transbase.org. and we have been working with sfta regarding speed data to inform speed monitoring, and working with an edmologist to link to medical records to help us capture at least a 20% underestimate of pedestrian and bicyclists injuries to inform vision zero initiative. in respect to schools, our lead from the department of department health has worked to ensure that our safe routes to school partnership is the schools work with vision zero to serve as a body for these activities. working with 25 elementary schools and it's expanding.

they are happy to announce they were awarded an active transportation grant for close to $1 million for the school year 2016-17, and to provide transportation tool kits and targeted traffic enforcement. a partnership between our agencies. we have seen increase of traffic enforcement by sftp. and everyone has walk to school on your calendar on october 8. and there is more about bessie carmichael school in the work-group hand outs. and we are working on what i call the city vision work group. we are working to look ahead. we know that the 24-24 is important goal by the city. but we need more to achieve zero deaths, and we have a review of

safety practices based on what is happening in the united states, and other cities implementing vision zero and as well as our peer cities. and looking to other countries such as sweden and australia, to see what they are doing in best practices of safety. and comparing that to the work in san francisco, as well as we know of our best practices. and this review will help us in short and longer-term strategies for achieving vision zero in san francisco, and feeding into our longer term planning. once we complete our tier action strategy, and timothy mentioned we will engage with this committee about our findings and opportunities for the longer-term strategy. and finally and really importantly, with respect to communications, a contract has been signed with d & a consultants that are working with our city team on a communication strategy.

which we will hope will be reflected in our presentations and communications moving forward. a lot of work is done by the city, and we know that we need more resources to really support us sharing that with you and with the public. and so john knox white from the mta is the lead for that work, and the communication work has kicked off. and we look forward to sharing that as well. >> and that will also -- if i may interject, that will create a clear definition of what vision zero is. and how we will communicate vision zero and the projects that support that. many concerns that came up today, this communication strategy will really address those. and then they will have an opportunity as well, as we have seen a lot of support from community groups and various groups on how to get involved. this is an opportunity to get involved and amplify the message across the city and the region, on how to get to that vision of

zero traffic fatalities by 2024. >> okay. any commissioners, tang. >> thank you, i wanted to see if you can elaborate a bit on the policies you mentioned we need to change at the local level, you mentioned speed enforcement but elaborate on other things to do. >> we have particular areas to look at. one of them is in particular, one of the things that we found most effective is the automated speed enforcement. that is a standard practice in many cities in the world, and has shown direct reduction of speeding. and currently not allowed to do that, we need to pass legislation. i believe that is at the state

level and work we can do at the city level. but we need that state approval to do that. that's one concrete example. the other one is with parking in particular, with vehicle enforcement. one thing we have been looking at, for example, the box programs we can expand those, and look at what the role is of parking control officers and how that enforced and how the funding of that is tied to these particular programs. so we are basically revising a lot of this to look at what we can do at the city level. or do at the state level. and there are opportunities for funding at the regional level. and at the state and federal level for these projects and programs. so we are kind of doing a brought look -- broad look now to see things in the city, of things that are in the way of

delivering these policies. or are they in place and need other jurisdictional efforts. we will have a fairly good view for that, for the next committee. and it was apparent that we need a group to address a lot of these. >> okay. so and to the education piece of this. and i know that we are waiting for state funding, i guess, to come in june. >> uh-huh. >> to be effective in june. and in the meantime there is an allocation of $1 million for safe streets. and my understanding is that much of the attention is put on the east-side corridors. i am wondering what is happening with the west side? >> you said most of the funding is going to the east side?

>> how are we addressing the education piece of it? >> i will have john (inaudible) come and give you details of the city wide effort. >> good morning, john knox white from mta. i think there is a number of ways to answer that question. the current safe streets san francisco program that launched at the beginning of this month involves city and regional wide educational outreach about driving safely around cross walks. and marked. we are doing outreach to ensure that drivers are aware. even if there is not a painted cross walk on the street, that they are cross walks. and when people are in those cross walks marked or unmarked, that they have the right-of-way.

much of the education is city wide and region we focused. and we are working with sfpd that is doing focused corridor enforcement for the next three months starting next week. and targeting those with pedestrian right-of-way. and we have money in the recently passed budget to allow us to continue the educational and marketing efforts through next spring. as we await for the funding next year, that program will expand from four to 10 corridors. but again have a city-wide focus. and i think we -- i don't remember the exact, sorry it's been a while since we wrote the grant. but the enforcement piece in that, the work that begins next fiscal year will be city wide. it won't be focusing on a few

specific streets. there is specific focused streets that we do additional enhanced enforcement. but city wide enforcement on streets west and east, etc. >> i am wondering if we can get more specific, maybe not today, but in terms of which corridors that we are talking about. it's city wide but you are going to target specific corridors? >> sure, for the current program we are working on geary, mission, sixth street and kearney. and they were identified as the top-four high injury corridors where the collisions happening were related to driver violations and pedestrians right-of-ways. >> and you mentioned six new ones. >> i don't remember if we identified the six corridors

there, but i believe that we have a list of those corridors and i could send you that this afternoon. >> that would be helpful. as you know in particular last year, there were at least district 7 had disproportionate number of fatalities compared -- wasn't worse but certainly up there in terms of percentage of fatalities for a district, it was high. i want to be sure that we pay some attention to the west side. >> absolutely, and we were very careful when we wrote the grant, not to write ourselves in a box to only do enhanced enforcement on specific corridors, but to have a list of injuries and fatalities but to have the ability with this program that goes on for a few year. to address speeding throughout the city. and on corridors that may pop up

as hot spots while the program is running. speeding is a problem on most streets in san francisco and the region. unfortunately, we will only reach the goals that we want to reach, and not specific corridors to speed. but any street they may get caught. >> thank you, and by the way, i have not mentioned this and nobody mentioned this. almost two years ago when i came into office, one of the first things i asked mta was can we cut the speed on monterey boulevard, it's basically residential coming off of a freeway. at the time it seemed not possible, but i guess we were consistent enough and thank you mta to work with cal-tran and whatever, but we were able to, it was not a miracle, but certainly it was nice, wow, we actually got it down to a

reasonable speed of 25. and that was making, it was put in a month ago. and just having those signs that say 25 made a big difference. because it was 30 before, but when i drive 30, almost every car would pass me. now at 25 miles per hour, i am driving 25, very few cars are actually passing me. i noticed a difference, i am sure when you do a study, i think it will prove me correct in terms of my observations. it's another example of what we can do to make it safe for the streets. and reducing the speed, the type of injuries you get will be different. thank you very much. >> i wasn't involved but make sure that the people that were. >> any public comments on this item? >> i am bob plantle.

i have some good news, some bad news, and some suggestions based on what california walks learned last week. the bad news regarding the safety of schoolchildren. the governor vetoed assembly bill 1153, that would have doubled the fine of speeding through school zones. here in city departments lowered the speed limit, that is helpful. the governor said it was regressive to double the fines. so the suggestion i am going to make is, since both the t.a. and the city have lobbyists. they didn't seem to communicate quickly, timely and thoroughly to the city and t.a. and maybe from those agencies to advocacy groups. if we could have known of these meetings we could have generated comments from the state and the

city. those lobbyists are paid, and we don't know what their instructions are. but i suggest a better communication channel throw and have staff work with the senate and assembly to find out what is coming up. the good news is that last week the california traffic control devices committee recommended that guidance be the approach to lowering the walking speed [bell] now recommended 2.8 feet per second walking speed. previously it was an option, and option only where seniors were present. it was very remote. so i suggest also when t.a. gets a money request or mta puts in a stop light they see that it's 2.8 feet per second walking speed that is now used.

thank you. >> any other public comment -- come on up. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i wanted to highlight john knox white's work and his data driven approach to this campaign. and really collaborative approach. if you haven't seen the signs already, they are effective and have taken the saur -- surveys from the public and direct that behavior and making sure that people know that they have to yield to pedestrians whether or not there is a cross walk. i wanted to say thank you to mta and all others. >> no other public comment, public comment is closed.

item 6. >> introduction of new items. >> seeing none, commissioner breed. >> thank you, i want to make a quick comment. i want to apologize to the public for our loss of a quorum. and i know that many of you have busy lives as well. i am appreciative of supervisor tang for stepping in. so we can continue this meeting. we do take this work very seriously. and i want to be sure that you know that your time is valued. and we appreciate the feedback and appreciate you hanging in there with us to see us through this process. so thank you. >> okay, i guess no introduction of new items, any public comments on this? seeing none, public comment is now closed. meeting adjourned. >> item 7. >> wait. >> item 7. public comment. >> oh, any public comments on

general comments? seeing none, public comment is now closed. now the meeting is adjourned. bye. on november 4th. >> hello, i'm holly lee knox with sfgovtv along with the legacy of women voters i'm here to discuss measure c on

november 4th measure c is a charter amendment that will change the way the city funds to children youth air their families extend the children's fund and the property tax set acid until june 30th 20041 it will increase the property tax to $0.04 for each $100 of seated property value not increasing or change only effecting the money of property revenues set aside aid help where the chancellor fund to increase the youth 18 through 24 years old measure c will extend the public education k3w0ish9 be fund until june 30th 20044 and

extends the fund 40 preschools to include 3 go, 4 and 5 years old and to use the fund for children from birth to 3 years old and measure c will create on our children council to advise the city and school district on the families in san francisco and on proprietor ace best practices for addressing those needs every 5 years the council will adapt a our children plan to recommend new policies and fund for families the purpose of the plan to have an efficient service measure c will go indicted the rainy day reserve into a school and city resign i didn't day reserve 25 percent will go to schools and 75 to the

city reserves under measure c the school district will withdraw up to half of the money in years it expects 20 collect less money for students he and will have to layoff employees the school board overrides those and withdraws any school reserves if you vote yes. you want the city to amend the certifies for families by extending the children's fund by 25 years and step forward the public education fund for a 26 years and creating our children and our families council and dividing the existing rainy refer so is a city and school rainy refer if you vote no, you do not want to the city to make the changes to the charter

i'm here with santa drive fewer with the division and board of education and are a proponent we're joined by marcie the lib terrain a proponent thank you folks for joining us starting with opening president fewer and so measure c is a ballot measure under the battle to authorizing a person of the general fund to be set diode aside to provide services to the city government san francisco youth the children's fund. >> you public enrichment fund to join together to better lion the services those fund have been providing education for thousands of children in sophistication for example, this fund as 73 drenlz to liernsz and people's 3 p e teachers and engineering and math so this is

has a great impact on san francisco children for the past decade and so we hope to reauthorize it thank you. >> you're opening remarks ms. berry. >> the lib terrain has recommended a no vote on this proposal because we have challenged with all 3 components of the proposal first of all, the children's fund does not just fund science and magnet and those kinds of things there are 3 things of what it funds a lot of services every time services go up obviously new innovative education goes down so that's one challenge we see the other challenge is that the rainy day fund is also part of this proposal

they're old rainy day fund in existence it was the board of supervisors and the mayor that decided how it would be assessed now we have two fund one is going to, accessed by the briefcase. >> given of the stemmed one hundred and 9 stemmed thousand children only a house will this impact the cost to families. >> it will make it easier for the families to live here there's no increase in the taxed also it's easy for families to live here not assessing the services by art and pe and science those kinds of things that parents have to pay for out-of-pocket often we this liv

also funds that the release for families coming to san francisco as a forgotten i have to pay out of pocketed having counseling at schools and much the medical services anothers school sites. >> how do you respond. >> i'm assuming we're talking about the idea if i have all those services then the population will increase the public utilities population will increase this is incorrect the reason that families move into the city only to see whether the education system is teaching their children how to write and read how to fill out a job application in euphoric on

services that's not what a family it looking for how is the children learn that's why we're concerned about the increase of services as opposed to complete emphasis on the type of education mode of education innovative i'm sorry innovative way of teaching which were we haven't talked about other modes will besides the public utilities there recent teachers in front of the class let's put you fund on that. >> what happened to this measure lead to hire enrollment rates and in san francisco is there accurate funding for teacher to student ratio. >> this funds a lot of academies science and technology and engineering and math all the

technology first of all, there's never enough money in our public education we have so you're asking is this accurate 23u7bd absolutely not providing children with the well education they deserve and he have to say that san francisco we're proud of the san franciscans that voted for this seeing the need for the social responsibility and so the answer to your question we are predicting much hyper enrollment rates and hope to serve all our families are a quality high rated we're one of the top in the state of california with a our skufbtd we hope to choose to use our public school. >> with what are your thoughts.

>> i think that services are the key could enrollment and good education we're looking at to read the proposal you'll see two pages of things that have absolutely nothing to do with fires or magnet true the enrichment funding they're providing amenities, however, i think that so much services when our funding those for example, one that is clearly in the proposition is drug and help with drug use or help with the lgbt issues people help with things we call local services but again, a family does not move in or live in public utilities to access the services that has to do with the things

i've mentioned but how the children are learning i'll agree there never will be enough the more there is the more spent there is no ability to keep any cap on the spending so if we have more funding we're going to have more services so do we have enough funding for a population probably not and never will. >> thank you so we'll start with final thoughts we'll begin with you ms. berry. >> yes. i think that the idea services are they increasing is a good thing perhaps something that should be rethought if we're increasing services that means that somewhere in the family their education system somewhere there's a huge

breakdown there is mammoth failure if we go by the services; right? the thing to do not view the rise of services not so good and a therefrom emphasis as i say the education education is easily measured can our child get out of school and go to college or got a profession or fill out a application florida no we've failed. >> your final thoughts. >> surely education is the first mission we have a college culture in our schools and a graduation rate in california

we're at top our students do well but it's difficulty difficult for the families to live here you see the majority of children below the poverty level what their incomes are like the reason we have the educational experience and we're saying that 73 teachers and librarians is a service but i disagree with you i think this the proposition that zero all the libraries and i don't think that the art teachers i think they're a necessity to provide a well-rounded education so i would urge everybody to vote yes on measure b it's for our children and the future of san francisco. >> thank you both firing time and your comments