(please stand by).

>> it's been taking time for staff to wrap its head around. the neighborhood issues, including 430 main and 450 o'farrell in front of the board in the last couple of months. these were issues they wanted to workout with the neighborhood. really, public policy wise we don't want to be punishing them. and if we are looking at truly punishing the projects that aren't entitled yet, three of which i'm working on, i want to echo supervisor peskin what you are saying, not all-pro jet alle created equal. i'll throw out a shout out for 262 seventh. we filled out all our forms and we've had some. i will would say december 7th is not a imagine i can date. we can work through it. there's no need to rush it.

i appreciate your consideration on this. thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. we also represent a number of developers who this project have been entitled over the last couple of years and who would be subject to this dis ordinance or this grandfathering limitation. i wanted to make the point that the additional burden, as a result of the inclusionary requirement, is not the only reason but one of a number of reasons that are pushing projects to be feasible. by far the largest factor or the soaring construction costs, which have gone bananas over the last several years. still show no signs of slowing down. it's been rising at -- it's been escalating at double of rate it has historically.

this is going back to 2010 and construction costs are up 85% since 2010. we expect them to continue to rise by seven, eight, nine, 10% in the future. particularly in light the uncertainty aren't new tariffs from the trump administration. we have 20% tariff on canadian lumber, 25% tariff on imported steel and 10% on aluminum. it's making things infeasible. so, i think it's important as we kind of -- we not be too myopic about this. it's not the case that conclusion ary. it's a number of factors making projects infeasible so we need to try and control the things that we can. we can't control the labor market. we can't control the construction market. this is something that we can control. i would ask you to please take that into consideration. thank you. >> todd david.

the housing coalition. he stole my thunder. this is an example of what happens when we make policy statically. right, we've yo yoked around an inclusionary rate. we take a moment in time and say at this moment in time, here is what makes sense. we get from 12% to 25% to 16% -- we just go back and fourth. what we don't do is say, hey, we don't know what our construction costs are going to be six months from now. we don't create processes where there's a basket of costs to build housing. we should have an inclusionary policy that is able to respond to those baskets of costs. as those costs go down, the inclusionary rate goes up. as the costs go up, we need to make the inclusionary rate go down. i fear that developers need predictability in order to build housing. that's absolutely true. they need predictability and

they need things to be economically feasible. the projects are not economically feasible, those projects will not get built. really, what we're looking at is that the politicizing of the inclusionary rate, if we truly want the maximum amount of affordable housing, we need to treat the inclusionary rate same way the federal reserve treats interest rates. we need to it to be based on data and logic and a basket of costs. thank you. >> hi, supervisors. senior in disability action. we're in opposition to the ordinance. the voters spoke on this. i urge you not to undermine that and as someone said earlier about the use it or lose it provisions, that should hold. we should aggressively monitor

these projects to make sour they don't get off track and the wishes of the voters are truly put fourth. thank you. >> my name is robert i'm from district 5. i hear a lot of people talking about the will of the voters but i also think about when i went to the two community meetings that vallie brown held over the last few months where i heard dozens of people say they want more housing, they want it built, they want more affordable housing. i'm a little worried that it sounds like we're gambling here with affordable units. we think oh, maybe we can get more or maybe we won't get more or maybe units won't get built. it really feels like no one has any idea what's going to happen here. more affordable ratios don't always end up the way we think they will. look at mission rock, which did have a high affordability rate. it also had a number of office

units to offset that and more office units, which cause most gentrification which caused more displacement. a lot of the times when we asked developers, please, give us more affordable units, what they're thinking is ok, we can do more affordable units but we'll also have to do office space to cross subsidize those costs. i think we need a new process here for actually get ago forwarget affordableunits. if we have one meeting after another where people say build it and don't build it, everyone says we need more housing. if the funding source is the big issue, maybe the funding source needs to change. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. i'm david woo. this piece of legislation directly undermines prop c and the will of the voters as many

other speakers have talked about. the voters of san francisco said loud and clear, development projects in this city must provide a higher percentage of affordable housing. prop c already contains a grandfathering provision of 30 months to obtain permits for developers that have already had projects with the city. allowing time for grandfathering is a complete give away and a snub to the voters of san francisco by city hall and the mayor. this is, as supervisor peskin brought up, an issue on top of the exiting issue of grandfathered units that use the state density bonus that are then exempted from affordability requirements on the additional units. rather than disregarding and working against the will of the voters, the mayor and city hall need to do what the voters said and up hold this existing piece of legislation as is. at what point will it be the needs of communities that are prioritized instead of needs of developers and private interests. we demand affordability, not

developer give aways. thank you. >> thank you, any other members of the public who wish to comment on item 4, please, come on up. >> thank you, supervisors. tim colon with the housing action coalition. this discussion of affordability is concerning. it was always sort of a curious thing to me why the city didn't focus more on the production pipeline. how many units are being delivered to the market every year. lagging indicate or to be sure. it's a pretty useful sign of how the city's policy is working. the evidence is the housing production levels have been dropping for the last few years. that tells you right there, in clear terms, there's no gravy train. it's not endless profits. it's not -- people are not rushing to deliver units when they can't make a profit, when it's not feasible.

for the inclusionary compromise that was set a few years ago, i'm not -- i'm skeptical about it. i'm afraid that in passing that, less affordable housing will be delivered to the city than if you had done nothing. it was working pretty well. we've seen the history of the city. the inclusionary rate is set at one level. when the economic conditions change it's raised and then they change again and it's lowered. it was recently raised. we're going and we might be going into a slowing housing market. you will face the issue of slowing and dropping the inclusionary rate again. it's not a good way to do housing policy and focus on housing production. >> hi, good afternoon. i'm with the plaza 16 coalition and the san francisco housing

rights committee of san francisco. i'm here because you all continue to hear about not undermining a voter mandate. we are two weeks before an incredibly important election not only on the local level but national level. we're telling people they need to vote. they need to register to vote and be engage. that's a hard sell for our community when politicians -- when it feels like city hall is going to overturn something that the voters wanted. i urge you to do what the people of san francisco want and ensure we have the affordable housing we need. i think it's important to remember we continue to bail out corporations, we give them tax breaks and we negotiate down our community demands with them.

if i learned anything from negotiating with landlords, bosses, whether at a worksite and anywhere else is that you don't negotiate away your power and if we said that it was two years to get your building permits and to be able to have a lower inclusionary rate and you didn't do that, the people of san francisco decided. i don't know any developers or corporation that's are homeless. i don't know of developers or corporations that can't pay their rent. i don't know of developers or corporations working three or four jobs to keep a roof over there head. everyday san franciscans who need deeply affordable housing and the market isn't going to give it to us. we need one piece of an entire pie and puzzle and we need to ensure that the city of san francisco is on the side of everyday sa san franciscans and corporations. >> any other members of the

public who wish to comment on item 4. come on up. you can lineup. >> thank you, supervisors. d5 action. we hear a lot about the poor developers. and yeah, some of them are getting international finance and many of those international finance companies want 20% profit. how many businesses in san francisco can claim that they can get 20% profit? let's not coddle these folks. remember, that affordable housing is an inclusionary fact o it's only one piece of the puzzle. vote prop c this time. >> thank you, any other members of the public. public comment on item number 4 is closed. colleagues. questions, comments? suggestions on next steps? >> supervisor safai. >> sounds like they have good

ideas. they've talked about those amendments. i think having an additional week should be enough time to have these conversations to draft the proposed amendments. i would be supportive of that. >> thank you. supervisor kim. >> yes, i was going to make a motion to continue for an additional week. although i'm looking at the city attorney as well. >> we need a finite deadline for the city attorney. >> i think it makes sense to continue it for a week. we will continue to work with your offices during that time. depending on the policy decisions you make, it may be we want to continue it again but a week is an appropriate deadline. >> thank you. supervisor peskin. >> i think what he is saying is that the proposal or the amendment, having to do with the state density bonus fees may

require some noticing and possibly rereferral. >> the density bonus proposal, if you make that amendment next week, would require rereferral to planning and probably require noticing before it comes back to land use. those procedural questions we can address next week when the board is considering those amendments. this week we'll work with you on drafting them. >> thank you, for that commitment. with that colleagues he we have a motion to continue this item for one week. >> so moved. >> we can do that without objection. thank you, everyone. we're just going to call up item 7 really quick. there is a plan to continue it so for those items 5 and 6 do not panic. item 7, please. >> item 7 is a resolution urging support of state water board proposed updates to the 2016 bay delta plan.

>> thank you, supervisor peskin. >> thank you chair tang and thank you for your offices' winness to schedule this for today. apparently the public utilities commission was not able to testify today, although i did see the general manager and assistant general manager walking down the hallways a couple of hours ago. i agree that we would continue this very important item one week provided, however, that it be scheduled as a committee report and the reason for the urgency is that october the 30tg prior to when the state board will consider the bay delta plan update on november 7th. we have no board beyond novembe. and just by way of background, i do want to say with all due

respect to the p.u.c. that i think the state water board has been quite willing to compromise. this process has been going on for 10 years. it is based on the best available science. we know that our fisheries are crashes and san francisco, as i said last week at the board of supervisors, should not go the way of the los angeles department of water and power as they behaved badly for decades in and around saving mono lake. san francisco needs to do its part. quite frankly, i am really concerned about the footsie being played with the irrigation districts of turlock and m mow s toe, that donald trump made as a political matter, not a science or environmental matter, he wants to reject the u.s. fish and wildlife services

recommendations as it relates to increasing unimpeded flows through the bay for the health of the estuary. i will save the rest for next week but thank you for bringing this item forward. >> thank you. i look forward to seeing all sides on this item the following week. any members of the public on item 7? we are planning to continue this item for one week? seeing none public comment is closed. motion to continue item 7 for one week. >> so moved. >> we can do that without objection. >> we will go back to item 5. >> clerk: an ordinance amending the planning code to permit affordable housing on undeveloped lights, light industrial zoning district and appropriate findings. >> thank you. i'm going to turn this over to supervisor kim. >> colleagues, this is the duplicated file of the sally ordinance that i had introduced back in the spring-summer. it was just some amendmented we

wanted to submit to ensure we are allowing 100% affordable housing on sally sites. the amendment ideas in the duplicated file or the sub duty ordinance that was introduced. primarily they were to change structures back to buildings because structures could include kiosks and also -- i'm looking for this. it could include kiosks and also the billboards. and we also add that on any parts 15,000 square feet in size it contains a surface parking lot use and structures and a building that does not exceeds 800 square feet in the building area. so this would ensure that we can build on the sites that are surpass parking lots that may have kiosk for a guard or a

small building under 800 square feet or a billboard. >> ok. >> is that it? >> ok. >> thank you supervisor kim. any questions or comments? seeing none. let's open up item 5 for public comment. any members who wish to speak, please, come on up. seeing none public comment is closed. can we get a motion on item 5. >> a motion to move this forward with recommendation to the full board. >> ok. thank you. we don't have to make an amendment, correct. all right. so we'll do that without objections and send to the full board with positive recommendations. item 6, please. >> number six is a hearing to discuss security policies and procedures on public transportation. >> thank you, very much. so smooth transition, new clerk and we're also joined by supervisor stefani. i'll turn it over to supervisor stefani to start the hearing and

supervisor fewer. >> thank you, chair tang and thank you colleagues for hearing this item today. i want to tank my co sponsor, sandy fewer, supervisor fewer, for also joining us. we came to this hearing when we heard about not feeling safe on muni. we decided to call a hearing to do something about it. we know that transportation is one of the most important services san francisco provides. our streets, buses and rail network are the backbone of our city. our residents rely on this network to go about their daily lives. commuting between home, work, school, running errands, it requires safe access to our transportation systems. right now we know at leasten he can totally many people do not feel safe. riders are harassed and threatened, drivers are assaulted. women avoid the bus at night because they are afraid. this reality undermines the

strength of our city. many of our residents do not feel safe on public transportation, they opt for other forms such as their own cars or ride shares. the fact people are avoiding public transportation is obvious. our population is booming but transit rider ship is relatively flat. regardless of time of day or neighborhood, riders should feel comfortable waiting for and riding transit. people need to know how to report their concerns and their response from authorities needs to be swift. strong transit is vital to san francisco. public transportation is one of the most environmentally friendly ways to travel. it provides affordable access for those with cars and reduces congestion on our clogged streets. without it, thousands in the bay area could not live and work. unfortunately, lack of safety undermines the entire system and many riders will not use unsafe transit. we also have an operator shortage. new operators will not come on board and current operators will not stay if they fear being assaulted at work.

my goal for this hearing is to identify the safety problems on transit. what needs to be done to address them. how to prevent problems from arising and how we respond when they do occur. i think right now, do you want to say a few words, supervisor fewer? >> thank you, very much. i think in particular, i would like to see data that captures what is really happening on muni and also any data that gives us in sight to how people are feeling. their level of safety when they ride muni, in particular women. we have not seen that type of information before. i think supervisor stefani and i are concerned, in particular, about women ridership even into late at night on our public transportation. so, i'm looking forward to seeing the data. i also wanted to say another thing i brought forward was how safe are product parking lots are and what are our regulations

around ensuring that our parking lots are safe as women enter many of our parking lots late at night by themselves. thank you, very much. i think we have two people from the sfmta and we have chris and julie and also with us from the police department commander theresa euins. whoever wants to start first. >> good afternoon, chair tang and members of the committee. chris, chief security officer for the m.t.a. i brought some data along and some talking points i would like to share with you briefly. i know commander ewins has information she would like to share with you. we would be very happy to entertain your questions. first, on behalf of my colleagues, i want to express our gratitude for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. i would like -- first i'd like

to briefly review crime statistics from the last five full fiscal years beginning with fiscal year '14 going through the end of fiscal year '18. for the first three fiscal years, criminal events and the transit system were at a static level. they rose in fiscal year '16 by 16%. but then dropped again by 9% by the end of fiscal year '18. assaults we've seen some progress since fiscal year '15. and over all reduction of 52% in assaults and from fy '17 to fy '18 a 20% reduction. robbery went down again by 23% from fy '17 to '18 with a

cumulative reduction of 60% since fiscal year '14. theft, we are still experiencing a number of challenges in this area. we had some reduction from fy '14 to '17 but we've seen an increase of 9%. from fy '17 to fy '18. before i briefly touch upon our resources and the methodology we use to address these events in the transit system, i have shared some positive developments with you. i want to make it very clear that for us, the only truly acceptable number is zero. when it comes to criminal events and the transit system. we are the first to acknowledge the fact that we are facing some very serious challenges we take them very seriously. we are extremely fortunate to have very skilled and committed collaborators in the san francisco police department with

whom we work very closely on these issues. we don't see this as an issue that we're going to be able to completely mitigate at any time in the near future. we have a great deal of work ahead of us. we're going to continue our partnership to try to effectively address these issues. briefly, i'd like to touch on our resources. from the san francisco police department, we have a number of dedicated resources. we have obviously commander euwins. we have a lieutenant dedicated just to the m.t.a. we have seven uniform police officers and a sergeant who supervisors them. we have seven plain-clothes officers and a sergeant that supervisors them. they perform a critical investigative function for us and we've been very lucky to have a team of individuals assembled by commander ewins who are skilled in this area and

have given us amazing results. we have an explosive canine unit with a sergeant and four police officers. we get extensive help from the police department for special events and then we also have a program developed by my predecessor called the search program. i'd like to discuss that very briefly. in october of 2013, we identified some additional funding from the department of homeland security that we decided to use solely for the purpose of putting police officers on an overtime basis on our buses and trains. so we've been doing that steadily since that time. the levels of deployment have shifted based on our fiscal resources, we saw dramatic results in the reduction of crime on our vehicles. 40% initially as the deployment went due to a limitation of resources. that number shifted but this is

an extremely important program for us. in 2014, we shifted to an data-driven deployment model that we've maintained since then. we work in very close collaboration with the police department to analyze both data that they provide to us and that we provide to them regarding criminal and other non criminal security-type incidents in the transit system. i'll touch briefly on the downtown stations. this is been an issue that has been very much in the media and in all of our attention and concerns. the bart police department and sfpd are collaborating closely particularly around issues in the tenderloin mission, the civic center station, and areas in the transit system and so we've certainly been co-operative and attempted to assist that. we have a close collaboration with bart p.d. and i have a standing meeting with my

counterpart on a monthly basis and a number of different committees at the agency and at part meet on a regular basis to address these and other areas of concern. we have assets we use to assist in helping secure the transit system and the muni transit program was a program designed and addresses behavior in the transit system and those individuals ride lines that are closely connected to junior high schools and high schools and we have the proof of payment unit that primarily focused on fair compliance but also, like the transit assistant program provides a recording function, very similar to what a security guards do. our video surveillance department has been critical in the apprehension and prosecution

of criminals in the transit system. in 2017, the total of were provided to not only internal stakeholders in the agency and to the san francisco police department and and other public agencies. [ please stand by ]

>> in the packet that i have provided you there is a slide for time of day, i believe the fourth page for 2018.

>> page five. got it. the transit inspectors should they respond to incidents on uni when they are on uni. >> anything of violence is an issue with the police. central control is to be notified of criminal incidents and for them to contact police. they certainly provide a deterring presence that any uniformed personnel would provide, so part of their training involves the identification of security and criminal incidents but the potential of those things to

arise so the proper authorities can respond. >> thank you. do we have data collected about a feeling safe or your personal safety or if fear for your personal safety when you ride uni particularly around women. do we collect that data. >> our marketing department issues a rider survey. i apologize for not bringing that data with me. we have seen modest improvement in that area. i would be happy you get all of the data that we have for whatever time period that you would like. >> i don't believe that we analyze the databased on gender, if i am incorrect, i will follow

up with you. >> we are not collecting data in relation to gender, i think that is an important factor to tease out because i think that most of us as women here really understand the difference between a man going into a dark parking lot and a woman going into a dark parking lot, so if we could collect that by data that would be really important. i see that you hired security guards that they protect property is that complect. >> for the most part yes. >> when you say some are armed and some are unarmed. we are not talking about s. f. p. d. armed personnel who are we talking senate. >> armed securitity guards focus on the protection of revenue collection personnel.

they don't guard m. t. a. assets per se. >> so they guard money? >> they guard people. >> the people collecting the money. those are from when you say armed that is from a private agency that takes care of other liability around them having a firearm is that correct? >> that is correct. >> the rest of the security guard that you have hire redirect examinatiohired they are the ones that guard the equipment? >> that is correct. >> that is great. >> do we have info about parking lots or is that in the s. f. p. d. data. >> my colleague prepare add presentation that didn't make it on the agenda of this meeting. he has a full presentation, and i don't want to put word in his

mouth of pretty dramatic security. >> oh, you have. when we were listening we didn't know the regulations around public parking lots and is camera and lighting mandatory and elevators functioning, and the controls around the parking lot after hours and after it gets dark, we didn't know what the regulations were and if we even had regulations in place for our public parking lots and do we have regulations for our private parking lots. what is the gentleman's name? >> the direct of parking ted graph. >> okay. >> the improvements they made to the parking lot have made a vast improvement over all.

there can be officers there at night due issues they have had. we can get you more information the exact changes to the garages, but we don't have that at this point. >> would you say that the public parking lots are fairly safe? >> our city-owned parking lots are vastly changed and our safer than they were. >> so do you think our public parking lots are safer than private parking lots? >> i don't have the data on that, so i wouldn't be able to answer that question. >> thank you very much. no more questions. >> i have a few follow up questions. when you went through the statistics here about assault and robbery, what is the source of this data? is it police report or do they

have separate reporting? >> what we presented is data that we get from the crit data analysis at the police department. there are some phases in which the data is scrubbed or added to. one of the things that we found which we tried to help educate the public there are a case where some don't report the crime for days or weeks and then the video evidence has been taped over. >> i read something in an exam or article that highlight add few operators that did not feel safe driving, and in one paragraph they mentioned that management pushed them not to report certain incidents, and i

was wondering if you had a response to that? >> that is absolutely not true. we take every assault extremely seriously, and whether it is a verbal assault, a physical assault or what is unfortunately a significant trend in operators being spit on while driving anytime an operator reports an assault, we have a wonderful peer assistance program programs with especially trained employees to talk to the operator about their experience. it is a reality that we are facing and a national epidemic in terms of operator assaults

and something that we respond to immediately, and in no circumstances do we attempt to suppress. >> with regard to resources, you listed the resources provided by the san francisco police department and i am wondering if they have decreased over the years. >> they remain fairly static for some time. we have had some challenges in the area that you might be familiar with in the department of funding from homeland secur securitity. security and we identified fund that we can use to supplement the grant funding we are receiving from d. h. s., so

looking forward to going to this year. >> what is the meddology deciding that you want to staff the team with seven uniformed officer or one sergeant and seven plain clothes officers. how do you come to that decision? do you do that based on data that you are receiving? >> we do. commander ewens and i had a conversation about proper levels of employment and what we think would be the most effective. one last question about the operators and you mentioned we were nearing 100% isolation for the operators. what percentage are we at now? >> we have over 900 vehicles in the suite and over 09% of them

have the barrier. we have one fleet type, th the orien hybrids that we are in the process of retrofitting. >> okay. >> does this data include people who are waiting for the bus or just people on the bus? >> that's an excellent question. we changed our data reporting model which at the end of 2012 which made it look like we have this kind of massive crime spike in 2013, but previous to that we were reporting crimes that took place on the vehicles, so if someone was one foot away, it didn't count. we realized that was not accurate way to capture our crime data. >> so this include incidents of people waiting for the bus? >> yes bus stops, platforms,

waiting stations, particular proximity to a bus stop and anything that has a nexus to our vehicles and their operation. >> thank you. i have heard from various women who say late at night they don't feel comfortable waiting at a bus stop by themselves, so have we done assessments around lighting and safety around bus stops? >> not recently, lighting specifically is one of the nuts and bolts issues of physical secure that we certainly take into consideration and there is a a standard for certain level of lumens at bus stops, and it is concerning to us. i drive around the city at night and i am sure that you do. we see some that are well lit and busy areas and others that

are remote and dark, so it is something of concern to us that we are looking at slowly. >> in my neighborhood they are changing all the lights to led which makes it a lot brighter, but wondering what we are doing and perhaps trimming of trees or bushes when there is a park nearby a bus stop, those types of things. >> that is a great point. we have communicated on dpw to make better lines of site and illumination. >> speaker 1: thank you very much. >> so for the second slide you will see the numbers are different from what chris presented. these are the numbers we received from the police department as far as cases go. you will see dramatic drops.

>> do you mean cases filed by the d. a.'s office or just arrest. >> incidents that occur. >> okay. t you will see for the last two years there has been another reduction in robbery, assaults, and burglaries. over awl we are happe all the reduction we are happy with. a lot of people don't know there is sound also being recorded. it's a huge game changer wen you talk about catches suspect especially with their intention and what they are saying. we are working closely with the d. a.'s office with the cases for our investigators and they

are having greatsuccess with that. i would ask you to skip the next slide and go to crime incidents by district. some are up there in central and northern richmond. those can be a number of factors. a lot of times people committing crimes on muni are opportunists. they will see someone with a bac backpack or purse open they will grab and run out of the bus. i believe that is what accounts for a majority of that. the robberies we have had some series when we are asked to do this presentation we ask how you

identify trends. if investigators look every morning to see if there are cases that are similar. if thing that is interesting about muni a lot of bus buss buses are going from one area to another and they are riding from one to the next and they are waiting for the opportunity. if that is a trend that we are seeing we look at that as well, and then we speak to chris and he gets us the video, and times m. t. a. gets us the video before we ask because they see an issue occurring. we have had very good success. time of day, a lot of people believe that crime os cur late at night, that is not necessarily true anywhere from

noon to 8:00 at night is one the majority of the crimes are occurring and you will see that in the time that we have on this slide. the thing that people don't understand is we create high visibility, that is our role, with a search program as well as my personnel that goes to specific areas. especially when they see a trend or there is issues occurring, we respond. if there is something happening in the richmond, we will send my team to go do operatings. if there is a pick pocket or robberies or theft where people are grabbing something from an

individual, those are happening ongoing. >> do you have data separated by gender about the victims? >> no. i believe we had spoken about that prior and we do not account for male versus female. i did speak to my sergeant that does the majority, but it's mainly women that are the victims right now for us, but understanding that the station teams are handling cases. we see cases where we see a trend or the pick pockets and otherwise the teams take that.

>> so after you analyze your data from what you just said, and correct me if i am wrong, when you analyze the data you would be able to see or tease out that information or you don't collect it. >> our analysts don't collect that information. >> would that be a do you hav difficult thing to collect. >> i have no problem asking and i will have to get back to you on that. >> what we are concerned about is the safety of women on our public transportation since we have heard from women constituents who say they feel unsafe riding muni at night, in particular after 10:00 p.m. and many types they are the only female alone on the bus, and even if it's perceived that you

are feeling unsafe or are we really seeing a lot of incidents, both are really important, but i think it's important to that have data pieced out by gender because i think men and women in society have a different level of safety in how they feel safe and by gender. this assault, can you tell me if any of them are sexual assaults? >> no. they are not. >> so the 46 from january to september none of them are? >> no, that would be a separate category. >> thank you very much. >> can we get information on that category? that is really important. >> i have a few question as we well. on the same article, paul rose said something about the strategies to reduce assaults

are working, and i wonder what they are, in particular the strategies to reduce assault are working. he mentioned that minut minute muin has strategies. >> in summertime when there is a lot of ridership, we try to put officers in those critical hours, and again, if there is a trend we put officers on that bus line, but it's about visibility whether it be law enforcement or muin supervisors all of them play into the idea that visibility is the biggest

deterrent. >> that has absolutely been the case. what was a best practice became a standing task for my team and i, so we are looking at best practices across the country. last month i communicated with my counter part. there is no silver bullet with this issue, what it comes down is to enclosures are a big deal and the presence of uniformed police officers are huge factor. when we have gone through two periods with the exception of the surge program, when there probably wasn't as much fiscal response as there should have been, but during the super bowl festivities, we saw a 40%

reduction crime and dramatic assault on transit operators. if training and then what we have tried to do is communicate as best as we can. we did an operator study based on video evidence and we determined that 39% of the assaults possibly could have been prevented with a softer approach to insisting the patrons pay a fare, so we have done training in that area that it's the proof of payments responsibility if people don't pay their fare, so not to engage with an argument with a patron. we are very hopeful, particularly with the enclosures being installed t chicago tra

chicago transit agency saw a reduction in operator assaults in a very short period of time. we saw this night and day transformation. >> do you think we have enough police presence or would you like more. you said you want to get to zero and o of course we all want to get to zero. >> the magic number would be uniformed police officers on 5% of the vehicle in service during peak time and we have approximately 720 vehicles during peak commute hours. since we don't have the fiscal resources for that kind of deployment we are relying heavily on data driven