so to be clear, for djo5.05. it looks like that is almost done, so we could choose the 7 or 14th. for the djo, for use of force 5.01. since we are discussing it already, october 24th maybe we will leave it there for the use of force 5.01. but for dgo 5.05. we can calendar that a potential action item. >> what is your next available date? >> the 17th? >> would the 14th be okay? >> no the 7th is the second. >> is that the second? >> it is the second? >> yes. the second one. the 7th. the 7th. >> november 7th. >> perfect, thank you, chief. >> thank you. >> okay. >> thank you, commissioner, anything further from the commissioners? >> okay, hearing none, we are now at public comment on-line items 2, a, b, c, and d.

>> commissioners, ray hearts director san francisco open government. i guess that you probably sense a certain level of anger and frustration from me when i come before you. because i watch your meetings on sfgtv if i am not here, and it isn't just the fact that you seem to disregard the rights of the citizens under the sunshine ordinance and the brown act. but you seem to be flagrant about making promises and commitments you don't keep. last week there were documents that were shown on the overhead which were not leg able for the members of the public. documents which under the law should have been made available in the information packet which was sent out. and then they should have been available to the public so they could be participating in this. and it gives the lie to the idea that you want the public participation and then you deny the documents and the information that people need to actually make meaningful public comment. and then, you make a commitment to putting these documents later up on to the police

department website, and low and behold you go to the website, and they are not there. so what is it? are you going to let the public par participate? are you going to give them the documents that by law you are supposed to be sending them and providing them? or are you not? >> it really seems strange that i have to come here. i would rather be doing something else to be honest with you. i watch time and time ago, while you sit here many of you lawsers and disregard the fact that you violate the rights of the citizens of this city to participate in these meetings and it does not seem to bother you at all. not a whit. and it was like two months ago the chief promised me a copy of a report that i have been trying to get since february, nothing. last week made the same promise, nothing. >> so, when people tell you stuff, it turns out that they are not telling you the truth,

it always brings that expression to me, fool me once, shame on me, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. when you fool, 15, 20, 30 times and more importantly you watch other members of the public receive the same discourteous and dishonest treatment simply because they don't know their rights under sunshine and don't know how to get the rights under sunshine enforced, i think that it is unconceniable. >> when it comes down to consecutively rights and constitutional rights that a citizen has to drag people before many hearings of the sunshine ordinance task force and the ethics commission just to get a body that swears to support and defend the constitution to do so. i think that it is disgraceful. and i am glad that commissioner chan finds it funny. and i also find it interesting. >> i am not going to let you

rit kaoul any commissioners. >> you are supposed to talk to the commission as a whole. >> and you are supposed to do a lot of things. that is the way that it works... >> thank you, mr. heart. >> thank you, commissioners mazzucco... (inaudible). >> next, public speaker, please? >> public comment is now closed and line item number two, athrough d. >> please call the next item. >> number four, whether to hold item five in closed session and to assert client privilege with regard to 55. code section 67.10. >> this is public comment on whether or not we are going to have a closed session, police discipline matters that are

protected by the supreme court as well as pending litigation, public comment, mr. heart? >> san francisco, open government, i said this last time and i will say it again, thank you for turning on the microphone after i started speaking. i don't trust you father than i can see you. in fact i don't trust anything that you do in open meetings, because you really don't follow the law and you ignore the law and somebody brings it to your attention and you simply ignore that too. and yet you ask us to trust you that you will go into a closed session and you will only discuss the things that are listed there. i don't believe you. and i think that there are a lot of people in this city, especially members of the african american community and other communities that really don't have a lot of trust for you as a police commission because they see you as nothing but a body that runs interference for the police department. i'm curious why the police department needs to have the

police commission run interference. my understanding was you are supposed to be representing the interest of the public. what you do is you protect the police against the public. and very honestly, i don't think that you when you go into a closed session, i have not been given one single reason to believe that what you say you are discussing back there is limited to what you put on the chart. and in case, somebody wants to think maybe i am paranoid, i'm not, i have watched you to do it to other people. i have watched you make the same kind disengine you yus and comments about wanting to participate in these things and we will give you this information and it doesn't come. and we will show it on the website. and it doesn't get there. and then when someone comes and actually challenges you, you either look down at your papers and work on something else or you just ignore it.

or, more than likely, if it really, really bothers you, you take whatever time you want to dismiss whatever members of the public say when they have two or three minutes to do it. i'm coming to every single meeting from now on. and as long as i am going to be here, i'm going to be commenting on every item that i see that is appropriate. and very honestly, i see no reason to be polite with you for the simple fact that you are not polite to the public. in fact you are not even honest with the public. >> i think that anybody... you know, i think that... you look at a meeting like this and the public isn't even here. i think that is because they working under the impression that mamma didn't raise no fool. why should i come here and listen to somebody tell me how much they care about what i speak when everything they do makes that a lie? if you want to sit there and act all offended and all insulted like what i am saying

is not true, i would ask anybody to just go back and review some of your hearings on sfgtv and see the same things that i do. >> any further public comment. >> yes, sir, please come forward. >> commissioner, board, chief, my name is mike and i am with the occupy movement. and i don't have much to add in addition to what mr. heart brought up is that these concerns are pretty prevalent in our neck of the woods. and it has been a very good year for everybody, i hope that you guys learned as much as we did. i would like to ask a question, is the city interested at all in working diplomatickly with this movement? is the department simply going to continue to take its orders from the mayor? whether they be just, unjust, legal, or illegal or whatever. i just want to know what the temperature check with you guys is regarding working with us

and building a relationship with dedicated personnel. much as the language program and many other things that you guys are working on. are you going to need to take this a little more seriously. so, rough idea? would you guys are interested in working with the occupy movement instead of working us over? >> you have three minutes for comment. the commissions cannot engage. >> not allowed to answer questions? >> no. >> thank you, sir. >> any further public comment? >> hearing none, public comment is now closed. please call the next item. >> line item four vote on whether to hold item 5 in closed session, including whether to assert the attorney-client privilege with regard to item five, san francisco administrative code section 67.10 action. >> do i have a motion? >> i move to we move into closed session. >> i have a second? >> second. >> all if favor? >> aye. >> thank you very much, we are now going to move into closed session for all of the reasons

>> do i have a motion? >> yes. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> do i have a motion. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> thank you. >> thank you.

finally -- i will go over this in a few slides, but this is the first time a lot of flexibility was given to the congestion management agencies. previously we had gotten fundss in silos for different programs . this round where we have a lot of flexibility as to what type of projects we can program. this is the map of san francisco's priority development areas, also on page 59. i won't go into it in too much detail unless you have questions. the framework in 38

million, 3.5 million is planning activities of funds every cycle, congestion management. generally over sight of fubd funded projects, county transportation and regional transportation and lots of thesering activities. next portion we see here, 24.6 million, that minimum we have to spend in the priority development areas. we created the next line down. this school is an eligible project. eligible projects within this program. and we created this target to really identify the school infrastructure projects in the city. there will be another round of funding and another call in winter, january of 2013 where we will be focused on the education outreach portion of this school

program. the final piece is remaining balance, funds we can spend outside the area. >> the funds you are articulating in buckets, are those written in stone or asked to approve? >> that is that we are asked to approve. the piece in stone from mtc is 70% in priority areas. that flows down to us. >> what types of projects can be available? previous cycles of funding, all these funding programs more or less were separate discreet programs that would come to us separately or regionly competitive. now we can fund all -- we can, for example, fund all the projects that qualify for transportation for livable communities project, so this is a valencia and streetscape, local streets and roads, a pavable rehabilitation project. new features, the bicycle and pedestrian improvements pot have previously

projects could only be funded through larger streetescape projects or a bicycle project could be funded if it was on the bicycle network. those restrictions have been lifted. we can fund virtually any pedestrian project including education and outreach, a flexible category. and the school portion. we decided to call that out and focus in on a small amount of funds to look at infrastructure projects. the schedule we are working with right now, the funding framework, which we just looked at, the priority schedule, released today, will release projects after the board action next week. initial application also be due in october. we are working on getting a little of a previous release out a week early, making sure the application is up and online and projects will begin looking at it and understand what we are looking for. we are doing a two-part call for projects, so the

first initial round will be due for approval in early december, what we are calling the initial list of projects. we will be using prop case sales funds or other funds, making early investments in the projects. over the next few months work with the sponsors to increase the public outreach specific those projects, includes doing presentations for the bicycle and pedestrian and advisory committee and looking at the design and cost update funding plans to ensure once we approve as a staff and you as a board and move forward through the federal pipeline, which can be a very complicated deadline driven process, the project also go through as smoothly as possible. we put this under the rubric we call project readiness, looking at environmental clearance and making sure it is a solid project moving forward. again, you will see money

flowing to the projects in 14-15 through 15-16. how will projects be selected? we have a criteria on page 63 of your packet. a lot of the guidelines, screening and priorities are dictated by the federal level. we have to follow the guidelines. a specific example is if a project wants funds it has to be a certain condition below 70. i won't get into the technicalities. certain things we have to make sure they are meeting benchmarks. mtc included criteria focused on priority projects on the growth. these will come down from

mtc following san francisco specific criteria. if you look at what is in your packet, where we have italics, this is the project criteria. readiness is something we will be working on with project sponsors. we will be given priority to project streets. one of the advantages of having the different fund program under one rubric as it is much easier to fund projects that address multiple modes and multiple issues on a corridor. finally we will be giving priority of projects that make improvements on high-risk and high activity corridors so this speaks to the mayor's working group and action forward. we will be working with sponsors to specifically identify what the safety issue is and how the project is addressing it. i want to point out at the

regional level mtc is updating their criteria. throughout the region project sponsors will identify the amount of improvements and bicycle improvements in the project so we get a good regional level look at how the funds are supporting those projects. with that -- >> quick question for you. as we talk about the guidelines, can you help me -- put that back up, thanks. how do those interact and what i understand, understand the priorities, we have zero control. that is our representative. i look at a map of san francisco and high priority areas and by supervisor districts 4 and 1, half of eight and two are not in the districts. not in the high priority districts. how are we going to i guess these concerns but making

sure we have improvements and how do these interrelate and how are these going to work pragmatically. >> let me point out one piece that may assuage some concerns. the idea with supporting priority development -- can i go back to the map quickly? that is probably easier. here is the map. we can fund projects that the cma -- you know, the authority deems to have proximate access to priority development areas, so the best example of this that i can give is if you look at the priority development area on 19th avenue, we don't necessarily have to provide funding for just the piece of project that may be on 19th within the pda but if project provides access we can also use that project. that means the criteria. there is that piece of it. so that can be helpful for a lot of the districts that have the large corridors and the citywide networks providing access. >> someone -- give me an

example. not representing district one or four here, since we are on the committee here and in district one, the one california feeds into and starts by the ocean. but this is not in district one but the california because it feeds into it, we can prioritize to 40th? >> we would have to look at where the improvements where, make sure improvements are serving the priority development area. if we do all improvements out at 40th, we would have to balance those two things. >> okay. >> priority development areas, these are established at the local and regional level in 2007 and 2008, really areas that have land use plans taking on growth. >> i fully understand that again but i think from an equity perspective -- we can talk about that. in certain areas they