have been able to see that we have been able to increase attention to each and everyone of those areas. in fiscal year in 2006, only three features, trees, and waste reseptember -- this reflects the department priorities that we want to bring those features that mostly directly impacts the users. even with this score, they are turning around. both open space and the only two features last year scored below 85 percent. both improved 25 percent in 2014. i hope it's

appropriate. i wanted to take this moment to offer my personal thanks to the controllers office for the continued partnership and involvement in the san francisco parks evaluation program. while the controller is always supportive and participated in this program their contribution has been particularly important this past year and particularly of help to me. i wanted to say thank you. as the commissioner knows for the past 2 years, we've been working really hard to revise the standards, to increase the values to the department to our staff and to in accrues the benefit to the san francisco systems and park users who we serve. this coming year is going to be a busy year. we are finally reaching implementation. we have a new park evaluation data base in the works, we have new reports we are building, we have reformatted forms for use in the parks and we have improved our training for all

evaluators. we do expect there will be a shift in the price scores that we'll see next year given the great extent. we'll face those bridges next year. speaking of the future, the controller always has recommendations to take on for us to do. the first is to really set up and rebuild a model on how park evaluation data is being used by the department. i want to say within the works we have two new seminars we are bringing to our own staff. one is to build a model for action planning. so when the parks supervisor or manager gets a park score, it can set up a response plan

that would remedy any deficiencies it has found and the second, we have a front line staff at the gecko to understand what the evaluation is going to be looking for and how to make sure a park meets those requirements. the controller asked to plan strategic improvement to consistently low performing parks. in addition to the changes i mentioned earlier, i want to say the great new soccer fields are going to be terrific. third, they want us to reach out more clearly to our evaluation staff. so far this year, we have had trainings that oriented every single evaluator, all 120 plus of them to new revised standards. we have new evaluators received classroom training and i have

implemented a new program with field training with both new and continuing evaluator staff. we are working really hard in updating our maps and features. we should finish the design of a new format for math. math designed especially for evaluation so we can do the work more easily. just completed this week, new features list for the parks and hope to update further by the end of the quarter and finally starting this week, two new interns have joined our staff and will be working with us to help move what has been moving to innovation in the recent years to a format that we can see on a map. with that i conclude our report. we are open to questions. >> thank you very much. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> okay. seeing none, public comment is closed.

>> mr. ginsberg? >> commissioner, i just want to thank the controllers office. this is also the national best practice. we get asked by other major city big park systems about our park maintenance scores as it has come up at other national park board meetings and it's an incredible useful tool and you get a little competitive and you always want to keep pushing and doing better. really this is not about scoring, this is about information. what are we doing well, what parks need more attention, handout you do we allocate staff and it's a really important tool. i also want to really commend and thank danny kern and lydia for their assistance in this program. >> thank you again. >> that was discussion only. we are now on item 11.

>> excuse me, commissioner bonilla? >> sorry, i just had a question. on the lower performing parks, is this the intent of the staff to get together with the community and share those scores and engage them in helping to make the improvements so that we continue to up those scores in the lower performing parts? >> i will probably take that one and sarah may want to weigh in here, but steve did talk about how we use this internally and external one of the most important pieces of projects, this is where we steer resources. we get request to do work, we get companies that are not particularly associated with a particular neighborhood park but just want to get their

hands dirty, and sarah and kim use this data to volunteer projects. >> then in conjunction with the community? >> yes. >> thank you. city clerk: we are now on item 11. economic benefits of san francisco's parks and recreation system. >> sarah ballard. i wanted to thank the park alliance for this important study. matt is here and will present you the details of what we have learned about the economic impact in san francisco. before he does that, i want to thank the park alliance and staff as their work on the project and the public land for executing the study and our own staff who had to provide a lot of information, take time out of their everyday

job to work with the statistician for putting together this report. it's helps with the local economy and the values that we stuart and the information we provide. as you know, the city invest $90 million in these parks every year and as you see from the report, the economic value is measured at $959 million from the government. a pretty good multiplier. any tech start up would be very pleased with that. to show you the concept of this report and how we plan to disseminate this information is valuable for us

throughout the study and the parks alliance. >> thank you, sarah. a little over a year ago, at the urging, the parks alliance started to look into the economic impact of our parks and looking for a way to quantify that for the first time. we turned to the trust republic land which has developed a methodology they have applied at park systems in cities across the country and really about k the industry standard for measuring the economic impact. we commissioned the public land to conduct the study and i'm happy to invite becky back to the podium to go over the results. >> thank you, it's very exciting. this is the 12th study that the public lands has performed through

our city parks. the analysis basically looks at the economic impact of the entire recreation and parks system through trails, national parks and the plazas. the whole gamete and looks at seven factors, how parks contribute to property value, tourism, tourist do they visit because of the parks and what people are willing to pay in the marketplace, the service to get at public parks, the health, what are the health care cost saefrgs -- savings and volunteerism and clean water and clean air and how do trees improve air pollution. those are the different factors that the economist go through and get all the information from the city and basically calculate a dollar value for each of these revenue producing factors for the

city government and cost saving factors for citizens. although economy don't mix those revenues with saving and comprised public and private financial benefit we do the attributes to see the dollars. the parks then provides the city an annual revenue of $72 million municipal cost saving of $72 million. it's the same. resident savings $261 million and collective of $554 million. really impressive numbers and that was the conclusion that the report came to and while the results are consistent with other documents they produce, san francisco's park system plays a particularly out sized role

in this economy. very impressive for one of the top three systems in the country. certainly makes a case for recognition and investment. in terms of recollect nick's, -- recognition, i would like to thank all the people for looking at the report. it's a huge list of people. thank you very much. i encourage you to look at the details and feel free to contact us if you have any detailed questions. >> thank you. >> when we first started looking at this study, we projected impact in a few million dollar range. a billion dollars, that knocked our socks off. i want to thank peter harness and his staff and jen for your support and our thanks to danny and the staff at the recreation and parks

department and department of public works and they have all contributed time. i know i'm preaching to the choir but i want to take a moment to comment on the implications to this study. now we have another reason why we love our parks. we already know that the park are essential to making life livable in a densely populated city and we know it's e essential to our children and keeping it a family-friendly city and we know that parks are central and to our emotional health and we know to quantify that parks are essential to our economy too. this comments on our fundamental shift to these parks. they are not amenities, they are essential services. we also know that we the people of san francisco have

been rather miserly in the park system and we have been doing that for years. we know no you that this economic impact study let's you know why we should fix that. our parks are essential, adequately funding them is i mperative. the parks alliance has an adopted a big hairy and rather audacious goal, a b hag. it is our to be policy priority that within the next decade we intend to secure adequate and stainable funding and maintenance for the parks in san francisco. that's our goal. we welcome your support in achieving

that goal. thank you. >> thank you. city clerk: is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner low. i think b hag would be to take your section on property values and given the proximity of parks should be given to the real estate community and some of the development committee to educate them on when there is an impact of a project on a park how their property values might go up and how they might contribute towards sustaining those parks that they impact and not only on physical improvements, but in program improvements. >> the same might be said for advocating for special assessment districts and demonstrating

how it helps in light of self it's. the other comment i have is i wonder if it isn't possible to use the same methodology to include the golden gate national recreation area and presidio per say as add-ons to the san francisco bay benefit. >> those are included in the city and county. >> they are, okay. when i saw san francisco recreation and parks, i wasn't sure. thank you. seeing no other questions. let's move on. cl eric clerk we are now on item 12. general public comment continued. if at this time the general public may address the commission or any items that are not on the calendar. if you did not speak on item 4. if there is anyone who would like to make general public comment. this is continued from item 4. seeing none, this item is closed. commissioners,

matters, are there any commissioners matters? >> >> commissioner low? >> i just want to make one comment. there's a reference to 500 pine street and asking us to tame -- take that by eminent domain. there is a project on that ground and it will result in the extension of the saint mary's playground. i saw the construction and design and artist work and it's going to be a fabulous addition to the saint mary's playground. >> the other thing is you get two appraisals and for a project downtown we are talking millions and it's better to let the developer add a piece of the park to it, but, anyway. commissioner macdonald?

>> a little bit about the partnership with san francisco park alliance. i had an occasion to be a participant in a movie night at the park. it was a fantastic illustration about how a park can be a wonderful convening opportunity to bring multiple constituents from one community together and one of which i would like to see our city replicate that as a model. >> is there any public comment on this item in seeing none, public comment is close. no. 14, new business agenda setting. >> commissioner bonilla? >> yeah, nothing new. something old. i look forward to the new year of having these items , these two items that have been agendaized for

the last two 2 years put on the list the lincoln golf course and the park stables. we need to have some discussion and resolution on how we go forward with those two items and at long last would like to see them off our calendar. they have been there for quite some time. >> thank you, commissioner. >> is there any public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. city clerk: item no. 15, communication. any public comment under item 15? >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item 16 is adjournment. >> move for adjournment?

>> move and second. >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? . we are closed. thank you very much. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >> >> good morning, today is november 25, 2014, welcome to the san francisco transportation authority. my name is john avalos, the chair of the authority, and today, this meeting is being clerked by our clerk, steve, if i can get the last name.

steve, stamos, thank you and, cell women to your first leading, clerking the transportation authority, the meeting is brought to us by the staff, and hegan and thank you for your service, steve, would you please, call the roll. >> roll call? >> avalos? >> present. >> breed. >> here. >> campos? >> absent. >> chiu. >> here. >> cohen? >> absent. >> farrell. >> absent. >> kim. >> here. mar. >> absent. tang? >> present. >> commissioner weiner. >> present. >> commissioner yee. >> present. >> we have a quorum. >> very good, and let's call the next item please? >> item two, approve the minutes of the october, 21, 2014, meeting it is an action

item. questions on the minutes? >> motion to approve. >> from commissioner weiner and we will go to public comment, and any member of the public that would like to comment. and seeing none, we will close public comment and we will take a roll call vote. >> avalos? >> aye. >> breed. >> aye. >> campos? >> absent. >> chiu? >> aye. >> cohen? >> absent. >> farrell. >> absent. >> kim? >> aye. >> mar? >> absent. >> tang? >> aye. >> commissioner weiner? >> aye. >> yee? >> aye. >> the item passes. >> go on to the next item. >> item three, chair's report, this is an information item. >> thank you. colleagues, the election early this month, marked two important milestones, for transportation in san francisco. first voters sent a strong

supportive message about the transportation funding and policy with the passage of propositions a and b and the transportation bond and funding measure and with the defeat of prop l, that sought to hold back the long standing policy, the transportation joins with the san francisco transportation authority and other city agencies in thanking the voters of san francisco for supporting much-needed investment in our city's local and regional transportation system. we look forward to rolling up our sleeves to help to deliver the improvements that will support our city's visioner zero, to drive the traffic fatalities to zero and, that will support reliability and improve traffic management and in the bikes and the walking grass across the city, in order to assure, broad based benefits i have also been seeking the sfmta assurance that will apply to the equity policy and analysis to propositions a and

b, programs and i am hopeful that it will be supported i have actually called for a meeting or a hearing at the board of supervisors, to cover that very topic. election night marked another major milestone for transportation in our city and it was 25 years ago, this november, that voters approved the first half cent tax known as proposition b and also created the transportation authority to administer the program and the local transportation sales tax that was reauthorized in three and renamed, proposition k, helps to pay for projects large and small across san francisco, speaking on behalf of my colleagues on the board, we are grateful that the voters with allowed the transportation authority to have the half cent sales tax, every dollar, helps to attract more in state and federal and local funds, all of the programs outlined in the

proposition k, plan, generate the benefits city wide and the major capitol projects are all moving forward including a rebuild, or a rebuild of the parkway and the subway extension to china town, and the transbay transit center and cal train electrickfiation as well as the bus and networks and looking around the city and in my own district, i can see evidence of a transportation evidence work of agencies and the community, from the ongoing improvements and new generations of vehicles at the balboa park bart station, and the plan studies and the capital improvements that emerge from them. we also celebrate, 25 years of community safety and safe routes to transit and kaoul and significant problem kay support of any transit program. and i know that our executive director has some special come

menive activities, planned. and the colleagues on the board in the coming months to review the many accomplishments of the transportation authority. we will highlight the tradition of accountability and transparency and community, involvement here at the da and celebrate improvements in all san franciscans have benefited from, and look ahead to shaping our long range transportation vision, for the city and delivering the next century of transportation improvements and for now, let me wish the transportation authority, a happy 25th birthday, and to each of you and for for our public, watching from home, have a safe and happy thanksgiving holiday. thank you, very much and that concludes my remarks. >> and if we have no comments, from colleagues, we will go on to public comment, and any member of the public that would like to comment on thit em come forward and seeing none, we will close public comment. and go on to the next item.

>> item four, executive director's report, this is an information item. >> good morning, chair avalos, i am please to present my monthly report, which is on your desks, and thank you again, for recognizing the tremendous out comes for transportation and in the november elections together with the sfmta and all of the partners and agencies were delighted and want to echo our thanks to the residents and voters of san francisco for providing us more resources to improve transportation. and as well, we will be presenting you with really fun, and wonderful come menive activists to tell brait the 25th anniversary of the transportation authority in the next month or so. on cap and trade to lead off the report today, we are glad that the final definition of the result, for how the regulations will be developed have come out, and we saw some movement to help with how these will effect san francisco based on our advocacy and we recognize that there will be three census tracks that will

qualify for so-called, disadvantaged community status, and this is or an improvement over the initial version that only identified one potential eligible census track and so there are three and the tender loin and the soma and the bay view hunter's points and the tracks that will qualify for that status, and the growth, council really stressed the guidelines for the affordable housing sustain able grant programs. and here, we still have more work to do and we are trying to shape those together with other city and regional agencies we are working very closely with the mayor's office and abag and atc and management agencies, to insure that this is a program that can be smoothly implemented and administratively not too difficult to try to combine the formal housing with transportation programs, to meet the state's greenhouse gas emissions targets. the hopeful sign is that they have delayed a meeting to consider the guidelines, to revise those, in response to

the public input, and so that that meeting will happen in january, and we will be able to report back next year to see how that shakes out. the other state wide issue and regional issue that we have been working hard on is the cal train electrickfiation program and there is progress and we want to appreciate chair kim who heads the transbay and the joint power board meetings as well as the land use committee of the board of supervisors will be holding hears on this toing. and the program, at the top priority for us as well as for many of the partners in the region and there is a critical, assessment choice before the jpb on the vehicle selection it replace the current fleet with the electric vehicles, and here we want to be sure that the future fleet will be compatible with the high speed rail, operation and the platform or the vehicle high is the key issue and cal train and high speed have become engaged and working closely and we are

seeing the hopeful signs and we are hoping that that does lead to a truly operatable system with the shared platform and vehicle, height, to enable reliable operations of both systems. also consider approval for the cal train system and we will see it in december, at the board of supervisors and the transportation plans and programs committee, moving on transbay, transit center celebrated an above ground milestone to first deal that was put in place and i was pleased to join the celebration this month to celebrate the progress being made on that project and in addition, the focus on the future conference happened, which is the annual meeting of the sales tax county, and the