to companies like katie says, that don't get things built and are unable to complete their requirements that the voters mandated. i hope that you will do the right thing and figure out which building should be built and which ones should be turned over to have more affordable developers build them. thank you. >> hello. good afternoon. i'm diana martinez, the program manager of mission s.r.o. collaborative. we are in opposition to the extension of the grandfathering for the inclusionary housing from prop c. by going through with this extension, you would undermine the democratic process. over 75% of voters chose this deadline. it is your duty to honor their

voices. by extending the deadline past december 7th, you would be responsible for the loss of affordable housing in san francisco. in the mission alone, we would lose 62 affordable units. dignified housing for 62 low income individuals or families rest on your shoulders today. be a leader who represents solutions to the housing affordability crisis in this city. prove to voters that as civil servants you honor their votes. the very votes that got you here. show us all that san francisco politicians rise above and that you put people over profits. do not allow the extension to pass. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is john corso. i'm representing union 38.

we support dis to be dinnance. this will save over 4,000 units including over 600 below market rate units. we're seeing less projects built and more approved projects are not getting built and we can do whatever we can moving forward. thank you. >> good afternoon. we are opposed to this legislation. it feels like they're being sacrificed for more market rate. even though we're getting a little bit, it feels like scraps but it's not enough to keep our communities intact. for example, 2675folsom street, if this were to pass we would lose 10. we negotiated with them at 21% so this is taking away things that we have negotiated in the past. with many developers in the

mission district. i do want to say that some of the developers that we met in the mission are experienced developers, this is not their first time around. they've been building across the country and east bay. we've only dealt with one that had -- it was a family that was trying to develop in the neighborhood. so, to say that there are a lot of family-type developers out there, we haven't seen any any mission. thank you. >> i'm sorry, could you just repeat the address again? i missed it. >> the family developer comment was a little over the top. i agree with you. >> do you want the address? >> 2675 folsom. >> got it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, supervisors, my name is john and we're here to object for the approval of this project in the mission. we are asking for the board to exempt this mission due to the

hyper density dumping without planning and using the mission as a district to comply with the statehousing element. i've been in the city and it doesn't seem -- [ please stand by ]

-- developers have refused to build what the voters of san francisco have demanded and there's no point in rewarding this. contrary to what people have said up here, we already know that there's a need for additional affordable housing. we already know that the developers have been making massive profits from this housing crisis. and all of this legislation does is to help maintain those profits. the messaging of losing thousands of units because they refuse to build between 5% and 10% more affordable on-site is false. the legislation is exactly what we think that it is. it's a favor for the market developers who banked on this extension coming up to you and getting passed, a reduction in necessary affordable housing units and a betrayal by the mayor london breed to the voters of san francisco. apparently the mayor and the city staff seated behind me are more compassionate towards

capital than they are to the needs of people in this city. we can't let -- you can't let economists impose their views of the world on how we run this city. how big is a human right? that's not something to be debated. people are dying on these streets. more than 80 people apply for every affordable housing unit that's available in this city. that means we have a need for affordable housing and not a need to stop letting developers bank off market rate and luxury development in this city. >> my name is spencer hudson and on behalf of an organization -- >> clerk: can you speak more directly into the mik microphon? thank you. >> i am spencer hudson on invisible centers... and we are opposed to this amendment and we ask that you vote no today. in 2016 a super majority of voters decided to increase the

inclusionary rates for new developments. and at that time the board of supervisors agreed that two years was an adequate waiver for those developments. now as the deadline looms and dozens of developments have failed to move forward in a timely manner there appears to be concern that some of these developments will never get built. we disagree with that assessment. and we believe that the developer should be held accountable. with this amendment, the developers get an almost indefinite extension and dozens of affordable housing units that are mandated by corruption will never get built. housing delayed is housing denied. please do not deny affordable housing to the hundreds of low-income families who will desperately need that housing and will be severely and adverlease affected by -- adversely affected by this amendment. as elected supervisors, each of

you must listen to the voice of the voters, your constituents, and vote no on this amendment. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, peter cohen, community housing organizations. i guess that it's frustrating to be at this point after such a sort of kumbayah in the legislation that now we're faced with a situation of changing negotiated timelines and goalposts. but you already are. and i would offer just a few things as you decide what's appropriate. a use it or lose it provision should be progressive and it's intended to actually put the fire under the process and the onus should be on the project sponsor. so whatever you think is appropriate at this point it should be as aggressive as it can be for those projects that already have a deeply lowered rate, they should be moving it

fast. that was the original intent. the second point is that there should be cause for an extension. and i think that we've heard that already. i'm glad -- i think that it was supervisor peskin pulled out the 2012 prop c of trying to figure out what is the right process for flushing out where there's been cause beyond the project sponsor's control, versus sitting on one's hands and taking advantage of a lowered grandfathered rate. both in an aggressive time frame and a process for making sure that that is demonstrated as a need and not just a gift. and, thirdly, it has been brought up that one of the benefits that grandfather projects have is they do not have to pay any fee on their bonus usage and we have seen projects now that i think have grossly taken advantage of that opportunity. to already have a 13% or 14% inclusionary and take state density bonus it cuts them to 10% or %.

11%. it could be eliminated with a stroke of a pen and they pay the fees like all developers going forward whether they're grandfathered or not, it would be good policy. thank you. >> good afternoon again, cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action co aare alegislation and we're -- coalition and we're in support today. we saw units hit the market for folks and that number went down in 2017 and going down in 2018 and going down again in 2019. what our biggest fear is that we have a year like 2011 in the ner future where there's housing built city-wide in order to make sure that the projects keep moving forward and they need to be able to maintain the rules that were given to them throughout the original negotiation process. one other quick fact to state on there, yes, it's 4,000 plus

total units in there but as mentioned earlier by one of the other speakers in support, there's 600 subsidized units, that is not insignificant. that's not scraps for folks that need a place to live, that do have housing uncertainty in this city. a combithaig combination, that n franciscoians who will have an opportunity to live here. so we do have thousands of homes on the chopping block here, that's the reason that the planning commission approved it unanimously last week. so we absolutely adjudicate moving it forward and approve this legislation today. and one of the other facts that was stated incorrectly, it passed at 67%. thank you. >> good afternoon again, supervisors, peter papadabolous. and i want to highlight a few of our concerns about this legislation and also to pick out

a few of the things that does seem like a rules shift at the last minute to those of us who are heavily involved and invested in prop c. i feel that there's a significant long-standing negotiation that seemed to result in an agreement that was okay with everyone of what our timeframe was and now we're suddenly moving off of that at the last second. we're concerned that this would result in actually the loss of dozens of affordable housing units in mission alone. and we think that every affordable unit is critical. we don't think that unmitigated housing growth is going to be ever a scenario that will stabilize our neighborhood and particularly our vulnerable residents in light of things like the new federal reserve study, which i'm sure that you're familiar with, that modeled for every 5% of new housing built in a neighborhood

that's highly desirable, you can only expect the rent to drop roughly half a percent. in the mission that would mean for every 1,277 units that you added to the mission that the rent would go down on a one bedroom only $18 a month. so we think that mitigation such as affordable housing are going to be critical ongoing to our community. we think that this issue of not entitled projects, i'd like to support those comments by supervisor kim, that those don't seem like they would need to be included given where they are in this timeframe. additionally when you look that we could fall all the way to 11%, to 12%, we would very much support the idea of at least recapturing that state density bonus through fees. that seems like a fair enough solution. so we -- i encourage you to look at these adjustments, thank you. >> good afternoon, jordan davis.

you know, the mayor is saying 25% of zero is still zero. well, here's the counter point. only 13.5% of inclusionary means thousands of black and brown people displaced from their homes and forced into either homelessness or the east bay. these projects that would be covered by this legislation are those that are controversial for a reason. and we housing advocates aren't just here to delay projects for giggles. there are real issues at play. we need to stop using elementary school economics when it comes to housing production inclusionary. it hurts far more than it helps. in fact, i want to conclude with some numbers here. 35. the percent of affordable housing at trans-bay, we can do better. 40, the percent of affordable housing at mission rock. 215, the percent of rena goals for market rate housing. 85,117, margin of victory for prop c in raw votes.

38.5, the percent of victory by percentage. and 2546, how many votes mayor won last june. 20,210, the number of jenkin supporters who put her over the top. what am i getting at? reject this, and which is rammed through way too quickly and tell mayor breed to start being a mayor for all san francisco and stop pushing for unincliewtionzary trump powers and other endangered neighborhoods. thank you. >> hi, laura clark, m.b. action. i hate the way that we talk when we talk about inclusionary. it kills the discourse. inclusionary is one of the only policies that pits market rate against affordable where we debate what's going to be the magic number.

well, what we really need to talk about are genuine and sustained funding sources for subsidized affordable housing. proposition one is a $4 billion bond that's going to make an actual difference in funding for affordable housing. this body could put a parcel tax on the ballot to really jack up and to get us more money for subsidized affordable housing. we all know that land is getting more and more and more expensive and i would say that it's your job to tax away some of that increase in value and spend it on subsidized affordable housing. we all know that 19% isn't working. you may have passed 19%, and you may want to pat yourselves on the back for having come to a negotiation about 19%, but the city economists told you that would be a bad idea. and it is. and you have already heard from a man from labor here today to tell you that it is already killing the pipeline.

we know that 19% isn't working, isn't going to work and we're going to have to deal with that. and so going forward what are we going to do about the few stragglers in our pipeline that we have managed to make to take longer than they should have taken? we have to make sure that the current pipeline doesn't die and we'll have to rescue the rest of the pipeline going forward. i hope that you do things to put real funding towards affordable housing because i don't want to argue about inclusionary anymore. it makes us all speak very poorly towards one another. and it kills our ability to get real sustained funding sources for subsidized affordable. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for letting us speak. my name is curtis bradford, i'm a long term tenderloin congress and a chair of the congress. and i'm against this, and the

way that it stands. let me tell you why. a lot of us spent a lot of time and we came who hearings and sat on these hard benches for hours and hours so we could talk about this issue. we already spoke a lot about it and we had negotiations, we worked for weeks and months even on prop c to get it done. and we all came to an agreement, we found a way forward. and at that time the developers told us that they had other things in the pipeline and they needed to have a grandfather clause and if they had that they could get this housing built. so we gave them a special set aside and allowed them the space to get the work done and gave them that lower percentage and they still couldn't build the housing. and it's not even the incliewtionzary number. i think that the 19% is workable and working and that is to say that the housing crisis in san francisco is a housing crisis is not because there's not enough

housing, it's because it's not affordable. the only way to get affordable housing and the market won't build affordable housing on its own and it requires legislation to make that happen and it requires you to stand firm and to make developers do what they promised to do and they have to pay their fair share forward. we don't to give them more giveaways to build. we need to make them do their job. so i agree with an extension but only in a very aggressive way and i think that we need to make sure they have some means mean g to see if we need to go back and make them re-do it from scratch. thank you.

>> 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