public comment. does everyone want to take this ad submitted? can we take this without objection? great. item number 12 passes. >> thank you very much. thanks for being patient. long night. >> thank you. >> are you the guys who run the s and p 500 tax advantage, same parametrics. >> yes. >> yes. yes it is. >> okay. thank you. >> where would you like to go from here? >> item 18. >> item 18, mr. secretary. [ inaudible ] >> why don't we open up item number 18 for public comment while staff is settling in. are there any members of the public that would like to address the commission on item

number 18? seeing none, we will close public comment. just -- just the high points. >> okay. thank you, commissioners. good evening. before you are the proposed revisions to the sfdcp investment policy statement. we have hired cowan as our -- [ inaudible ] have made some changes to it. these changes have been discussed with the deferred compensation committee at length, and i've provided some context on the industry's best practices and since then, the deferred compensation committee then voted to forward the ips with the changes to the board with their approval, so i would like to now ask the board for your approval on the changes to the ips.

[ inaudible ] >> -- to item 17 first, which is the deferred comp committee report. we did spend a lot of time reviewing this on the committee, and so today, it's coming to you for -- because we felt with the revisions and being in compliance with industry best practices, our best practice guidelines, looking at changing regulations, this is the best time to bring it to the board for approval and incorporate all of those changes and based on staff's recommendations. >> okay. great. thank you, commissioner bridges. any questions? [ inaudible ] >> committee report. >> i was giving it to you because we didn't go back to that prior item, but to let you know that the committee did spend a lot of time reviewing it, so i would move the item based on the committee s.

>> there's a motion. is there a second? >> second. >> is there any discussion on this item? okay. seeing none, can we take this item without objection? item number 17 passes. >> thank you. >> item 18. >> okay. thank you. commissioners, so item 18 is the -- i was just going to say. >> we just did 18, so it was 19. >> it is 19. >> thank you. item 19. >> thank you, commissioner. before you, commissioners are the proposed revisions to the sfdcp's plan document. the plan document was last updated in july 2016 to reflect a revisions to the loan provisions in article five. as mepgsed earlier, we periodically review or documents to make sure they reflect industry best practices and have made the recommended changes with the committee last

month. the committee also voted to forward this to the board for their approval, so we're asking the board for their approval to the amended document. >> based on the clerk composition committee's recommendation, and we've spend exhaustive time reviewing the guidelines. i would like to move the item. >> there's a motion. is there a second? >> second. why don't we call for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to address the commission on item 19? seeing none, we will close public comment. commissioner driscoll? >> just a comment that yes, the committee did spend time on this, but the majority of work was done by the manager. >> yes. >> also, the attorney of the city attorney's staff helped, and i'm sure mr. huish was

looking over their shoulders at all times. >> yes, and they also had outside counsel. >> and can i say, a majority of the recommended changes were over seen by city of moi, who is a member of my team. >> okay. any discussion? there was a motion, there was a second, can we take this item without objection? great. item number 19 passes. can we just move onto 20 or do you want to move? >> we need item 15, which is the review of van berkom issue. >> do you want to put 20 and 21 together or do you want to push them to another meeting. >> whatever your pleasure, mr. president. i feel like number 20 is the investment performance for the

second half of the year. they've prepared a quick one, greg can do a quick summary for you, if you'd like, or we can also hold it. it's entirely up to you. >> we can accept it. >> we can accept it as submitted. >> why don't we call items number 20 and 21 together, please. >> yeah. >> okay. >> unless there was something you wanted to point out. >> no. it's a very good result. >> yeah. >> across the board. >> so we're calling items 20 and 21 together. we will take the investment performance for the second half as submitted, and for the deferred compensation manager report, is there anything you'd like to highlight for the board. >> nothing that hasn't already been communicated. >> okay. great. why don't with you open e open public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to address the commission on items 20 and 21. seeing none, we'll close public comment on items 20 and 21.

thank you very much for your presentations. now, do you want to go to 15? great. >> mr. chair, while you're assembling, i think greg will be moving onto a new assignment from cal and so i wanted to acknowledge and thank him for his support in working on this sfers account. >> i know he's getting promoted, but he's off the account? >> are you being promoted? >> yeah, but i'm not off your account. >> but you're getting promoted. i have to acknowledge that. thank you for all of your hard work. >> also, paramet wick was delighted to come see us today. they're from minneapolis. >> a long way. >> item number 15, please, mr. secretary. >> okay.

folks -- >> you have a copy of the vba guidelines in front of you. [ inaudible ] if you have any questions on the guidelines, we're here, and we can address them. >> we've had vba before as a b sub manager, basically. >> this was approved at another meeting. >> so basically. [ inaudible ] >> just going where we're going direct. >> these guidelines. >> approve guidelines for any of the managers [ inaudible ] hired. this is something that has to be adopted. >> yeah. just a direct relationship. >> questions, commissioner driscoll? >> i think we approved that,

200 million. where will the funds come for that? >> there's a little over 60 million from bibian, and then we'll take the rest from the u.s. investment small growth value. >> that leaves bibian with 16. >> we're taking bibian to zero. >> so where? to what? >> to zero. >> zero? >> zero? that's the plan. >> yes. >> that's been approved, or are you doing it -- you don't have to ask us for that one. >> i think staff has the authority to take money down from our managers. >> okay. great. thank you. >> okay. are there anymore comments or questions on item 15? seeing none, did i already call for -- public comment. any members of the public like

to address the commission on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. is there a motion? motion. >> is there a second? >> second. >> is there any discussion on item 15? we take this item without objection? yeah, please. >> does that mean we're still employing bibian in our portfolio to make collections for us. >> not calendared, but -- yeah. >> okay, but it hasn't been done yet, we haven't voted on it, right? >> it's not within the growth of this -- >> yes. >> it's just the specific -- >> yes. >> and that's going to be another calendared item. >> i think that's going to be a separate calendar item. >> so we'll take item number 15 without objection? okay. seeing no objection, item number 5 passe15 passes. i think we only have a couple

other items. we made up some lost ground. item 16, please, mr. secretary. [ inaudible ] >> very good, commissioners. i'll be three minutes. another great month in january , up almost 2.5%. it was driven by pretty much one asset club. public asset was up for the month. the market was down about 10%, peak to trough. the market has recaptured more than half of that decline in the last three days. fiscal date, at the end of january , we were up 10.5% on the year. as of yesterday, we're still up about 8% on a fiscal year basis. we do have a couple of things, how's keepi housekeeping things that we have to go through just thin

terms of requirement. on page 3, ventures, we asked for and were granted approval for two strategies totaling 75 billion. we actually got a total of 45 billion between the two. broad river, which is a private creditor strategy. we asked for 50 million, and we got 50 million. orby, we asked for 50 million, and we did get all of that, so i was plaechbly surprised by that. patrium, 50 million in a buyout strategy, and we got all 50 million. in this safari strategy, the absolutely return strategy, we asked for 100 million to perceptive. we actually got 75 million. sycamore, which you recall is a consumer buyout strategy, we asked for 75 million, and we got 50 million. you see the returns on item --

item number nine for absolute return and inception to date, we're running at 8% annualized. i do want to introduce if he's still here, is alistair. he's joining us from came brbr, so we have one liability on our books from cambridge, and an asset for ourselves. welcome to san francisco, and he's assisting han on the public strategy. we do have three open recruitments right now, one for a senior portfolio manager for private equity. we actually have good news on that. somebody has accepted our offer of recruitment. i don't think i have a start date. i think this was just accepted yesterday, so we'll be announcing that here shortly. >> did you bring him from hong

kong? >> he is coming from asia. >> so can i just [ inaudible ] there was a manager we approved. it was kind of a -- focused -- [ inaudible ] >> but was that an individual owned the firm himself? >> yeah, same one. >> what was the name of that again. >> perceptive, founder, joe edelman. >> yeah. >> and we have gun recruitment for a director of social responsibility investing as well. we've already talked to three people, i believe on that. we do have an investment committee meeting on march 21st, it's a big agenda item, talking about the strategic plan for the portfolio as a whole, including presentations by each asset class head, so the whole -- pretty much the

whole staff will be on stage. with that, i'll turn it over to the board. >> can i ask for next month's report. can you get us a daily analysis of narcotic returns as compared to our absolute return portfolio so we can see how that responded? >> oh, certainly, for february . >> you want to see how it performed daily or just ago regate. >> no -- >> i'd like to see it one by fun, just out of curiousity. is that too hard? >> well, it's a portfolio. >> okay. you don't see each fund on its own. >> well, we don't think of it as a portfolio. >> i know. i know. i'm just curious to see how they performed during that week. >> okay. >> just to see if anything was really not what we thought it would be -- or understood the volatility a little more. >> okay. >> i think that issue's a

really interesting moment in time for us to understand what that portfolio did when the market went down. thank you. other questions, comments from the board? seeing none, we'll open it to public comment. is there anyone from the public who'd like to address the commission? mr. furland?

[ inaudible ] >> 30 seconds. [ inaudible ] >> time. thank you, mr. furland. are there any members of the public that would like to address the commission? seeing none, we will close public comment. why don't we go to item number 22, and why don't we take item

22 as submitted, and we'll call for public comment. seeing none, we will close public comment on item number 22. discussion only item, and where would you like to go from here? executive director's report, item 28? >> the only thing i'd like to highlight is to remind you that form 700 season is here. i provided you the link to file on-line. if most of you recall, you need to file on-line as commissioners, and you're able to. if you've forgotten your password, there's a way for you to reset your password, but the deadline is monday, april 2nd, for all of you to have filed your form 700. just as an aside, we provided a copy of the senate bill, and we had a discussion with the city attorney, and it's the city attorney's opinion that should this become law, we are exempt.

san francisco employees' retirement system is exempt from the coverage of this -- this -- this bill, but we'll watch it and continue to track it because it is a trend, obviously, that we automatically keep track of here in california as to what's going to be impacting us as well as other plan. >> and that change as it applies to existing retirees, that's the intent? >> it would be for any -- any cost of living adjustment that would become payable after january 2019. it would forbid a public plan from paying that adjustment unless they were at least 80% funded. i mean we're 89% funded, according to the formula, so we would still be paying, but what they're saying is you must be at least 80% -- you can't have unfunded liability of greater

than 20%, so really, they're saying 80% funded. going forward, any kbraer that you're below 80% funded, even though they were promises or payable, that it would prevent you from -- a public plan from paying those. >> sounds very similar to another recent proposition that was in the courts. >> yeah. >> okay. all right. anything else? >> no. >> all right. thank you very much. why don't we call for public comment. seeing none, we will close public comment. that was item 28. do we really only have items 29 and 30? >> yes. >> okay. item number 29, does anyone have anything for good of the order? okay. public comment on item number 29. seeing none, we'll close public comment. item 30, board member reports and comments, why don't we take those as submitted. public comment? seeing none, we will close public comment on item 30.

can i just adjourn the meeting in. >> i'll make a motion. >> meeting adjourned, thank you. transportation agency.

director brinkman.on agency. >> present. >> borden. >> hsu. >> present. >> ramos. >> present. >> rubke. >> present. >> torres? >> here. >> torres present. director pleasing advised director heinicke will not be with you today. please, also note we have a new sound system here but you still do need to speak into the end of yuck microphone so you be heard, recorded for all times. item 3 announcement of prohibition of sound-producing devices during the meeting. the ringing of a cellphone, pagers and sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited. any person responsible for one going off may be asked to leave the room. cellphone cause microphone interference and the board requests they be placed in the off position.

approval of the minutes of the regular meeting. >> do i have any public comment? >> no, madam chair. >> do i have a motion to approve? >> second. >> all in favor. aye. >> aye. >> any opposed? hearing none, minutes are approved. >> item 5 communications i have none for you for this meeting. item 6, introduction of new or unfinished business by board members. >> thank you. i would like to -- i'm sure you are all aware we lost a fellow commissioner, i believe it was last week. shirley brier black passed away. and malcolm vice-chair heinicke was the only one that served on this board with ms. black. she was an inaugural member of the san francisco m.t.a. board. she was appointed by mayor brown in 2000. she served as a member of the board for 10 years retiring in 2010. the native san francisco, she always used public transportation. she worked for sieu1021 for many years and president from 1988 to 1991.

having reached her centennial just last month she was known for her commitment to workers' rights. shirley always stood up for what was right so we will adjourn our meeting in her memory today. she will be missed by a lot of people in the agency and the city. directors, do i have any new or unfinished business? >> no. >> all right. seeing none. thank you. >> item 7. districdirector report. >> good afternoon, members of the board, members of the public and staff. start by wishing everyone a happy lunar new year. wore a little red to bring good luck to this board meeting. i do have a number of things to update you on. i will start with vision zero. just one item of note. last week the san francisco police conducted a special enforcement operation that was focused on bike and pedestrian safety. and i'm told our very own chair brinkman was present during the operation, not issuing citations

but just observing. nor were there reports of her arrest. [laughter] >> there were 16 citations issued to drivers at the event. which was the third in the series of seven targeting distracted driving. the police have issued 95 citations for people texting and driving at the three events held to date. vision zero outreach staff were on site at the event and distributed materials highlighting the risks associated texting while driving. to drivers who receive the citations as well as the people walking through the area. this is an on going part of the education and enforcement aspect with vision zero. funded by the national safety council and will be continuing these efforts is and the goal is not to issue citations but to raise awareness and change behavior such that people are not letting themselves be distracted when they're out on the streets, no matter how they're traveling. glad to see that work moving

forward and thank you for being there to support it. that same day, muni riders, particularly those who use uni metro had a difficult time throughout the day getting in and around the city. i just wanted to give the board and the public an update on what happened. we had the subway service had four different incidents that impacted the service. first, we had a train control failure at west portal station, which impacted the opening of the rail service. this happened early in the morning. there was a cross over track near castro station that failed twice during the day for two different reasons. which prevented us from being able to make service adjustments in the subway or send empty trains to crowded platforms. we often use that castro cross over to adjust service. and then the switch failed and the switch that allows the js

and ms to branch off the main line to get up and out of the subway and back into the subway. so four different incidents all on the same day, all impacting the subway, which which know created a lot of inconvenience to our riders. so on the plus side looking at the incident, our field managers and transit supervisors worked to manage the service disruptions and the gaps where possible. our signal maintenance staff resolved the train control program before the end of the morning commute and they overhauled two switches and replaced another switch before the start of service the following day. so while the switch issues hampered us throughout wednesday, our folks worked really around the clock to get them resolved in time for thursday morning's commute. and we also had mobilized folks from across the agency, particularly our planning and communication staff to get out

there onto the platforms so that we could direct people so we had a large showing o large amount o direct people where they can find alternative transportation or just to let them know what was happening. the service was running. it just wasn't running as well as it normally would. despite what worked well as always in these incidents, look at things we can improve in the future or things that didn't go as well as they should have. we have reviewed and improved our emergency procedures as a result of this incident. one example is for an incident or series of accidents like this in the future, we will a point someone to serve as an incident commander who will be in charge of all aspects of the service. we didn't really have a single point of contact and single point of accountability for this series of incidents that we think would benefit us going

forward. not just to manage the service but to manage the communications about the service. we've also been focusing on a number of vehicle issues that have exacerbated problems like this and did a lot of work this past weekend to make sure that we have the right number of vehicles available for service and we keep them in service. finally, we normally have tighter communication with bart and bart control center when we have incidents on muni. since a lot of people transfer between bart and muni that bart staff can communicate to their riders who might be our riders. the communication didn't happen the way it should so we'll tighten up that protocol as well. we apologize to our riders and everybody else who was inconvenience. it was an ex extraordinary confluence of issues that

happened all in the subway all on the same day that were unrelated. but from a riders' standpoint it's a big difficult day. hope we didn't spoil anyone's valentine's day. but one other thing happened on that day, one other unfortunate incident i wanted to let the board know about. we have had a construction inspector, this is uni transit supervisor who is assisting construction project and this is a service that we provide, not just for our own construction projects but for other agencies, public and private, street construction, projects in san francisco that have an impact or require interaction with muni so we dispatched someone to get the muni buses get around the construction site and help coordinate between the construction site and the muni

service. february 14th, they support a public works' led project to replace some sewer pipes up at the northern ends of vanness, not related to our other large van he iness. he informed the construction personnel our overhead line department would be a arriving shortly and they couldn't -- they needed to wait until our folks to come and begin work. there was somehow miscommunication and a truck in the area started moving, struck inspector castenada and sent him to the emergency room with some serious injuries. the good news is that ken he has moved out of the intensive care unit and is showing improvement and is stable but will have a long path to recovery. he has had multiple surgeries and will continue to monitor his

progress. we've reached out to his family and our thoughts will be with them towards a strong recovery. but i wanted to let you know it happened. we'll be working with the other agencies, public works, the contractor to review this incident to see what went wrong here. we have pretty expensive training from our staff. they were a full personal protective equipment to make themselves visible so this is certainly a preventable incident that we will work on preventing in the future. on to some projects, specific issues. before i do that i should mention in terms of the incidents, one other one, which is happening now, late this morning. we had a network issue with the sfmt network that impacted traffic signals in a large part of the city, largely concentrated in the south of market area. those signals are largely in the process of being restored by the

end of the meeting they will all be fully restored. we've not yet determined what the root cause of the issue is. our signal folks and our i.t. folks were on this quickly and were quickly on the path to getting those signals back into operation. in case you are getting messages about that as we're sitting here, i wanted to give you that update. on a couple of projects, at our last meeting, we were requested to provide an update on the sixth street pedestrian safety improvement project. this is a project that has been before you in a number of times over the years. so, we continue to conduct proactive public outreach for this project. we've gotten recent feedback from organizations north of market street as well as the chamber of commerce, the san francisco travel, san francisco hotel council and others not right in the media vicinity but concerned about some of the

traffic impacts associated with the original project design. so as a result of that feedback, we are exploring modifications to the project as originally proposed, which you may remember, would take the four lanes of traffic and reduce it to two widening out the sidewalks. so based on some of the feedback that we've gotten, we're exploring some modifications to our proposal. recognizing that any modification we would make on sixth street, given how important the corridor is for vehicle circulation and recognizing it's very high level of pedestrian activity. those are the things that we'll need to balance what we can do to make the street as safe as possible without creating an untenable burden on on traffic flow. it's been part of the high injury network.

it's seen disproportionate amounts of pedestrian crashes so whatever we do, we'll need to make sure that we keep the integrity of the safety improvements intact as we move forward. we have been taking a number of steps waiting for this full project to come to fruition. to address pedestrians safety in the meantime, such as new signals, painted safety zones and removing peak hour tow away which opened up the pipe and we think perhaps led to speeding. there have been a number of changes that we made but we're still seeing safety issues out there, we're still seeing people get hit and hurt by cars on sixth street so we're committed to engaging the community on ways we can improve safety as quickly as possible. so we are still working towards bringing a recommendation back to this board.

that has community consensus, that will fix the issues on sixth street but will continue to work with various stakeholders in the meantime. moving on to another project, i think that the board may have seen some communications about this. one of the benefits we get in this agency of having the traditional transit functions and transportation functions together in one agency, as we have here uniquely at the sfmta, is the ability to really redesign our streets so they work for the safety of pedestrians and the general flow of traffic. but for the safe and reliable operations of muni, one tangible manifestation of that is that traffic circle on mcallister and lion that is part of the five rapid muni forward projects you all legislated probably a couple years ago now that construction is happening and the traffic circle is complete

at this point. we had seen issues regarding the traffic circle, while it was under construction. in part because of the the way the barricades were placed and in terms of the timing during which they were removed and striping and signage was put in place. but we'll monitor this change carefully. there's more coming on that corridor and there is others coming in other corridors and these traffic circles came up to propose traffic signals that wid proposed here. we'll monitor this to see if it's safe and it's having a muni reliability benefits. i wanted to to know it's out there. you can check it out mcallister and lion and the next is mcallister and steiner will start soon. in terms of activities at the federal level, last week was a

big week in terms of the news coming out of the federal. first is that the administration has nominated a woman named thelma drake, to be the federal transit administrator. the f.t.a. has been without an administrator for a year now. so welcome news to see someone appointed and nominated. she's a former republican member of congress from norfolk, virginia. she was a member of the virginia house of delegates. head of virginia's department of rail and public transit department. and her nomination seems to be so far being well received by the industry, she seems like a professional who has good experiences that will bring much needed leadership. it's been since january 2014 since the fda had a confirmed administrator when the previous administrator left there was an

acting administrator towards the end of the obama administration and continuing acting administrators and the last year. so hopefully the f.d.a. will have leadership in place soon. which would be good for us and the rest of the country. also last week, two major pieces of initiative came out of the white house. the infrastructure package and the proposed federal budget. i won't go into a lot of details. to give you a high level view of the infrastructure package, it was proposed 1 trillion-dollar package of which $200 billion would be direct federal funds, although a funding source was not identified. the idea is those federal funds would leverage the remaining 1.3 trillion from private sector

investment. there are some -- the range of infrastructure projects is not just transportation, it could be for the energy sector i it could be the hospital sector, the technology sector. it's very broad based. it does make some specific proposals in terms of how funding would change or how the rules would change. such as changing the amount of federal share such as requiring value capture financing as a condition of receiving funds from the capital investment grant program, though in the other budget, proposed to cut the capital investment grant program. as a bunch of environmental review streamlining, but basically doesn't address the larger funding issue of the highway trust fund which is you know funded from federal

gas-taxes which have not been increased since 1993. congress has suggested passing any kind of legislation like this would be difficult without identifying funding source. the democrats, the congressional democrats released their own proposal which they called a better deal to rebuild america. which includes stabilizing the highway trust fund and much more federal direct investment to infrastructure as a federal has traditionally done. with regard to the federal budget, the president also released a proposed budget for the following fiscal year. fiscal 19 although the fiscal '18 budget has not been addressed. on the fiscal '18 budget, the congress passed yet another extension. this time through march 23rd. so they will still have to deal with finalizing the budget for

this year. they did with this extension, with this continuing resolution, agree on some spending caps for the next two years as well as deal with other issues like the debt limit, the debt ceiling which should smooth of chances of passes of the fiscal '18 budget if not the fiscal '1. it's potentially good news. but then the president's fiscal '19 budget came out and has a lot of inconsistencies with the action, bipartisan action that congress took. the good news in the president's budgets is it supports the fast act funding levels for the core transit program or transportation program. so these are the formula funds that we, as the sfmta use for state of good repair investments and our critical infrastructure and fleet.

so that is fully funded in the presidential proposed budget. but it includes nearly 20% cut in the discretionary grants that come from the u.s. d.o.t. including any future grants under the capital investment grant program. and so if you, this is the program that funded big chunk of this central subway that is funding a big chunk of cal train electricification that would in the future be funding the extension of cal train and high speed rail to trance bay transit center, the final extension of bart to san jose. portion of better market street and gary d.r.t. the extension of the smart train to larksbur so a lot of projects within this region, if things continue as they had been would result in a lot of federal money to support these major projects that leverage or are leveraged

by local and regional dollars. the president's budget proposes funding no more of those except the existing grants such as central subway and call train that have a grant agreement. so interestingly, if you add up. 200 billion proposed new federal funding for all infrastructure in the country, compared to what the federal budget proposes, there's nearly the amount of cuts just from transportation funding that would offset this new infrastructure funding that would be spread out over all types of infrastructure. it seems at best to be a pretty significant cut. in cunning for transportation. all that said the conventional wisdom is that the president's budget look largely ignored and

they will work and adopt a budget that keeps those discretionary grant programs in place at one level or another. i told you after i was in d.c. the last time, i was assured by staff members from both sides of the aisle that that would be the case. here locally, i wanted to just flag a couple things for you that will be on the ballot here in june in the state. or in the region. so there are a couple of propositions that voters will be considering in june that are a result of a legislative negotiations on a variety of topics. two of them regard side deals

from some of the biggest things that happen last year. the 52 billion-dollar transportation funding bill sb1, as well as the re-authorizization of california's landmark cap and trade law. the first one on the ballot is prop 69. this would be an amendment to the california constitution that would ban lawmakers from diverting either new diesel sales tax revenue or new vehicle registration fees away from transportation efforts. these are source that's were both part of sb1 and it reflects a concern by some legislate to bees in thtolegislators,that tho the state's general fund to deal with larger state issues. this proposition would seek to change the california constitution to really lock in those funds for their intended

transportation purposes. prop 70 will also be on the ballot. this will also be proposed constitutional amendment that would set the stage for a showdown by 2024, over money collected from companies seeking extra room under the cap-and-trade system, which governs the emissions of grown f greenhouse gases. this is one of the landmark projects under cap and trade and of course california high speed rail project that we here have received $86 million of cap and trade and amounts we're seeking additional funds for that. so these two measures will be ones that we'll be watching closely. we'll keep you current. also on the june ballot the board of supervisorrors voted last week to authorize putting it on the ballot in san

francisco. that will be happening around the bay so we will see that in june as well. sorry, this is a long report. just a few more things. this is one that i wanted to make sure to bring to your attention. it's something that i think has flown somewhat under the radar screen. it has to do with transportation network companies. in a hearing that was held by the california public utilities commission a couple of weeks ago. up at this cpuc, this commission meeting, was a resolution to reduce the user fees collected from various transportation modes, including the t.n.c.s, the fees were reduced from .33% to .25%. so it's a good sized decrease. and these fees are collected on a quarterly basis and used towards expenses occurred in

regulating as you know is the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate, since the state asserted that jurisdiction for the state and preempting the local jurisdiction, such as san francisco, from regulating the t.n.c.s. as you know, the regulations that he subsequently put in place are fairly minimal but even at that, they've been largely unenforced, leaving the induce tremendous from i would say a practical perspective unregulated. both the sfmta, we sent a letter as did the county transit authority from chair peskin as well as the los angeles director of transportation our own alumni selena renalds. we all sent letters in advance of the hearing the cpuc delay taking action on this item until there was a robust and transparent public process in place in terms of accounting to

understand how much money has been collected, what that money has been used for. it was mind boggling to us given that what even cpuc staff would acknowledge is the inability to adequately regulate that they would take the resources they have to do so and voluntarily reduce them. there were a number of folks who came to speak at the meeting although i don't think it was widely sub la sized. folks from the mayor's office on senior disability action network, taxi workers alliance spoke in opposition of lowering these fees. while we still trying to understand the impacts of the roadways and transportation network. one of the points we raised was that there was an inpen indepent all the with the transportation enforcement branch, which is charged with doing this enforcement. that audit found that the unit is severely understaffed and

under resourced. given that finding from the state, it seems just more surprising that they would chose the further under resourcing themselves. we urge enforcement on t.n.c.s or redirect funding to those who could enforce. such as local entities. we've often offered to work with them on joint enforcement. but we also ask that fees be used to support disability access fund to support on demand transportation to wheelchair users. because as you know, the proliferation of t.n.c.s as adversely impacted the taxis that we have out on the streets. so the response from the c.p. u. commissioners, which came after they already voted to approve the fee decrease, disregarding the public comments as well as

the written testimony presented, was that the revenue wasn't going to be collected because there are so many t.m.c.s and there's a large fund balance on and the c.p. c. is working to get legislative authorization to spend it. that they have a multi-year planning effort to implement improvements from the audit. and that the commissioners do have a concern about disabled access on tmcs. so, that was extremely surprising and disappointing. i did want to let you know that that's the state of affairs at the state. they are still in the midst of their rule-making process and will continue to submit formal comments though as you know to date, are comments of not really resulted in any positive changes in their proposed regulations. and i think this hearing was just kind of another representation of how that process is going for us and

other cities in the state generally. so then finally, to close, just to let you know of two things coming up. one is that the american public transportation association marketing conference is happening here in san francisco next week. it is conference that we are co-hosting with bart. it's a four-day conference to focus on all aspects of marketing communications, media relations, customer service, social media rider initiatives and best practices in public transportation. we'll have a number of staff participating and speaking and leading panels and it would be a good opportunity to share our work and learn from our peers. and then, finally, this saturday everyone hopefully knows is the annual chinese new year parade. this is something that is a very significant event in terms of its impact on the transportation system. so a lot of folks from our agency do a lot of work to

prepare for and support and then clean up after this event. it's something that folks enjoy doing. we also have people who participate in the parade. we will have our department operations center activated to communicate with the other city agencies. we will have our ceremonials motorized cable car with decorations with some agency representatives participating in the parade. but it's a big event for the city. the sfmta plays a big role and one we're happy to support. so that concludes my report. >> thank you, very much. dr. riskin. there was a lot of useful information in there. i don't want us to lose the opportunity to send our best wishes to the construction inspector who was injured and hope that he does enjoy a full recovery from that. that's always horrible when one of our zone injured in the line of duty like that. the sixth street, i'm pleased to

hear we'll work with the community and move forward to making that a safer street. i know that that will be an on going process. i do theme we manage to keep the bike lane in the southbound direction because that's a lovely connection for that buffered like bain on golden gate for people coming out of the neighborhood's crossing market street and heading south of market. the traffic circles i went by one on the bus today and saw it under construction on the five lines. i think that's going to be a really good treatment to use where neighbors prefer not to have a traffic signal but we have muni buses going through and we can use something new to address the efficiency of the buses. directors, do i have any questions? any comments? >> i have a question about the cpuc fees. they enter an appeals process when they make that vote? >> i don't believe so, no. >> thank you. >> i believe we have some public

comments. let's go ahead and have public comment. we'll set it at two minutes. >> i just one for this topic mark gruber. >> thank you directors. mark gruber the san francisco taxi workers alliance. i was present at the cpuc meeting where the dnc fees and did testify. we were ignored and you were ignored, which is par for the course at the cpuc. they made a absolutely incomprehensible decision to lower the amount they charged the limousine industry for enforcement when they do next to no enforcement at all. the only way i could imagine you could rational eyes it is to say

since we're not doing enforcement anyway, why charge anybody for it? the limousine association actually came out in opposition to the reduction of their own fees. and that obviously too was ignored. so we're dealing with a state agency that i don't know how to describe and i probably should not in public. another topic i wanted to bring up as to do with the vision zero. the enforcement efforts which certainly are necessary for vehicles but also you have to do something about pedestrians behavior on the streets. and this is gotten much worse in my opinion since the advent of d.n.c.s because people just

oblivious to traffic. sometimes defiant of traffic and just starting across the street. this is not simple jaywalking. i'm from new york where jaywalking is a birthright. people put their own lives in danger and that behavior needs to be changed. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> anymore public comments. >> no, madam chair that's the last person who has indicated they would like to address. >> public comments is closed. we'll move on. item 8. an advisory council report. i do not see the chairman of the c.a.c. here so we'll move on to general public comment. this is an opportunity for members of the public to address the board on matters that are within the jurisdiction but not on today's calender. first speaker ted jordan followed by mohammad desmolchi 777-4502.i.

>> i was here and i know the sign has been approved so i'm not here to opposed it but there was a lot of consequences and i i you need to be made aware of. the first is, as i said last week, you have to block section of two-way stop signs and all of a sudden you put in a four-way stop sign. i know you have the tab on the bottom but a lot of people don't notice that. how will you alert the subsequent blocks that these are still two way. you've got these yellow cross traffic does not top sign. the other thing is it's a steep incline and my survey of three bikes were coming down at very quick speed. i don't think the stop sign will make them stop. even though you have two 10-foot red zones on the south side, i mean, i'm sor