long to me is the 30% signed completed and 100% design completed and year and a half, year and a quarter. does that offer possibilities for saving time? >> if things go smoothly we might be able to save some time on that. as i said there are a fair amount of coordination that has to go on. if we're talking about what i see as the next hurdle we have to get over is coming with agreement with the arts commission and other people involved in the civic design review process as to what the stations are going to look like and what the corridor is going to look like. once we lock that down the design can proceed more quickly. >> director was talking about tough decisions and one might be is having nor designers and move it along. is that the kind of

thing? >> if i can address some of the schedule questions and concerns? first of all my reaction generally is the same as yours with the schedule looking forward that another two years with design and two years to build seems like an awfully long time and longer than should be required so some things that we're doing -- we have advanced some of the preliminary design so we're moving that forward. we have looked at resource levels in terms of our staffing to make sure between us or dpw or whoever is involved in the design that we have everybody working at full capacity, but moreover what i have talked with vince harris is about is evaluating different project delivery methods. that there maybe different ways to deliver the project and reduce the time it takes from the schedule now

which shows a traditional design build delivery method. we may complete the analysis and determine it wouldn't save time or different methods might have adverse impacts but it's something we're going to look at because i agree with you that getting from 30 to 100 to revenue service shouldn't take that long, so we will certainly do everything that we can to look at ways, whether it's through staffing at rks a different differ ree method, partnering with agencies and a contractor to figure out ways to advance the schedule. there was reference made to delays and caltrans. i think was a story that said caltrans caused the two year delay. that is absolutely inaccurate

and incorrect and i have talked to the regional director about the project. he's very supportive. the former head of the transportation authority and head of dpw went to meet with the head of caltrans late last year to ensure their support and helping to move this along, so i don't want us to throwing them under the bus. it's their road and they have been pretty good to work with. the schedule hasn't really slipped much i don't think in the last year, or the record of decision we were hoping would be earlier this year. as peter said should be around september, and the way it works is the environmental will be certified by the transportation authority commission. that will really

kind of lock inue were talking about the hard decisions and mostly about travel lanes and parking. when they do that -- i mean to some extent you have both done that, their commission and this board, and the approval of the locally preferred alternative. presuming they certify the environmental and maybe it will change based on the comments and nonetheless it will come here for approval. the parking changes are well defined. with your approval of those that's the main trade off decisions that we typically face in the transportation projects. that will be done from that point forward it's design and build. the transportation authority has been working very closely with us that they will hand it over to us at the record of decision but they have done an extraordinary amount of

outreach to the blind community and others but many stakeholders up and down the corridor and because of their outreach there is the level of support as you say for the project. there is a lot of -- i mentioned michael schwartz because he's the lead on the environmental and i want to acknowledge the project manager, sherri dafrosty and one the one handing the keys over to the project upon receipt of the record of decision but we are working closely with them. we all have an interest in moving this project as quickly as possible and nobody wants to wait until 2018 and we are coordinated and committed to make that happen sooner. >> is there a version of design build? >> so when when i was talking about delivery methods design build is a candidate. there

are others and other delivery models that other city agencies and other public agencies and transit agencies are using. some may apply better to certain types of projects. design build is typically done on design projects but design build is one of the delivery methods we will be a little evaluating and may provide opportunities to reduce the schedule. >> other city departments involved in this -- i think you mentioned -- >> the civic design review committee which is a committee of the arts commission which has jurisdiction over surface elements in the public right-of-way. dpw has jurisdiction. caltrans has jurisdiction. the planning department i believe has some jurisdiction. the puc has significant infrastructure, so there's a lot of patients of the city family.

>> >> and other agencies such as utilities need to be coordinating with during the construction to make sure it goes smoothly. >> and the example of the pagoda theater and how they work together when there is urgent's and i hope that and some are outside -- >> yeah, i spent six years here developing relationships and how to work with other city departments so we will absolutely work collaboratively. the pagoda theater was one parcel, 2-mile stretch of a state highway so it maybe more complex but i think you're right the same principles. very strong support i suspect from the board of supervisors and the ta commission and strongly supported by the mayor, by this board, by the planning commission, so i think this will be similarly coming with a lot

of broad support from all the key policy makers in the city which should get us all moving quickly. >> thank you. members of the board anything else? any final comment? >> [inaudible] >> michael schwartz. >> good afternoon. >> i am with the sfmta and based on public comment want to make sure people know where we are in the very near term and the final environmental document is available and as director reiskin said it will be certified by the board and we will bring it to this board in september and approval and adoption of the findings. anyone that wants to review the project it's on the project website and you can download all of the chapters and parking and 3.5 that goes into a longer description of parking, anything you would like to see and anyone is welcome to send me an email

if you have questions. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you mr. schwartz. director ramos. >> yeah. the reason i think there was speculation about caltrans because it's not crystal clear about the delay and there was speculation in the public forums what it could be and helpful to make that public and help people understand what are the delays, and ideally will build support for the tough decisions that we need to make. the reason i am concerned about this morning anything else we don't get enough money to run the transportation system from the federal government, the state government and from within the city and county. the only thing that we have to control the resources is how to use the streets and the longer we wait and the longer it takes to do projects like this the more we just throw away money we could

be saving biincreased efficiencies and we don't need to do that and disband 29 or go through stop reductions. these are i think things we are forced to do because we don't have the resources and this will increase the operations and help us deliver the service that every san franciscan deserves. thank you for your good work. >>i appreciate it. >>i will echo what director ramos said. we talk about this a lot and we as a city and county and as a transit agency have control over the streets and we need to take advantage of that to make the system run better and this say fabulous step in the right direction and we are looking forward to this project moving forward. it's going to be fabulous. >> thank you. >> moving on to the next item, item 12 and changing the definition and disparate impact

policies. directors no members of the public have identified -- >> have members of the board had a chance to look at this and presentation. are you interested to have a presentation for everybody? >> i have one question but other than that i don't think we need -- >> director reiskin -- >> i think it's fairly significant. we covered this at the policy and governance committee but i think it's worth the time to maybe quickly hit the highlights and a little bit speak to the process that got us to this point. >> okay. very good. >> good afternoon. >> hi everyone. i am julie kirb balm and the operations planning operations manager. on our title six program i work closely with kathleen who is in the regulatory affairs group and oversees the title six program. i can go through the material

briefly, but what i am bringing to you is a set of policies around how we evaluate service and fare changes, in particular our proposed service definition and our disparate impacts and disproportionate burden policies. for those of you not familiar title six is a civil rights act of 1964 addressing discrimination and most aspects of life in the u.s. and specifically states that no person in the united states shall on the groupeds of race, color or national origin excluded from participating in, denied the of benefits of or subject to discrimination of any activity receiving federal funds. and as an agency that receives federal funds from fta they monitor our transit providers for compliance and in

particular they issued a new ar meet the requirements in that new guidelines. a strong title six program ensures that public services including transportation are provided in a non discriminatory manner and provides opportunity for public decision making without regard to race, or national origin and color and provides access to service for lgbt population. it's critical and noncompliance can cause federal funding to be conditioned or with held. fta has recognized the mta's title six program as a strong program. they will send peer agencies to us for example to discuss and review some of these issues.

the specific things we're here today to talk about is the major service change definition and determines when analysis for service change is needed and our disparate impact and disproportionate policies which [inaudible] proposed major service changes or fare changes would adversely affect majority and low income populations and what alternatives need to be considered or impacts mitigated. i want to point out this is one small aspect of the overall title six program which we update every three years. we will be bringing that update to you this fall and it includes a number of topics, one of which is how our service is performing against our service standards, so one of the things that we will look at for example is crowding. are we seeing

minority routes more crowded than non majority routes? if so how are we addressing that? so these are specifically today talking about fare and service changes, but we evaluate our service through an equity lens in a number of different ways. in preparing for this work we spent a tremendous amount of time at the staff level really trying to digest this technical and complex project and i was particularly in support in addition to kathleen and helen quam and paul and at the staff level dove into all aspects of this material. we provided draft and comments on the circular itself and participated in title six webinars as well as regional workshops to try to

understand how our peer properties are addressing this issue. every large agency in the country is bringing these policies to their board for adoption. we also arrange for interviews and we learned a lot from chicago and los angeles and examples of majority /minority cities so that was helpful and we conducted a multilingual outreach process and shaped and formed our proposals and to the citizens' advisory council twice and muni advisory council. we connected two public workshops as well as made -- took comments via both email and 311. we also reached out directly to about 30 community based organizations and transportation advocacy groups who focus on equity issues to let them know this

work was under way. it's a fairly -- as i said a fairly abstract topic so we felt those conversations were really important to engage key stakeholders in the process. as i alluded to san francisco is a minor /majority city with 58% of residents being minority according to the census. for low income population we have flexibility how we define low income. our recommendation to the board is we use 200% of the federal poverty level which is also consistent with how we define qualifications for our life line pass. that ends up being 31% of san francisco households meet that definition. we average between two and three people per household which is

by that definition 31 to $38,000 so that just gives you a scale of the income we're talking about. for the analysis to date we have focused on using census data looking at the demographics of the routes that the neighborhoods they travel through and complemented with an on board survey and give information about who is using our service and one of the things we will be doing once that work is completed and doing the data collection and now doing data entry is see how closely the demographics of the ridership matches the demographics of the neighborhoods that the routes go through. i am really supportive of the cac's recommendation at the staff level we review the thresholds when we have this survey data available and we will certainly follow up on

that. this is a map here that shows all of the census tracks that have a higher percentage minority than 58%. as you can see in the map it's primary clustered in the southern part of the city as well as the sunset portions of the richmond and mission, treasure island and as well as areas in the western edition and north of market. the second map shows census tracks that are low income which means they have more households than the 31% city wide average. again we see the southeast corridor emerge as well as the outer sunset, the mission and portions of north and south of market in addition to treasure island. the way that we use the census data is by looking at the -- for every census block group

we determine what percentage of the population is majority as a percent of the total population. then this is the route here. we look at every stop and we draw a quarter mile radius around our surface stops and half mile radius around the subway stops. then we look at every census block group that intersects that radius, whether wholly or partially included in it. we add up all of the demographics of those particular block groups and that gives us the demographics of the route. in san francisco our routes -- particularly the cross town routes tend to be very long, so unlike some cities where their routes are very segregated or they will have very minority or non minority routes our routes tend to be more evenly balanced because of the diversity of neighborhoods that they travel

through. in terms of service and fare changes any fare change that is in place for more than six months requires an equity analysis and that is regardless of the dollar amount we're considering for the change. for a service change though there is acknowledgment by fta they don't want this high level of scrutiny get in the way of service and schedule changes part of the regular business so they allow us to design what is a major service change so once we determine that then also requires that we evaluate the impacts in minority and low income communities. through that analysis we are trying to determine if there is a disparate impact on these

communities? if we determine there isn't then the analysis is complete. if there is the circular gives clear guidance on the next steps which include evaluating alternatives, mitigations, or explaining the rational depending on the type of impact or burden we identify. this is primarily focused on route changes so for example if we are changing a route or eliminating a segment of a route. frequency changes which is modifying how often the bus arrives to pick up customers and span of changes and has to do with the hours of operation on i route. our proposed definition of a major service change is a change in transit service that is in effect for more than 12 months period and any of the criteria is met. a schedule change or

series of changes resulting in this amount or more or rolling or 24 month period. schedule change in the route with 25 trips or more a day and add or eliminate a route. change in revenue hours on route of 25% or more. a change in daily span of service of three hours or more and 25% or more where the route moves more than a quarter of a mile. corridors served by multiple routes will looked at this with route miles. what i mean by that is for example if we are -- we did this in 2009. we restructured the 10 and the 12 and there was a segment in pacific hites that used to be served by the 12 in peak periods between -- on pacific between fillmore and van ness. that service was completely replaced

by the 10 and we didn't think it was a service change because there was no disruption of service to the customers even though had a new name and capital projects are part of the service definition regardless whether the proposed change meets the criteria above. in developing this definition we were trying to find a delicate balance between ongoing system maintenance and addressing important equity issues. we consider the needs of minority and low income populations when we make any change, and this is really identifying the point at which we go through the much more formal process and circular work. the challenge is if you make the definition too narrow you really risk locking in the existing service and not able to make incremental changes but at

the same time you want to make sure you're capturing important equity issues. we did make several changes to this definition based on the public process. one of the key things was that we added this rolling 24 month period to the system changes. what the concern was in the public process was that we would make a 2% change one year and then a 1% change six months later and a 3% change six months after that, and that we would be stringing together these smaller changes and not ever reach this larger threshold. that certainly would never be the intent of me or my staff but we felt it was important in the policy to call out that concern, so what this would mean is if we were considering a 3% change and a 2% change already put in place within the last 24 months we

would evaluate the full 5% proposal and not just the 3% proposal. we also had originally had the span of service before hours, and one of the things we heard in the public process was four hours seemed too high so we reduced it to three hours. we didn't reduce it as far as the cac recommended and one hour and we received comments to do two hours and again we felt it was very close to what we consider more of a minor service change. we also received questions on why this policy does not specifically call out stock consolidation? and there again our stock removal policy is guided by our service standards where we look at stop spacing based not only space between

stops but transfer points and grades, so when we make proposals to remove stops they're within that standard which we felt was not considered a major service change, but that doesn't mean it's not an important policy issue and one of the things we tried to explain throughout the outreach process is that this was not our only avenue for looking at different service changes, and that it's important that we particularly consider the needs of our vulnerable users when we're making service decisions. the other two things that we have before you today are our disparate impact policy and our disproportionate burden policy. disparate impact policy determines when the adverse effect of a service change are borne disparately by minority

populations and our policy rear view mirrors that the changes or major packet of. >> >> changes and have disparate impact on minority populations if a percentage impacted by the change and system wide is 8% or more and i can walk you through some of the examples and i know that's a heavy policy. we recommend the same policy of 8% threshold for low income populations and here is an example of how it works. here are fictitious changes here. and system wide 58% minority and if we were looking at changes for the frequency routes and only went through neighborhoods 40% minority that would be considered a disparate impact even though we're not reducing service. we're adding service

and in a way minority populations benefit more than non minority populations. a second example is shown that we are reducing frequency and heavily minority more so the 58% minority city wide and again that is considered a disparate impact. i think that the nuance of the threshold is shown in the third example. in the third example we're eliminating a set of routes and those routes run through neighborhoods that are 63% minority and while that is more than our city wide average of 58% because it's below that threshold of 8% it would not be considered a disparate impact. my second example here talks about the cumulative nature of these changes. you may have noticed we talked both individual change and a set of changes in the disparate impact definition. in this example if

we were only making changes to route a which is 70% minority it would be considered a disparate impact, but because we're balancing those changes with similar changes to route b we look at those cumulatively, and because those routes collectively go through neighborhoods are 62% minority and within the policy threshold that is not considered a disparate impact. sorry to make you guys do a lot of math, but this is kind of the nature of these thresholds as we're trying to find really the point at which there's a significant difference between the routes we're changing and city average. the last example is here and this is fictitious data we will have real data as soon as the survey is analyzed but in this