion as can be your fault and i don't have to hear these terrible people to to these nice mta managers. how preferable. no. you've got to take some responsibility of your off the rails. >> next speaker >> >>[calling names] >> good afternoon. i'm nancy warfel's longtime resident of parkside district. i wish to give you another heads up about the many problems you're having with the terrible price. the neighbors and merchants of most affected by the proposed changes try to tell the mta about opposition without success. over 64 people signed petitions to get ballpark l stop to over 1000 people stopped other petitions protesting the boarding island and resulting loss of parking spaces the new center transit only lanes, the additional traffic signals and were moving the stops. these petition seven submitted to staff months ago and have not been included on your website responded to by amending your plan. people have first been looks like to petition the government with grievances which we have done. but the mta does not seem to care about our most basic tenet of our democracy. i petitions have been ignored and got into a black hole. the l project is moving swiftly through prescribed procedure but staff have not created to pretend to be responsive to public him. this fight will have the engineering public hearing on hundreds of changes to caravelle street for which the be no transmittal to this board are written or spoken comments. you will get a summary of actions for you to approve most likely in bodied on the consent calendar. give them today to let you know we are not okay with being overloaded letting you approve a project with so many unresolved issues and we are reasonable people we will plan to improve the project and its public acceptance. we propose that caravelle plan, which adopts a soft rollout not the six-month with all the aunts proposed before you start pouring the cement. then, jeff community meetings in our neighborhood and evaluate and vote on acceptance of changes. this we can do together. will make an approved project that will benefit all of us. thank you for your consideration. we will be back >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >>[calling names] >> good afternoon. mary a lot of good i'm actually going to read something into the record for some of you can't be here today. her name is alan. she's an 80-year-old lady who lives on toy second avenue. please, keep our l stop to build thing if it ain't broke don't fix it certainly applies to our l stop. currently there's many contented writers who wait on a sidewalk in muni stops convenient to the resident. the stops must remain. the propose time savings is a reason to remove stops are so small as to be laughable except the hardship that will follow. i speak as one who is within the l from 22nd ave. for 42 years. yes, the 22nd ave. hails from discussed people over the years and i often stop to use my asthma inhaler but what's the corner home on flat land. i can stand on the sidewalk and see both incoming and outgoing l cars could i come home at midnight, stop in front of insecticide chicken is flat. the driver motions me across the street and watches as i arrived safely on the south side of caravelle with my easy downhill stroll. i'm watched over and safe. by the proposed elimination of the outboard 22nd ave. stop your take away my safety. for many years, i've ushered at the opera house arriving very late in the dark. as one of your oldest writers at 80 years, i would be my usual spot by the driver. at the front of the card, your plan puts me on a concrete island the 24th ave., next to a deserted, i hope playground where caravelle street because two slope towards the ocean. i need to walk in the dark up the hill past the dark library and hope to safely cross post 22nd ave. and caravelle street. i cringe at the thought. caravelle is not a speedway community or cause it to residential and small business street needs to be protected and not [inaudible] thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >>[calling names] >> could i have before my time isn't going to be an opportunity to comment after the presentation by mta staff on number 13? >> yes. [inaudible] >> yes that's what i was after. thank you. >> mr.-used to be a member of the public transportation committee years ago. spe >>[calling >>[calling names] >>the community has an interest here. i like the idea of a bus that was busted if you get to a certain point of life of the afternoon adventure the after day is a right on the muni. keep the stops. express buses will work. we have another problem. some of our senior citizens they remember let's combat community, late 1970s, early 1980s. the unique, professional people in the white shirts decided to buy some buses and they have plastic windows and by the time buses went through the washer three times, which was about 2-3 months, you cannot see out your window. we had that for years and the only reason we got rid, i suppose, because in 1984 we at the democratic convention within a public eyesore for diane feinstein were then made to this beautiful city with all these wonderful guests taking a buses and thinking how can these people write these things. in the same vein, we have a problem now. the 6500 series, the 67 and series, the 7200 series come articulated buses are rattled traps. they make more noise than the 8300 that are 16 years old we got from in 2000. i can only go from where the wheelchair seats are to the cage around the driver. that's all i hear. i don't know what is behind the better driver said the mark ball busters around. yes, i know the streets are in terrible shape. possibly, that's up mayoral problem. we should address that. we know the streets are in bad shape. we know the buses should be able to take the walls of the street by 10 miles an hour. they should not be rattling more than this 16-year-old buses. the drivers, if there's a union i don't understand the unit needs to step up on this and we also need to step up on this because some big linear tape the drivers that this amount of time laughing at us now but pretty soon the not to be laughing at the end of the units needed. we need to drivers the people that live in the city >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >>[calling names] these are the last two public speakers. >> eileen-long-term district for resident. here is this caravelle neighbor. here in solidarity with my other caravelle neighbors and merchants. i'm here to support the soft wool out proposal for the l terrible as stated previously. we are assisting the mta adopt the soft rollout strategy to avoid a meltdown similar to that on mission street. i would also like to finish the comments from paul a cap and i quote, many who signed the petition told us about their aging parents and grandparents and elderly neighbors would have a great deal of difficulty doing this good way to san francisco they care more about others than saving a couple of minutes for themselves. eliminating public transit stops is a reduction in service. don't take away our caravelle stops. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >>[calling names] lascaux per person to speak under this period >> good afternoon. we are reaching the point where we don't have design guidelines to schedule improvements are we designed by complaints. it can't work this way. i mean, physical. as moved in my neighborhood on the l and the pretty far apart when not complaining so those will be a little stop consolidation that will work and save a few seconds each time. that is great. it's good. you have to listen to people but at the point they complained at the meetings, you have to take the time to explain. why are you doing this? now, i would tell you and you know very well, if you save a minute on every line in the system are talking over $20 million a. that's a bunch. the provide service for a lot of other people that really need it. to say you can walk stops have to be only so far part doesn't work. i would remind you again, the 21, crosses oh caravelle. those stops are 1400 feet apart. no one complained. they didn't 1400 feet apart for many years even before the change that's finally going to happen in 2018. presidio drive had 1400 feet a drive apart. it was. it isn't that the peoplesoft apart walk better and faster than the people north of the park. that was done for car driving. okay. but still it works and no one complained too much. it has to be a better way they just driving people, getting [inaudible] must be with to explain each thing. i was all concerned about service to the safeway. we walked to it particular locate a stop probably far side and nearside stop right on 19th amount they cured the sick. what's an extra half walk. my stopple use, and weight [inaudible] some of the people do not make it here. it's going to be moved broccoli. 700 feet. that's like. it's on the level. thank you >> thank you. and most care to address the board in public comment. seeing none, next item >> mr. burris made a point about the bus shelters and maps been to i can we look into that? [inaudible] thank you >> mr. chairman, consent calendar these items are considered to be retained on active upon by single vote unless a member the board of member the public wishes to have an item severed and considered subtly. mr. chairman i received no request from the public that an item be severed >> ms. borden >> i would ask than .97. and can i ask i don't severed a call to attention we have three measures on the consent calendar around speed limits and schools. i just want to point this out publicly for people understand why there's a difference that emf were establishing 25 mi./h at the school speed limit and then on x were establishing 15. so i had queried if that was because of the nature of the road that the schools are on and i was told, yes, that is the case oh i want to point out because i know under vision zero there's been a big concern for zero is the speed around the school zone. the legal ability to do a 50 mile speed limit but apparently not on the type of street that the school for x isn't it i will collect everyone's attention >> thank you. so the consent calendar planted 10 point hundred is a motion on the consent calendar -10.9 moved and seconded. all those in favor say, aye opposed? director borden two and speak to this? >> yes. i want to the public what 10.9 is so they know what were they are talking about >> sure. 10.9 limit read into the record 10.9 >>[reading code] >> good afternoon directed. this item is actually asking for approval of two areas. one is to extend the current contract and the second portion is to issue an rfp. the current contract has been placed for about 18 years but altogether it'll be a 20 year contract. the current contract is structured up multiple function under one vendor. over the last 18 years of managing this area we've identified certain lessons learned and we think there's value in separating one master contract into three service functions. one is basic citation processing, the second one is permit module in the third component is a special collection hard to collect functions. the way it's structured right now a bidder could bid on the rfp for both these basic citation processing and the permitting function, but not on special collection. however, the first-#and what i hear the concerns are run the special collections area. so, the first line of collections is with the basic vendor. it is hard to collect contacts are to collect accounts that we are recommending be sent to a third party. the reason is several. the first is, we believe the special collection firms that do this better.. that's the record isn't most special collection accounts and rental cars, people visit the city or outside collecting from out-of-state, second, the way that financial structure is set up on special collection is a special collection firms get a percentage of the collection. so, we feel separating the duties so that the special there's no incentive to move accounts into special collections and keep it separated. make the most sense for the agency. about 7% of our revenue is now coming from special collections did so it's a significant source. given the amount of concern i've heard about this area, it makes me more committed to separating the special collections than the rest of the functions in the rfp. so unless you have a specific question happy to answer but i think it's best practices to separate the functions and not have one vendor to both first-line collection and the special collections. i believe there could be incentive to move stuff to special collections the vendor could earn more money from doing that. that's where we are coming from >> do any other jurisdiction separate this? >> yes, dallas for example is doing that. we've always the leader in the citations area. when we talk to other cities first of all our citation is much larger than most cities. it over $100 million collected from citations. we are enforcement team is very good at this. [inaudible] so, we are like a lot of other syndicate were collections is citations is a large part of our efforts. so there's other cities find this model because of the effort because no other city at the level of collections, level of special out-of-state tour is him, rental car, that we see that go into special collections. >> it's minor standing out in los angeles they look at separating this out and they're more comparable to us and would cost a lot more money i guess that would be my major concern. you and i have a conversation about this before. i guess i don't understand the rationale for not allowing the provider to bid on all three because you restore the jurisdiction. and it's worthwhile knowing if we could actually save money by having one vendor do all three or just have them done separately but i don't understand the rationale for not allowing anyone to bid on all three portions. >> they could bid on all three bourne not going to give the same vendor the award for the basic collection front and peace and the special collections division batch is something that we believe is not a good model for us to follow. >> even if it's financially better >> well maybe financial better for the firm because the get more money >> even for us as the city? >> we will a valuate them as their fee process but i don't see a scenario where we would benefit the value added would be better. i just can't envision that particularly given the special collection feels and how much involved over sometime. the first [inaudible] special collections is not their core function. there are firms who do special collections and i think we value more from focusing having a firm that does that and 7% is quite a lot of money that we need more focused attention on special collection efforts. so i don't [inaudible] but i just don't see a scenario where we would be heard. i think be benefited from separating the two functions. >> so were saying the first level collections of stability done by the previous vendor. it just the special collections? >> it's the really hard to collect accounts that we right now are 7% of our-that we want to try another model. see how it works >> don't we have a really high rate is interesting into missouri collections overall? >> if 7% of special collections we have a high collection rate, yes on the first line, it's a hard to collect stuff, rental cars people from coming from out-of-state. those kind of vehicle type exchange, uber and stuff like it. it's much harder to collect an incentive is for the firm to get a percentage of the collection. they're more likely to identify accounts and special collections. >> but when the incentive anybody when the incentive be across all firms of those?. >> it is only doing special collections. so if we separate the two functions they would be one firm doing both soul that went from when not have the incentive to move items from the first level collection to special collection. not sure from articulated this well but for example if i run a company and i knew i could make more money by moving accounts into special collections i'm more less likely to do a good job on the first collection effort because i know i would- >> i'm not saying it's happening still the vast majority are being settled. >> exact. >> it doesn't seem likely to me a lot of percentage being pushed to special collections of the work is. if i'm clear you are saying that the same could bid on all three portions of the contract and our position is we wouldn't take all three but people could bid on all three? >> people could bid also. the way it's currently structured we would allow them to the permitting portion as well as the basic citations part. when not want to use the same firm to win the awards for the first collection portion and the special collections portion. that's the way it's structured. i would assume that the current vendor with 93% of the business and do a good job of responding to the rfp puts the permitting module in the special collection firms who specialize in that effort focus on that area. for our agency i could tell you that mr. blr eggs in one basket is such a large effort that to separate that out like this system is down, everything is just a variety of risk issues we've looked at. so, that's my recommendation. to do it separately and try different model. >> so i guess it's your position the current system we have for 20+ years has not been working effectively? >> in various areas were not quite please with the way the current system is working. >> just one question, if we approve this and you do split this out, and get the three different sets of dates that, if two director borden's point, it looks like we are going to end up paying more, do you at that point have the ability to reconsider how you award the contract? >> sure. absolutely we could do that. we have three firm to recovery confident went to the basic citations when doing the permitting, do the special collections. project two contracts but i don't see a scenario where we have one put all our eggs in one basket with one contractor for all three. >> i'm happy to make a motion >> i do question. what would be wrong with letting apply for the holding? zero comes out? with the make their own case. >> i don't to raise expectations of the vendor that we would consider a scenario and give all 321 firm. that was my concern because i just don't see a model where i would be comfortable giving special collections effort with 7% two- for the permitting and base to go to one vendor but i don't believe the vendors on and allow them to bid on all three and end up with a scenario where -that's the way restructured it >> i'm getting off location of the 7% collectors. do these people call you harass you and call you is that what we are employing? is that what it is? >> i'm sorry? >> are these the people that call you at home mom to repossess your house all that stuff. is that what were talking about?. i don't know about that but it's identified mostly special collections and databases we don't have access to across the state across the country. mostly rental cars they get a ticket they leave the jurisdiction and so it's a lot of work to try to track these people down. we would rather have firms specializing that do that rather than having the base band vendor spend time doing that effort when they could do a job at the base of his. >> sounds like a euphemism to me. director driscoll you get to weigh in on this? >> yes. a few things. first, i'm surprised the level of interest in this topic of administration. as you know, we have been seeing increased ratings from the credit rating agency based on sound financial management practices that we put in place. where we try to, as we enter into contracts would look at other things were doing across the agency, the two best practices emerging practices, ways to reduce risk, reduce conflict and make sure that we are maximizing value for the agency as i think we are required to do. the fact that were changing this is less about this a big problems they can we just see a better practice to reduce risk. i think we have in order for enforcement to work, we need to have credible ways of making sure that people pay when they violate our parking and traffic laws and that's what,, in part, this is about. we believe this inherent conflict when you have the same people at the front and carrying through this lifecycle. it's possible there may be higher costs by separating this out, but we believe it also potentially higher revenues because both the citation processing contractor and the special collection contractor with greater incentive to collect the money that is owed to the city and county of san francisco. so, the great majority of people as director borden points out later citations and we want to make if they are such that the rest of the people do as well. we think this a better and more sponsor way to do so and that's why were recommending it. >> website, director >> it's a board decision. you understand that? is there a motion on the? moved and seconded. any further discussion? >> mr. chairman before you do that you want to see if his numbers of the public to address it >> other members of the public picture to address the board on this topic? >> state your name for the record, please >> nancy-i think mr. reiskin for his comments. i been involved in auditing firm is my professional life and i'm refresh to hear exactly what you said about separation of duties sound management practices of evaluating risk. it's not a good idea to have all these functions in one basket. the presenter was very delicate in being very nice to answer you ms. borden and i hope you're convinced that the right thing to do is to different companies checks and balances. >> anyone else care to address the board? seeing none, i think we have a motion. all those in favor say, aye opposed? the ayes have it. thank you. next item >> mr. chairman that concludes your consent calendar and will move on to the regular count. item 11. >>[reading code]the consent calendar has been passed. sorry. >> [inaudible] >> the chairman did ask the members of the public was to address the board. we did not get any speaker cards. >> next item, please >> item 11, >>[reading code] >> i'm going to ask tom maguire director of streets come forward. were joined by some of our colleagues from the planning department. mr. mcguire was at the planning commission last week doing kind of a reciprocal presentation on general transportation to the planning commission. this is now a general presentation on land-use planning to this commission in preparation for our joint planning and mta board commission on thursday. >> good afternoon. as director reiskin said this preparation for thursday's joint meeting. last thursday we presented to the planning commission giving an overview of the transportation system and mta's primary strategic goals and programs. i'm now pleased to introduce gil kelly from the san francisco planning manager director of citywide planning. planning department and he and his effort to give us a presentation on transit venues establishment in san francisco. >> good afternoon mr. kelly and welcome >> thank you. chairman nolan and vice chair brinkman board numbers and director reiskin. i'm going to take you into a little different room of conversation and talking about fees and collections and even moving transit stops. we are thinking about the long-range transportation system for the city. our main presenter i will introduce in just a moment but i want to set the stage a little bit in that you'll hear more about this on thursday in the joint session with the planning commission, but it's an exciting project that we are just now initiated. you'll hear more about it on first. so this preparation for that. the planning commission was delighted to tom, and speak to them. last week and give them a briefing overview of what's going on in the transportation world. today, you'll get the reciprocal presentation what's happening when not simply ban land use the population and job forecast how we've approached the big picture planning in the past and was in front of us. all introduce joshua in just a moment who is our chief planner when it comes to the growth management issues and so forth. but, i want to preface this by saying we believe this is a moment in time that's extremely important to look out into the future. we have an unprecedented level of population growth since the early postwar period both in terms of jobs and population. we are seeing a very rapid pace of change and transformation of what san francisco is and there are deep questions in the community right now about this corridor be able to live here how people get around the weather will be able to finance infrastructure adequately, whether we will the house people adequately and so forth. this is a thick nest of issues and challenges that we are planning department the time to address along with our partners. to that end, we are kind of focused in this work on the transportation piece. so, will be looking primarily on that on how relates to some of these other big moving parts in the urban development system. it's not to take away from the near-term immediate action being taken by every agency every day. but i think the question were provoking here is will those added to the kind of future that we want in 20 heck 30 years. so, josh will give you a presentation in a moment that will tee up some of those questions with the information about time for your questions but will get into the bigger picture of planning looking forward on thursday and i want to knowledge director reiskin along with his counterparts, john pam and julie chang and representatives of the mayor's office it as an oversight body over the work that's being done a staff level by the three transportation agencies together. that work is being coordinated and managed by teresa espinosa, who is here as well today. tracking this conversation it shall be the primary presenter along with-of your staff on thursday. so, again, kind of a two-part and we want to focus in on bringing you up to speed with long-term population job housing and land use trends. today if that's clear all introduce joshua will give you the presentation. thank you >> good afternoon. joshua-with planning staff. if i could get the slides up, please? thank you. just to recap were here to set the stage for you and give you a broad overview to give you a good understanding of the trajectory of land use planning and growth in san francisco over the last few decades. it's really important to understand just a brief historical context and know where we are today and where we are heading. so, what i've done is broken out the template past interview themes that have really probably in my view encapsulated the trajectory in different areas of planning in san francisco. that have really brought us to where we are today. the first the modern era starts in the late 60s early 70s. it's when bart first opened in the city muni metro market street. also, the board of supervisors adopted the first transit first policy. this is really an arrow where willie san francisco was starting to grow internally after it had reaches maximum extent in the late 40s and downtown was really starting to grow robustly. this is really the era of bringing in the growth of the downtown try to keep it from spilling into adjacent neighborhoods that the chinatown or the tenderloin brother jason neighborhoods. julian era of san francisco grappling with its protection of its cherished neighborhoods. as well as accommodating some amount of growth on the job site in downtown and i was the focus for a good decade and a half to the mid-80s, dated with the adoption of the downtown plan. it also brought us other policies and voter initiatives like the park shadows ordinance pm which provides an annual limit on office growth in the city. as well as the was a ordinance passed by the voters mandated waterfront land use plan. this is the killing of the industrialization of the northern waterfront and what became of that. so, then after that there was a hiatus terms of land-use planning in the city for a good 15 years. really starting in the late 90s throughout the 90s we did have a transportation side, we had great successes. muni metro expended in the first anchor mental expansion with market in the next fourth and king and the construction of the light rail. at the same time at the federal level we had tea-21 words but a focus on transit oriented development to plan for transit oriented. becker cited in a perfect storm with the.com boom and the live-work phenomena we had a lot of scattershot housing being thrown all run our industrial districts around the city and a lot of concern about our rebuilding the neighbors. i was serving him with transit and parks and everything. so with these two movements in hand the prime determinant city reinvigorated its competent planning function and we had this real explosion of housing orientated neighborhood complete neighborhood plans start with a better name its program them to eastern neighborhoods as well as several other key opportunities that also coincided with us at. the base realignment federal program which handed over the shipyard and treasure island to the city as well as the hope six became old sf program. so, this team continues today. projects going on and continue to work on all sf program. the new neighbor programs and the [inaudible] as well as looking at our neighborhood and what we call the market octavia area. that again that program the focus of this effort had been about creating complete neighborhoods as opposed to what was seen at the time in the 90s is just letting housing happen as opposed to creating neighborhoods could sue the better neighborhoods program reinvigorated that that's also the birth of our conference of implementation plan for neighborhood plans. he said option of impact fees associate with all these plans and then go interagency partnership to implement these plans. whether that's transit improvements, open space, libraries and the whole suite of improvements. that sort of brings us to the next era which was not purely about housing but the mission date in the late 90s with the first shot across the bow in terms of what is the next beyond in terms of job growth in san francisco. solely, downtown starting to fill up in terms of the conception of what it is the downtown.. obviously they should they was a unique opportunity. it really starting only about 5-6 years for the city started grappling with and looking at plans in terms of how to grapple with the city's job growth. that's economic diversity. the transbay plan, looking at how do we finalize the downtown probably ultimate stakeout lasted quite a long time. then, looking further south with the central summit plan,, which you probably hear about in the coming months. which is looking at the growth of the south of market among the central subway line which will open in a couple years and you'll hear more about today but some projects coming up along the eastern seven waterfront in mission rock and pier 70 and the central waterfront. billy grappling with the city and not just the city says city of office workers but a city of industrial businesses and other nonprofits and other activities make it real whole diverse economic workplace. so a lot of these digitally eastern neighborhoods and southeastern neighborhoods really where the rubber meets the road on these policy questions about how we not just accommodate both in terms of housing but as well as how we accommodate our economic activities. billy, the fourth and final thing is on the present everybody's minds today locally statewide maybe not as much national but the regional housing crisis. in the bay area. the neighborhood is. it's not a citywide crisis really a regional one. billy, for the first time since the 1970s is really the state to talk about housing policy. i say the late 70s purse issues like rent control, ellis act, and all these issues did not until recently has there been any action even discussion on existed believe san francisco we as you see we been doing this plan on neighborhood by neighborhood basis. how should this neighborhood grow? that we talk about citywide housing policy issues in the last couple of years we said adopted legislation legalizing in law units citywide police terms of those already exist in the way of legislation pending in front of the board 12 accessory towing units citywide bell be a landmark move and last week we had the adoption of an affordable housing bonus to allow 100% for the housing projects, to, to get bonuses. so, this is really kind of the topic that's on everyone's mind. not that the other ones are not continuing in our trajectory and discussions but this one is sort of survey would scrapping our attention. we operate obviously in a context of such as well happening in san francisco. this greater factors and influences influencing our work and the trajectory and factors that san francisco has to deal with. certainly, urbanization using all stories and read studies about how even as a nation hiding interest in returning to cities and whether it's millennial's or baby boomers are just the population at large there's a greater interest in city living and that bears out in our population trends. survey, clustering of talent most notably wealth and small number of cities around the country has been a particular issue with our housing crisis here. as well as issues of, change addressing our issues from a regional basis and so the public health whether the vision zero or just general active lifestyle. that's certainly driving our planning actions that could sue will run through some numbers quickly to give you a sense of where we have come and where we are. san francisco since 1980 was kind of the bottoming out of san francisco population. there was a slide coming out of world war ii. i think around 1950 and then we almost lost couple hundred thousand people to 19 agent that really we've growing fairly steadily since then by about 25-50,000 people protected that the last five years we've doubled that. we've added 50,000 people just in the last 5-6 years along. the result as you'll see from the housing numbers in a minute, we been done to find our housing stock. will the people living in each unit because we are not producing much housing to keep up with population growth get it more employed people per household. whereas, few decades ago you that one revealed over one working person know where multiple working people per household. san francisco has picked up its pace in terms of regional growth. as you can see from these numbers, from the 70s-80s, city would produce about 6% of the reasons housing. that's picked up steadily with each decade culminated with the last three years we been producing over 15% all the regions housing. on a population side is actually even more substantial. while the first planned area adopted in 2015 projected san francisco would grow by 1000 households in 30 years, we grew the household side by only about 7.5 thousand on the chair population some point we do it 50,000 people in apartment 30% of the population growth has been inspecting the we well outpaced these those projections such at that draft on the street today shows a potentially growing by about 100,000 households per 24 is made by potentially as 140,000 households. by 2040. it just shows you are housing pipeline. if over 60,000 housing units either entitled under construction, or in the permitting stage. you can see the primarily concentrated in the southern eastern quadrant of the city

Related Keywords

Missouri , United States , City College , California , Richmond District , Valencia , Carabobo , Venezuela , Turkey , San Diego , Glen Park , San Francisco , Connecticut , Daly City , Berkeley , Iraq , Iowa , San Francisco Bay , Balboa Park , Dallas , Texas , South Korea , American , Korea , Scott Thompson , Byron Cobb , Cesar Chavez , Tom Nolan , Katie Tang , Kim Anderson , Carolyn Lee , Los Angeles , Margaret Dietz , Anita Mayo , Don Ellison , Norman Gee , Paul Peterson , Leonard Oakes , Charles Mar , Gil Kelly , Johnny Whitaker , Sandra Griffin , Herbert Weiner , Howard Strasser , Mike Wilmot , John Pam , Teresa Espinosa , Paula Katz , Jim Chappell , Larry Bush , Tom Maguire , Julie Chang , Diane Feinstein , Alana Smith , Alex Kaplan ,