[gavel] >> good morning and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority meeting for today, tuesday, july 24, 2018. our clerk is alberto quintanilla. if you could call the roll. [clerk calling roll]

kim absent. commissioner mandelman absent. we have quorum. >> thank you. colleagues, could we have a motion to excuse commissioner tang made by commissioner ronen, seconded by commissioner cohen. colleagues will take that without action. -- objection. next item, please. >> item two, chair's report. this is an information item. >> thank you. i'd like to start by welcoming our newest members, one of whom is here and one who is on his way. that would be commissioners brown and mandelman to this body. i noted that when both of you were sworn in, you were sworn in as members of the transportation authority. you are both quite familiar with our work and i look

forward to working with you on the key issues to shape our policies in the coming months and years. as we prepare to break for the august recess, i would like to highlight several project delivery milestones. one of which i will be present to celebrate the opening of and the other two i will unfortunately miss during the august recess. but i know many of you on our staff will attend and celebrate. the first is san francisco public works' broadway chinatown streetscape improvement project. the fourth and final phase between columbus avenue and the broadway tunnel. which will be open this coming monday. you are all welcome to attend at 11:30 a.m. at the corner of columbus and broadway. and i want to thank the t.a. for programming $5.3 million in federal bay area grant funds provided to us by the m.t.c. and $2.4 million prop k and a.a. funds to this project five

years ago and this funding has made this busy arterial safer with narrower traffic lanes, bus shelters, raised cross wa*ux, street trees, benches and street lights among other safety improvements. i also want to thank the chinatown community development center for their long-term advocacy for these important improvements as well as the public works staff who actually redesigned portions of the project with chinatown c.d.c. and i look forward to celebrating the opening of that and i want to thank members of the public who put up with a year of frustrating construction and i know that they are relieved and pleased. another major vision zero project that we at the t.a. have funded with a combination of local and regionally provided federal funds is the m.t.a.'s masonic avenue complete streets project, which is finally complete.

which spans three supervisorial districts. it's a full redesign of masonic street to geary. includes wider sidewalks and new median, paving, landscaping, lighting and upgraded sewer infrastructure. the t.a. provided $10.2 million in obag funds and approximately $400,000 in sales tax dollars to the project. the sfmta anticipates holding an opening event in august so i want to extend my early congratulationss to them. many board members past and present who have lived through a -- again, long, frustrating experience. but the light is finally at the end of the tunnel. and finally after years of design and construction, the trans-b joint powers authority has set a date of august 11 for the grand opening of the sales force transit center. the t.a. has, as we all know, played a very major role in funding and supporting the development of this regional transit center which will house a hub for 11 local and regional

transit systems including muni, a.c. transit, sam trans and eventual rail connections for the downtown extension of cal train and high speed rail. the integrated transit center in cal train extension programs is the largest project in the prop-k expenditure plan which designated up to $270 million toward this project. to date, the t.a. has allocated $175 million prop-k funds and today we're agdized to add more for the d.t.x. design. we have also committed significant state and federal funds alongside our funding partners at the state and the united states and the region. this hasn't been an easy project by any means, but has already had a major impact catalyzing over a decade of development across the trans-bay transit district including much needed affordable housing. congratulationss to the tgpa, thank you to our funding partners and all of the commissioners and supervisors past and present, including supervise source and commissioner kim and to the

neighbors in the area. i wish you had -- ish wi you a wonderful regional neighborhood celebration on august 11 from 12:00 noons to 4:00 p.m. at 425 mission street. and then on a sad note, on behalf of the t.a., i would like to express our deepest sympathies to the family of nia wilson who was fatally stabbed at the mcarthur bart station on sunday night in what appears to be a senseless, random attack. but we are relieved that a suspect has been taken into custody and will support our bart representives on next steps. we also send our condolences to the families of dimitri scottkin, 69-year-old who was struck and killed while crossing slope boulevard last week and kevin manning, a petty cab driver who was hit riding on the embarkadero earlier -- last months and died on june 10. we have a vision zero committee

coming up and hope to talk about more that we can do to prevent these crashes and deaths and injuries and, with that, i conclude my remarks. are there any public comments on the chair's report? seeing none, public comment is closed. we will go to the executive director's report. ms. chang? >> thank you so much, chair peskin. i begin my report on another update regarding the earthquake safety work. as you recall, the bart team has been working to retrofit key parts of the original track and tunnel and station elements, mechanical infrastructure. there will need to be an extension of the work hours and, therefore, requires bart services to begin at 5:00 a.m. instead of the current 4:00 a.m. start time on weekdays. just wanted to notify members of the public that this extra hour will shorten the total project timeline by four months and it is a live safety project. we will be seeing the bart

board taking action on how to replace -- provide replacement bus service to mitigate that extra hour that they need to use for work hours. we will be reporting back to the board on those replacement bus services in september. we are pleased to report that san francisco was awarded $29 million by the state on affordable housing and sustainable communities program funds. these are cap and trade funds that the extra edge tooic growth council approved late in june. these

we continue to put forward competitive projects and congratulationss to all involved. we'll keep track as well of future cycles to ensure that we continue to pull down some of these important grants. we did also recently host the fourth annual autonomous vehicle symposium. i just wanted to mention that this year rachel hyde and i presented on a number of panels. an interesting note, i participated, for example, on a federal session on data exchange and this time it is not just cities. it's not just cities calling for data. it is also folks like the insurance industry. which made their point that it is important to have verifiable data so they can properly assess risk and properly provide for the appropriate risk premiums and if the data shows that there is a safety benefit, by all means, the consumer confidence should be

reflected in those lower risk premiums. so, data will certainly help drive adoption to the extent that it is wanter. we appreciate the exchanges from all partners at that session. the valencia public workshop, i wanted to announce that there will be a second workshop held on saturday, july 28. as you recall, the transportation authority has provided $175,000 in sales tax funds for this project. looking for ways to better organize the traffic and the shared services and other road user including cyclists and pedestrians. so, this workshop will be on the 28th on saturday from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. at the women's building at 3543 18th street. and we will be viewing the potential design alternatives and associated trade-offs and bringing the report back to the transportation authority board later this year. improving street safety, we

have a vision southeaster row open house this weekend. we brought forth that final report for the first set of intersections earlier this year. this is a second project that's looking at 10 additional intersections in the south of market neighborhood where freeway ramps touch down on to city streets. we conducted a survey and collected more than 800 response and we're now conducting the workshop to be held next tuesday the 31st from 5:30 to 7:30. and the bayview is receiving $600,000 for implementation of results of our community-based transportation plan. m.t.c. will take this action this month to a lifeline transportation program. as you call the fmta is doing this community-based transportation work coordinating with supervisor -- commissioner cohen's office and included in that is a

participatory budgeting pilot for san francisco and solano countieses. so thank you, commissioner, cohen for your leadership there and building on your other participatory committee that you do in your own districts this. will provide for capital improvement money to implement some of the recommendations emerging from that planning process. so we're very happy to hear that. vision zero traffic safety improvements are also being delivered in golden gate park so with more to come, m.t.a. has installed near-term traffic safety improvements funded by prop-k throughout golden gate park including at the j.f.k. and 30th avenue intersection and earlier this month, added four raised crosswalks at various locations. we're seing is improvements across the district as well as sfmta's fleet replacement project continuing to bring new vehicles to our streets for muni. it placed 20 additional

vehicles with prop-k funding in the last quarter and so we see about seven of these electric trolley coaches and the rest hybrid diesel motor coaches w. that, i'm happy to take any questions. >> are there any questions for our executive director? seeing none? is there any public comments on the executive director's report? seeing none, public comment is closed. mr. quintanilla could you read the consent agenda? >> items four to 11 comprise the consent agenda. the remaining items are considered routine. staff is not planning to present on these items but is prepare to present if desired f. a member objects, any of the consent items may be removed to be considered separately. >> there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to move the consent agenda made by commissioner yee? i'm sorry. i'm sorry, commissioner cohen. >> thank you very much. [inaudible].

>> good morning. >> good morning. >> good morning, we're live. ok. just so i'm clear this is on the consent agenda. if i want to is verdict something like item five, do i need to procedurally sever it to discuss it? >> yes, if you would like to se enveloper any item. >> ok. and then also -- my goodness. so, just so i'm clear, we were just going to take the consent agenda as a yes and have no discussion around it? >> that's what we usually do because they have all been considered on the first reading at our last meeting. but you have the right to sever any items. >> no problem. i just wanted to make sure i was following it quickly. ok. i wanted to sever item five. we talked about it a little bit two weeks ago. mr. chair, is now the appropriate time to talk about it? >> is we'll sever item five and then vote on the balance of the consent agenda and then take up item five. >> i also need to sever item eight. >> ok. items five and eight.

>> yes. ok. >> ok. so, on the balance of the consent agenda, items four, six, seven and nine through 11. is there a motion to move those made by commissioner yee? seconded by commissioner fewer on that motion, a roll call, please. >> on items four, six, seven, nine, 10, and 11 -- [roll call] we have final approval. >> thank you. could you please read item number five? >> item five, state and federal legislation update. this is an action item. >> thank you. may i speak now? >> yes. commissioner cohen.

>> thank you. i just wanded to get some clarification. did we amend this legislation? this is senate bill 1014. there was some discussion last week. you might recall the t.a. staff recommended that the commissioners take a "no" position unless this item was amended. >> it was a support if amended position. it wasn't a "no." >> looking to staff, was the legislation amended? >> ms. craft? >> amber craft, public policy manager. the state legislature has been in recess so there's been no further action on the bill. >> ok. >> but we do -- our state legislative advocate has been in contact with the author in discussing our concerns with -- >> so if i understand correctly, the staff still recommends that the commissioners take a "no" position on this item unless it's amended. ?aerkt >> the recommendation before

you is to maintain the original support if amended position so we would work with the author to get the amendments that are outlined in the memo and in that case we would automatically support the bill. >> the actual language on page 15 of our packet is the resolve clause that says resolve that the transportation authority hereby adopts a revised position of support if amended on sb-1014. >> ok. so, as i understand that there's been no amendments and the issues that i raised a few weeks ago have not been addressed. so let me just go through my little talking points here. good morning, everybody. [laughter] so item five, we've been asked to adopt a position on the state legislation. this is for senate bill 1014. that has been sponsored by nancy skinner and the transportation authority staff has recommended that this commission takes a no position

unless item is amended tonight. the best of my knowledge, this item has not been amended so i wanted to just share with you that i'm not comfortable upholding the staff recommendation that we only support senate bill 1014 and if it's amended then i'm happy to support it. and the reason why -- what's important to note is that senate bill 1014 sets a starting that the air recess board and the cpuc establish targets and goals to reduce emissions from t.n.c. vehicles. senator skinner's recent amendments allow for t.n.c.s to count miles traveled by what they're calling active transportation. and that includes bikes and scooters and into the overall miles traveled in the calculation. in san francisco bike share and scooter miles travel account for only 3.5% of the total vehicle -- of total vehicle miles traveled and i'm of the

position and i do not believe that this is a high enough threshold for us to completely change our position from supporting this bill. now i understand that the goal of the legislation is to establish greenhouse gas emissions baselines for t.n.c.s and i think 3% is really a cig -- is really not significant enough a portion of traveled miles for us to move on our position instead of working with these companies to begin to get them to move on their emissions. so a question that i raised last week are -- maybe it was two weeks ago, i cannot recall at this point, but what was a definition of a vehicle that the transportation authority staff was using and maybe for the record you can share with us again the definition. >> great. thank you. and just for clarification, we're not recommending an opposed position on the bill. we're essentially the support is amended position is taking no position. >> no position, ok. >> and working with the author to seek the amendments that we're requesting in which case if we see the amendments we'd

automatically support the bill. >> well, thank you. i appreciate clarification. if that is the case, then i rest my case and i'm happy to support the no position. thank you mr. chair. >> so is there a motion -- >> i'll make a motion. >> to adopt number five. >> with a "no" position, yes. >> ok. as stated in the current resolutions. >> that's correct. >> and second for that motion? second by commissioner yee. colleagues, can we take that same house, same call. the item is finally approved. mr. clerk, can you read item number eight? >> item eight, approved part one of the fiscal year 2018-19 transportation fund for clean air program of promises. programming $38803 to four projects. >> this is also something that i flagged a few weeks ago and want to thank you, supervisor -- or commissioner -- what are you, trustee -- commissioner. you're commissioner today, right? commissioner, trustee peskin. >> not a trustee, but i'll take it.

>> ok. all right. all these titles, they're crazy. >> particularly when it comes with a pay raise. just kidding. >> i can commiserate with that. i just wanted to let you know that i'll be supporting item eight. thank you very much for the consideration on that. >> thank you. and, of course, one piece will trail when we get back from our summer recess. so is that a motion to move item eight forward? commissioner cohen? >> yes. that is a notion move forward. >> there a second for that? second by commissioner stefani. same house, same call. the item is finally approved. the next item. >> item 12, final approval on first appearance, adopt an oppose position on proposition 6, the voter approve for future gas and vehicle taxes and 2017 tax repeal initiative. this is an action item. >> ms. craft. >> good morning. amber crabb with the transportation authority. we did request or flag that we would be bringing this to you

for approval upon first action. due to the desire to have on record a position before the end of september, which due to the august recess would otherwise be the case. this bill would repeal the transportation revenue approved through the road repair and accountability act or senate bill one approved last year that brings about $5 billion across the state for transportation each year. san francisco alone sees about $60 million per year in local formula programs that are used for thing like local street and road repair, transit improvements and transit service. we also are going to be relying on hundreds of millions of dollars in the future for key infrastructure projects such as bart and muni vehicles as well as safety bike and ped projects. if the proposition repealed, there's potential for those projects all to slow and the

need for locals to find additional funding to close the funding. gaps that would be remaining. we have been working with our peer public agencies across the state and the region on educational efforts to make sures that public is aware of how those tax dollars are being used. we do have a fact sheet that i believe is at each of your desks and available for the public. at the key jobsing over there. -- at the kiosk over there. we values a website where we're up to the minute, the project was for san francisco at www.sfcta.org/funding/sb1. right now we understand that the proposition language is scheduled to be released today for public comment. so the spubl praoe to look at that as well. unless there's any questions, request your approval and opposed position on prop six. >> thank you, ms. crabb. any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. any questions or commentses

from commissioners? seeing none, is there a motion to move item 12? made by fewer, seconded by commissioner cohen. colleagues, can we take that same house, same call? the item is finally approved. next item, please. >> item 13, update on the independent analysis and oversight services with sjoberg evashenk consulting. an information item. >> thank you. ms. leanne liu. >> can we get the -- the presentation. ok. sbro*k deuce yourself. >> good morning. leanne liu. >> and leanne, if you could just pull that microphone a little closer to you. there you go. >> there we go. >> all right. bear with me just one second. good morning. as chair peskin mentioned, we

received the green light in may of this year to move forward with the three focus areas surrounding prop-k which included program delivery, budgeting and sponsor reimbursements. before we discussed the results, i would like to briefly clarify what i mean by peer comparison agencies because you will hear me mention that throughout the presentation. what it really means is that we're applicable, we compared the t.a.'s practices with similar transportation agencies who elected t.a. who are also the administrator of half cent sales tax. they are the regional transportation planning agency as well as the congestion management agency designated by the state. the factors we considered were a sales tax program of similar size and the number of staff. for the first focus area, we were asked to look at the prop-k delivery status in terms of funding allocated to date

for the major capital projects as well as the 21 program categories. we also looked at how successful prop-k has been in leveraging other funding sources. in terms of overall delivery status and the big picture, the t.a. and its partners are delivering the program as promised. if we are measuring progress in terms of sales tax dollars allocated. we are not yet quite at the halftime mark, but have allocated 57% of the $2.8 billion program. specifically since 20 the 04, the t.a. has awarded 1256 grants worth $1.6 billion for a variety of projects and subprojects such as small amounts for safe routes to schools initiatives or multimillion dollar projects to replace the m.t.a.'s radio communication program. ments for your capital projects, again with not even

half of the prop-k time passed, we have two projects that are open to the public. three projects that are nearing completion and one, the downtown extension, that is in design. a similar picture for the 21 programattic categories where $958 million has been allocated through the end of last year and on this slide it shows the allocation status for the 2 -- 21 categories for the time passed and the 30-year lifetime. as you can see on average allocations align with the time passed. but there are some categories shown in red fonts with fewer activities. we looked into a couple of those categories that seemed to have a slower start but did not find anything out of the ordinary.

for example, programattic development has only been allocated $4 million through december 2017. but exenss pences this fiscal year 18-19 are expected at $2 million. se it appears that activities for this categoris are ramping up into near future and the $20 million commitment from prop-k for this particular program will be achieved by tend of the program. the second area we were asked to look into related to how prop-k helps leverage other funds. as it is the case with most public transportation promise, there are different callers of money to pay for projects and taxes represent an important funding source especially to leverage state and federal dollars. with prop-k, the 2003 mandate was to spend $12.4 billion over 30 years with prop-k paying for

about a quarter or $2.8 billion while the rest was expected to come from other federal, state or local funds. this means that every prop-k dollar was intended to secure $3.4 in other funds. end of last year, according to your annual report, the leveraging goal has been met with every prop-k dollar generating $4 to $7 in other funds to help pay for promises. . -- projects. to get an idea of how that leveraging goal is met at the individual project level, we selected a sample of projects to see what the actual leveraging looks like. as you can see in some instances, prop-k paid for the entire project such as the public works street resurfacing program. and for the presidio parkway, it secured almost $14 for every prop-k dollar invested. in conclusion for this first

program delivery focused area, we found that sftca and its partner agencis are delivering the program in terms of sales tax dollars allocated. we have capital projects that are either completed or nearing completion. and the prop-k live ranting goal has been i met. while i appears that they're on track to deliver the program as promised, we found it challenging to navigate the t.a. website in the annual report to obtain basic information on thing like status or progress. the information is there, but in so many places, that where t

showcasing their accomplishments. for you it could be stats on items such as how many items were planted, muni vehicles purchased or how many paratransit trips were provided. all that information is there but requires a lot of searching to get to that info. and then as you prepare your annual report, you could improve the process to q.c. the data presented just to ensure the information is as accurate as possible. similarly for your website, really just provide a prop-k home page dash board to that showcases all

there are packets that are volumous and often not as easy to digest or to go through and that is a challenge because you want to be sure that your yes or no vote represents what you think is best for the agency. so please keep that in mind when you look at this slide where we compared the information from your annual

budget to peers. first of all your budget contains all the necessary information but it is the shortest, mainly because you have summary paragraphs for the major budget categories while others have more narrative or even a separate report for certain elements. there is really no right or wrong and it is truly a fine line between too much and too little information. if you feel what's been presented to you is sufficient for you to make an informed decision, then there is really no change warranted. the other question we were asked to look into is how different or similar the t.a. is in their use of consultants. so, starting at the global level, looking at your fiscal year 17-18 budget, you spent $12.9 million for technical professional services which includes your typical engineering consultant firms. a majority of the services are consumed by your c.m.a. and

tima programs and prop-k expenses were only $1.1 million. on the administrative professional side which includes services for i.t. and legal, prom-k expenses were $1.2 million of the total $1.7 million. what it really shows, though, is that prop-k consultants made up less than 1% of your total expenses in fiscal year 2017-18. which does not seem unusual for an entity such as yours. now aside from the cost, the t.a.'s used of consult tanlses is similar to peer agencies and not atypical. what you have on this slide are key areas showing functions performed by in house staff or consultants. at most agencies, you'll have an in-house staff performing overtype of activities while consultants would be in the weeds doing the actual studies, designs or construction management. that is why you see check marks

for both the in-house and outsourced column. the two area where is the t.a. is different is that the principle engineer position is currently vacant and that would be a position that would oversee consult tanlzes on larger projects and then currently you also have legal and you have tech support outsourced as well. changing that composition may make sense if the agency grows and experiences greater need to bring in legal and i.t. in house. so, concluding on the budget focused area, no change is warranted to the annual budget unless the board wishes more discussion or description on specific line items. and then probably lower priority but may make stones evaluate cost and benefits of bringing i.t. and general counsel in house as well as hiring for the engineer position that has been vacant for a couple of years now.

also related to communicating budget information with more specific to prop-k, there are improvements that could be made in terms of conveying information that is available on the t.a.'s website and in various documents to sponsor finance staff to help in their own budgeting and planning. it appears that there is currently a disconnect between prop-k budget data that the t.a. main atlantas and what sponsors are aware of. the holding round tables on a regular basis to discuss your five-year priorization programs and strategic plan updates as well as any other funding needs should help improve lines of communication and understanding of t.a. sponsor needs and challenges. the other consideration in this area is possibly revising the grant amendment process and really consider establishing a minimum board approval threshold for policy level

grant budget aementzes involving funding increases and delegate any amendments below that threshold to the executive director. the third and last focus area, almost there, related to how the t.a. processes sponsor reimbursements, especially its timeliness in reviewing reimbursement requests and turn-around payment. so tt.a.'s goal to turn around sponsor reimbursement requests is within 30 days of receipt, which is in line with government accounts payable practices. if we're looking at last year, which actually is two years ago, the average processing time was 31 days with 40% of the invoices taken longer than 30 days. last year fiscal year 17, the averaging processing time improved to 21 days so the goal was met but could be improved,

especially it seems like some of the holdup could be mitigated by implementing a process for t.a. staff to follow up with sponsors in a more timely fashion. we saw an invoice, for example, where it took almost two months for t.a. to follow up with a sponsor after an initial question went unanswered. so in terms of sponsor reimbursements a couple of recommendations on how to expedite processes using requests. give than there was a general improvement from the last fiscal year to this one, there may only be small operational changes required to gets that almost perfect score, if you will. a start would be to kaukt time study to identify how long it actually takes to process a payment, corelates that with other work that is on the staff's plate to help identify whether there is a need to temporary reassign work to accommodate peaks or if there is a true need for additional staff. another quicker fix may be to

require staff to set reminders for themselves to follow up with sponsors when they do not get a response. and other options include only taking reimbursement requests that exceed a certain threshhold to the executive director for approval, which may also reduce the processing timeframe. the next set of considerations seems straight -- seems fairly straight forward, but may require some additional work and discussions with sponsors as they relate to execute service level agreements that define the roles and responsibilities for all parties involved and then having expectations set and clarified will help everyone understand what it takes to get paid in a timely and efficient manner. so this concludes my presentation. but i welcome any further discussions or questions. >> thank you. by way of background, when i first became chair, i was

interested in having something akin to a budget analyst-type function at the t.a., another set of eyes and ears and this is the first work nrauk we've seen from the consultant that we hired. i heard a little bit from colleagues. some colleagues were interested in having more independent reviews on particular items. i think that this is very heppellful. i want to hear from staff as to staff's response about the recommendations. i think we should think about this over the august recess and reagendaize the actual implementation of some of the recommendations. and i also want to add that in our role as members of the board of supervise source, as chair of the budget committee, supervisor cohen knows, when we lock at that budget, it comes with a set of performance metrics and people in the public understand how their dollars are spent and i think it is something that we might want to pioneer at the t.a.,

whether it's average days that it takes the process of payment or a set of metricks that we can track from year to year so i add that as a recommendation as well. but i'd like to hear from staff as to -- i mean, some of this makes great sense. i've been very candid and it doesn't take much to see that our website -- i don't want to say sucks -- but could benefit from some improvement. if you actually look at the city's website, particularly the controller's website, some of those dash boards are very, very helpful to policymakers and members of the public. i know that the t.a. has been undertaking a revamp of the website and i totally agree that highlighting my street s.f. makes great sense in the same way that the planning. departments, property information map is like the go-to thing on that website. i would like to have a robust

discussion about whether or not -- and this is, you know, plug your ears, stan, whether or not it makes sense and what are the benefits and detriments of bringing legal functions in house, i.t. functions in house. i do agree that the annual report should show that reconciliation that ms. liu spoke to. with, that why don't i turn it over to staff to hear their response. >> sure. thank you, chair peskin and thank you so much, leanne, and to sjoberg's team for this very helpful review. the process itself provided a lot of insight into even our own staff given they were administering the prop-k program for 30 years. next year is the 30th anniversary and it is gratifying to see that we appear to be delivering on track as promised to the voters that we always felt was the case. it has been very helpful to also hear feedback from other partners in the city, family and across the region on things that we're doing well and

things that could be improved. we take to heart the recommendations about communication, everything from the website. of course, which is being updated to our online tools, to sitting down, you know, with partners at our sort of biggest allies and the largest grantees to, you know, maybe semiannual have a more in-depth conversation. all of that at the management level, at the staff level. we very much appreciate those recommendations. in terms of the in-house versus consulting balance, it's good to see that we're in line and good value provided by our consultants. i think the in-house recommendation for general counsel will be looking at that closely as we look at the treasure island tolling program. that elevates the level of -- certainly the operational responsibilities, the external sort of partners that we're dealing with and potentially even things like cyber attacks. i think we want to be very

thoughful and deliberative about how we plan for that role. so thank you very much once again. >> are there any questions or comments from commissioners? is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. and colleagues and staff, if we can mull these recommendations over and bring this back for more discussions in september-october, i would recommend that and thank you again to the sjoberg team and ms. liu and we'll continue this conversation in the fall. >> one quick question. do we have a copy of the presentation? >> yes. yes. it's in my binder. >> ok. i didn't -- >> and if you want me to have staff e-mail you -- >> get it through a t.a. staff. thank you. >> that would be great. ok. next item, please. >> item 14, update on the muni service equity strategy report. this is an information item.

>> mr. kennedy. the moment you've been waiting for. >> ok. well, thank you. good morning, commissioners. sean kennedy. i'm the acting deputy commissioner of transit. as a little bit of background before i get going,s in 2014, m.t.a. staff worked with external stakeholders as well as this body and our board to develop an equity policy. that was then approved by the m.t.a. board in 2014. it was designed to improve transit performance in neighborhoods that have a high

percentage of low-income and minority populations. 2016, we then developed and our board adopted the first equity strategy and i'm here today to go over the 2018 version of that strategy. before i get into a summary of the 2018 projects, i want to note two major changes between 16 -- the 16 strategy and 18 strategy. one is that we added an additional neighborhood. the ocean view engelside neighborhood by city college was added to make eight total neighborhoods being looked at through the equity strategy lens. and the second is the outreach approach. in 2018, we really relied heavily on data and data analysis and then worked with a smaller working group of interested stakeholders around

the city to verify that data and work through some of the analysis and the processes. in 2018, we received a cal trans grant that could be a sustainable transportation planning grant that was really helped us focus a lot on individual outreach efforts, getting down at the grassroots level, not working just a working group but talking to people about how to improve transit in their neighborhoods. what could be done to improve transit and really looking at not just riders but also people that don't ride muni. what can we do in the neighborhood, how come you're not riding munis, is is there a way to improve conductions, or is it too crowded. you need other resources to ride our system and provide that service. so, through that extra outreach effort and focus on talking with individuals at the neighborhood level and the really block level, we attended

over 40 community meetings and these things ranged from backpack giveaways to sunday streets to just yourty cal neighborhood meeting that was taking place. we talked over 500 organizations -- excuse me. we collected over 4,000 surveys is. once again, this was about not just riders and people who ride on the service, but people who weren't righting our service and how could we improve muni so we touched over 65,000 people in this process, got information from many of those 65,000 people and used that to develop our recommendations that then fed into this two-year operating budget cycle. this list here shows the ones in gold have already been implemented or are being implemented in the next month and the lines in gray there are going to be implemented in the next several months. really exciting stuff, quite

honestly. the 48, for example, extending the service to the beach right now. the 48 subs at west portal except during the peak periods when it goes out to the beach. we heard from a number of individuals in the intermission specifically that having that service to the beach all day long would be a huge benefit to them. of course, we also heard from d4 residents about that as well. increasing service on the 29. in 2016, we increased service on the 29 during peak periods. but this time we really heard a lot about afterschool, the 29 serves a lot of schools. it's very busy during the 2:00 to 4:00 time period so there was a lot of discussion about how we can improve service during the nonpeak periods and add some buss to that line during the traditional nonpeak time periods so we're excited to be doing that. and also doing things like the 9r, up sizing, calling it upsizing going from a 40-foot bus to a 60-foot bus on the 9-r

that adds capacity and reduces crowding for those people riding that service. so, really exciting on where we're going with these recommendations. and then next steps, obviously we'll be implementing these changes in the next several monthers and monitoring these changes over the next two-years to see how they're doing. we really learned that the more contact -- obviously if it is not rocket science t more contact you could have with these neighborhoods and these groups, the better it is for everyone and so we're really incorporating that outreach strategy into our work plan. a lot of these groups when we don't necessarily have anything to talk about, we're just going to listen, find out what's going on in our neighborhood and we're hoping that way we kind of have an organic equity

strategy to, quote, term equity strategy will just be folded into all of our work and how we do everyday business on the service planning side. so, we're pretty excited about that as a next step. and with that, i purposely kept this pretty short. so i will love to take as many questions as you guys want and we can go from there. >> thank you, mr. kennedy. commissioner ronen? >> thank you, mr. kennedy. i really appreciate this work. i just had one question. i see that you and you're very adamant that they expanded the 9r to 50-foot buses which both go through the portala neighborhood. but i notice you don't call out or specify the portala as a particular focused neighborhood. and i'm wondering if that was just including it with the outter mission and just not naming it. i just want to make sure that

you're surveying those residents in similar ways because there is so much congestion on san bruno and the buses are packed. both the 8 and the 9 every single day to the point where people can't get in and where especially on the 9 there are pretty much sites every single day. >> great point. the naming of the neighborhoods -- these neighborhoods -- we were just trying to identify rough areas. as you know, our services go through a number of neighborhoods and a number of areas so portala is just kind of -- i don't want to say lumped in, but it's the general vis valley area and we don't draw specific lines on who we're talking to. we've been working with them for a number of years now on improving the nine specifically. those relationships are developed and will continue to be fostered as part of this process.

like you said, the 8s and the 99r, it's a really good problem to have as far as from a sustainability standpoint. it's great that there are so many people that want to ride that service and we have to find a way to get them better and more frequent service and reduce some of that crowding. but we heard the same comments that you just said add news nauseam, numerous times over the last six months so. >> out of curiosity. since you switched to the 60-foot bus on the 9s, i kid you not there was a fight. >> i believe it. so, the incidents have gone down. we get -- if an operator reports that one of the patrons calls our 3-1-1 system and tells us there was a fiesing -- there was a fight on there, we have noticed that the numbers have gone. it's self-report so ited's hard to say that definitel