thank you, ed, for your hard work and leadership here. >> i think i'd like to jump on. you've been helpful in advancing high-speed rail here in california and in san francisco and we've certainly valued that partnership and the guidance that you've given us and advice along the way. and obviously seeing this and every other piece of work that you've been involved with, i've had a chance to deal with you directly, but also having watched from before, you've been a good role model. so want to thank you for that. you're not going far. we know how to find you, so you're not getting too far away from us. >> may i also just echo those comments from colleagues and appreciate director reiskin and leadership on this project and the region and for transit, really, our industry. thank you, ed. you are one of the past presidents of nacto, as well.

in addition, i just wanted to acknowledge there's not the transit connections, but the street connections, all the traffic safety, the street management. it's due to your leadership and management and your staff, so thank you. >> yes. i've known ed for quite sometime and various capacities, and i've just come to enjoy watching him in this. as a board member, i've relied on your leadership. i'll definitely miss you. it's bitter sweet, a loss to the city, but at least you're just across the bridge, so we know where to find you.

greatly appreciate your leadership and support in everything you've done over the years. >> ed, along with all the thank yous, what you've done not only for the city and county of san francisco but for the region is priceless because the things that we've just talked about don't observe city limits or county limits. they extend across the bay, the state, and even across the country. because of where the money comes from, the connections, the alliances that have to be made, and the passion and commitment that you bring with you as a person comes from inside, and it can't be replaced by, you know, just changing people or changing job descriptions or anything like that. so my compliments to you and my appreciation for you for what you've brought to our region to help move us along the spectrum of transit, of community, of place, and the good thing is, as everything has said, you're

not going very far away. you will continue to make a difference in the region, knowing just who you are. you've been a great partner and a great colleague, so best wishes. >> thank you. >> if i could just add that director reiskin, thank you very much for your leadership inside and advice. you've been invaluable to me as i move forward to deliver -- move forward to deliver the program and work with ron, so your advice has been very valuable. i'm glad that you decided to stay in the bay area 'cause the bay area needs you, so thank you very much for your leadership and hopefully, we can connect the d.t.x. into the transbay tube and connect to oakland, as well. >> he agreed. i'm sure he's going to make it happen. >> chair nuru: director reiskin, would you like to say a few words? >> wow. i wouldn't have come if i knew this was on the agenda.

thank you, any way. i don't think when i was appointed transportation director as the city and county of san francisco that this was part of the job. i was familiar with the project from a construction standpoint from having been at public works, but came to appreciate -- i mean, it makes a lot of sense because this program is the single most important regional transportation project for san francisco, and i appreciate the c.a.c. vice chair's comments that it is truly -- it's a regional project. the more people that we can get in and out of san francisco on transit is good for the whole region, and that's what this program is about. it's the whole program. it's not just phase one, but phase two. it's been a humbling experience, sometimes frustrating experience, but a rewarding experience, for the past eight years, sitting on this board. i'm glad that i came back today

because today was phase one report, it's the best report in my eight years of being here, so thanks to you all for that. to see everything clicking, the closeout happening, the park, the tenants leasing out. it looks better in the renderings or the videos from six or seven years ago that looked like fanciful. it looks even better. the real prize is getting the trains here, so i can't wait to be riding y'all's systems, and the final prize is getting over to the east bay. so i can continue to be a san franciscan. so when i become a civilian next week, maybe one of the first things i'll do is reach out to my transportation authority commissioner and request my release of the sales

tax money so the work on phase two can resume and accelerate -- also, the great news about getting the rod. that's great news and milestone for phase two. but i will continue to do what i can to advocate in the east bay for this project because it is the most important projector among the most important projects for the region. i'm happy to have played a tiny role. but all the good work is not because of me. it's the staff, the consultants, the whole team that's been working on this, including the transit agency staff that's bringing the place to life. i look forward to being a frequent patron of the center and hopefully riding the trains there soon, so thank you. and i'm abstaining if there's a vote. not voting again. >> move the item.

>> second. >> clerk: a first and a second. all those in favor? none opposed. we'll take your absentia. >> chair nuru: so did you want to take a photograph? >> sure. >> chair nuru: the board should take a photograph. >> yes, mr. chair.

>> clerk: all right. with director nuru leaving, vice gee will take over. [agenda item read]. >> directors, as part of the purchase and sale agreement for parcel f that we negotiated with f-4 partners in june 22, 2016, we executed an option agreement for them to buy block 4 for $44 million or a price decided with an appraisal, and that option agreement expired,

and this amendment basically extends the option agreement to allow them one more year to negotiate with ocii on a development and disposition -- disposition development agreement, basically, a d.d.a. for block 4. if they're successful, they're able to participant and build the housing combined, both below market and market housing. so this agreement -- this amendment extended it by one more, but this amendment does take away -- take out the requirement that if the site is not available for them, the cost of the land will be reduced by $3 million, so that's taken away, even though we expect to be able to turn the site for them this fall. so if you have anymore questions, then -- >> any questions? >> this is extended to the end of next month? >> next year.

>> i thought i saw september 2018 in the staff report. >> it is, but the director can extend it an additional year, as well. >> okay. counsel? >> the executive director of ocii has the authority to extend it for one additional year, which she already exercised. while it was set to expire at the end of september. >> so if that's already happened, we're just formalizing, essentially? >> yes. so the option agreement has been approved by ocii sometime ago, and she exercised her authority pursuant to that document that we're extending the determiterm. >> well, i'm just glad it's going forward. i think there's a lot of

question whether this option could be made. >> yeah, it's progressing. >> the option to extend for one year, what happens if they don't do it in that year? >> they lose the option to buy block 4, and that could impact how they develop parcel f. >> okay. but who does that control of the parcel comes back to? >> if this option agreement expires? >> yeah. >> they would have to work with ocii on parcel f on how to develop it. >> okay. >> this just gives them an option to buy parcel 4. >> can you repeat if -- >> no, the agreement -- original agreement stipulated a $3 million reduction if we didn't turnover the block 4 by september 2018, and also, they

had to reach a d.d.a. by june 2018. we were not able to turn it over by june 2018, but to be clear, they were not able to negotiate a d.d.a. by june 2018, as well. >> any other questions? move for approval, and second. >> clerk: approval and second. [roll call] >> clerk: that's five ayes. and item 11 is approved. hold on just a moment. we'll get director sesay from the back.

all right. go ahead and call item 12? >> please. >> clerk: authorizing the executive director to increase the legal services budget by $3 million to a total of $20 million for the providing services in their respective practice areas on an as-needed basis and extend the term of the agree by one year. >> we have nixon peabody for maintaining the loan. what this does is provide $3 million next year to maintain or legal services as needed for the bench. i think this is the last extension, and we will be going with an r.f.p. before the end of this -- a year from now --

between now and a year from now to secure legal services for operations and downtown extension and other things. >> any questions? >> i'll move approval. >> second. >> moved and second. >> clerk: great. first and second. no members of the public wanting to comment on the item. [roll call] >> clerk: that's six ayes, and item 12 is approved. call the next item? >> yes, please. >> clerk: item 13 is authorizing the executive director to execute an amendment to the professional services agreement for legal services to provide litigation support services in actions against the tjpa arising from the movement of 301 mission street, increasing compensation from 15.7 million to

$18.1 million. >> any questions from the directors? is there a motion? >> move the item. >> second. >> clerk: first and a second. no members of the public wanting to comment on the item. [roll call] >> clerk: thank you. and that's six ayes. item 13 is approved. as we noted, we took item 14 earlier. we can appreciate him again, though. item 15 is the california high speed rail authority preferred alternative presentation. >> so this is going to be a presentation by james tung, who's our manager for the san francisco to san jose production. i'll give a two-second introduction and turn it over

to james. we're kind of behind in d.t.x. we're in the process of taking our next big milestone in step in going through the environmental process in order to clear the system in northern california and bring some high-speed trains to the downtown extension, as well. so our next milestone is identification of the state's preferred alternative, in our two project extensions, san jose to san francisco and san francisco to merced. james will cover the staff recommendations that we've put out into the world and are looking for feedback from a variety of public agencies. we're holding community working groups, open houses and other outreach during these couple of months and bring that back to the september board meeting with the draft environmental documents, so with that, i'll turn it over to james. >> okay.

>> good morning, council members. let me just set the stage by providing some context and why the california voters voted yes on proposition a. when you think about traveling, for short road trips, there's plenty of options. you can ride a bike, you can take a car, you can take public transit. and then, for longer modes, 600 miles or more, for example, the distance between los angeles and san francisco, there's air travel. so high-speed rail is really meant to fit that in-between section. really, when you look at that map of high-speed rail, the phase one alignment is shown in blue. that's from san francisco to los angeles, and then, in yellow is phase two, stretching up to sacramento and down to san diego. the stations that you see here are shown on the dots, and the distances between the station cities range anywhere from 30, 40, 50 miles, so that's really

our target audience. it's -- it's a distance that's a little bit too far to have a comfortable drive, but it's too short to buy a plane ticket. we see this as a much-needed alternative, especially when you consider that the population of california is rising. by midcentury, we expect the population to grow by 20 million people. to put that in perspective, that's about adding the population of washington state and oregon state to the existing california population. so to address the -- to address travel, we have a couple of options? we could either build more highways, but as we've seen in the past, building more highways may add capacity in the short-term, but that capacity quickly gets filled up, and then, you have the same congestion problems that you started with. you could also build more runways at the airport, but just looking at san francisco

airport, you can't expand into the bay. l.a.x. is similarly build up, and i these airports, i'm sure people have experienced the delays that you see here. additionally, high-speed rail is committed to using 100% renewable energy resources. so this will reduce the amount of carbon emissions, reduce the amount of greenhouse gases and allow california to achieve its sustainability goals. we're really trying to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, diesel gas combustion engines. for job growth, we see benefits in connectioning smaller cities to -- connecting smaller cities to larger cities. so for example, if you are a worker in fresno, now perhaps you could have the opportunity to connect to the larger major m metropolitan cities such as san

jose and silicon valley. a typical car ride would be two to three hours, but riding a train, you could get there in an hour. that makes it feasible to live in silicon valley and live in the more cheaper, smaller, far away cities, there by reducing the or helping to alleviate the housing congestion that we see here today. the high speed rail is just a piece of an overall puzzle. here, you see the 2040 rail vision with the various operators shown. so when we think about providing a good customer service, what we want to do with the help of other providers is provide a coordinated schedule so that people can get off of the high speed rail train and off to another mode of travel in an easy fashion. in this way, we hope to

mutually benefit each other. if we can help provide more ridership to other modes, high-speed rail will experience an increased ridership. i'd like to play a construction video.

[video] >> this is a graph showing how the high-speed rail program is part of the big picture. we have many projects running at various stages of development with the ultimate goal of providing a good regional transit service with our public. we're going to focus in today on the purple band that's for high-speed rail project. we've taken our footprint and performed all the technical analysis, and right now, we're going out to gather stakeholder input. the -- when you see the results of the analysis, we will present the differentiating factors. we've done analysis on all the

environmental factors, and we will public the full draft of that analysis of the e.i.r. when it is published in march of next year. right now we are going out to the public and gathering feedback. we're going to summarize the feedback and take that to our september 17 board meeting, so the authority board may make a decision on what the alternative will be. this is not a final decision on the assignment, but this helps focus our reviewers when the draft comes out for what we believe will be the final decision. the final decision will be released when the record -- when the final e.i.r.-e.i.s. comes out. this is a map of our northern california section. we have two project sections, san francisco to san jose and han so

san jose to merced. the high-speed trains will be able to access the salesforce transit center when it is available. so jumping into the san francisco to san jose project section, i'll give a very brief history highlighting the pertinent points. in 2012, the authority board made the decision to operate high-speed rail within the caltrain right-of-way in what's known as the corridor. we will be able to take advantage of the blended cable that is being installed today. in 2018, the business plan reafirmed that approach and for the san jose to merced project section, it made the decision to put it in the blended corridor in gilroy. most elements are actually kite

common, but i'll go ahead and run through the differentiators. we have no passing tracks, and in alternative b, we have six miles of passing tracks spebetn san mateo and redwood city. our project is being designed for speeds up to 110 miles per hour. to achieve this, there are areas where we have to straighten out some curves, and our system is designed to a capacity of four high speed rail trains and six caltrains

per peak hour per direction. other common elements drunk many safety improvements for hold out stations at broadway and atherton. we are providing corridor fencing to really secure the perimeter and keep our trains safe. so before i announce the preferred alternative, just to -- today, i'm just going to give you a very broad overview. but for more detailed analysis, you can see the numbers in our preferred alternative fact sheets. the way we determine our preferred alternative, this is really a balances act with the factors that you see in front of you. the system's performance and operations cost, this is really systems characteristics, such as how fast the train goes, how

much the system costs, and we balance that out with various environmental factors. the ones that you see here are differentiating factors. you will not see all the factors at the preferred alternative stage, they will be released at the draft document. and so in looking at the numbers, we've determined that alternative a will be our preferred alternative. this features a light facility on the east side of the tracks in brisbane and no passing tracks between san jose and redwood city. what we did was we looked at the numbers and saw that there was some tradeoffs. in alternative a, high-speed trains are not able to operate at fast. it's marginally about two minutes slower than alternative b but it's still high-speed operation even without passing

tracks. jumping into the san jose to merced project section, you'll see many more environmental and community factors here. this is a much more complex environment. unlike san francisco to san jose, this is not a densely urbanized area, so there's many more natural environmental resources here. the staff recommended preferred alternative is the alternative four. this features a blended system between san jose to gilroy. moving out east, we have 15 miles of tunnels through the pacheco pass, and further east, this is our entrance into the central valley through the san joaquin valley. and here, we really do see the benefits of operating within a blended corridor. you see the -- you see that we have more displacements and

fewer road closures, but because we're operating in a blended corridor, we're only able to operate at speeds up to 110 miles per hour. that's slower than if we were operating in our own dedicated corridor. again, with fewer displacements and disruptions to the corridor. at this point, just to go through a quick timeline, after the september 17 board meeting, we will be presenting our draft environmental document in march of next year. this opens up a 45-day comment period. we will be reading those comments, addressing them, and that takes us to the final

e.i.r.-e.i.s. in march of 2021. so in july, we did finish up a round of community working group meetings, and on monday, we kicked off our open house presentations. our next open house is actually going to be in san francisco on monday night, and there are several ways that you can offer community feedback. we ask that you please do so by august 22. that gives us an opportunity to analyze all the comments and present it to the board. but comments can be submitted via e-mail or by -- by snail mail, and -- and the -- the other way is that you can also attend our september 17 board meeting as it's going to be in san jose. thank you. at this time, i'll open up the floor for questions. >> okay. thank you very much for your

presentation. questions? director reiskin, you want to start us off. >> sure. thank you for the presentation. first, just a process question. so the staff will be recommending a preferred alternative. the board will adopt a preferred alternative. at some point in the future should the board wish to do something, but the environmental document will have evaluated all the alternatives. i guess i'm trying to understand, what's the process of the preferred alternative?

>> -- and then, ultimate ultimately, the infrastructure that you're running on, one track, two track, three tracks. unless you're going to build really, really big ones, you're not getting in front of a lot of caltrains, so you're not

seeing a big impact. but what we've seen through the caltrain impact is you want to maintain a blended level of service. all of this is incremental and built up on itself. >> director reiskin: so all of those environmental certifications should be -- >> should they be pursued at that time. >> director reiskin: okay. and then for the maintenance facility, are there any ramifications of east versus west for bayshore caltrain, and the potential of a join

facility with caltrain? >> yeah. i'll answer the first question. i'll pass the second question on. i look at the first question from a very technical perspective. in both alternatives a and b, we have a maintenance track that crosses over the main track that allows us to access the maintenance facility. it's a nominal impact of our lead track. >> director reiskin: and that's with which? >> with both. >> director reiskin: so either alternative, the station -- the southbound platform moves south? >> yes, sir. >> and then, on the caltrain facility as a sharing question,

i think this is something that's been around for a while. i think we asked caltrain are they interested in a joint site, and they said no. i think there's more interest of san francisco in case there's something that happens at the main yard in terms of storage. we have facilities quite large. it's kind of size based on our phase one program, so going all the way to los angeles, having service do really well, ramp up, so there could be some call for storage needs being accommodated. it's much more of a different thing than you're going to maintain two different fleets at the same site. >> director reiskin: i guess what i'm asking is undering all -- understanding all of that, is there a difference between the east versus west potential? >> not necessarily.

>> director reiskin: great. that was helpful context, but no difference in potential. >> directors, any others? >> those are great comments and questions from our colleague because they're focused on that at the city. the only other question is you're assuming that for longer range planning, we're work ing on that together. just want that to be absolutely on record that that's what san francisco is doing, aiming for high-speed rail. >> any other questions from directors? well, i have some questions before we get to -- i'm allowed. am i allowed? so thank you for the presentation of the update, and as alluded to, the preferred alternative being recommended i think provides clarity to a

number of the peninsula cities. i'd like to think that my neighbors in san carlos are very pleased that the station doesn't have to move and there's a passing track 100 feet up in the air, at least at the moment, in the recommendation, as well as my neighbors in brisbane will have other thoughts and feelings about, but clarity is really important about going forward, because the development at the bay lands, it's really important to know what is in the plan so they can react and respond more succinctly rather than keeping it fuzzy. i appreciate the reaction that's happened over the past few months. where do grade separations along the corridor fit into all of this because there aren't -- that's the biggest issue for the working group on the peninsula is just grade

separation, not only for caltrain service, but also for high-speed rail. similar to some conversation about maintenance yards, where is the opportunity for collaboration between the two yards to work together to really get that service necessary and make it the safety that's required to service that region. >> maybe i'll take that to help james out. obviously, there's lots of interesting grade separations up and down the peninsula. at least count, i think out of the 40, 24 are in various stages of plan and development and interest from local communities. you know, from just a pure kind of safety regulatory standpoint, if we're running a blended system with maximum speeds up to 110 miles per hour, grade separations are not required, so we can run the

system with grade crossings. it doesn't mean that system goes away, it just means we're not going to be spending environmental documents. from our perspective, there's opportunities for partnership across local, state, regional and maybe federal agencies that take place in order for this project to happen. caltrain has estimated that the cost of the grade station is something like 8 to $11 billion. to give a little bit of context, our entire california project is $15 billion, so this is a series of megaprojects that we're talking about up and down the peninsula, so we're happy to be a part of that, and we have been, including in san mateo where we're working in helping move that project forward, but this is not something that any one agency can take on by itself, and we're not signing up for that, quite frankly. >> i think hearing in the next presentation, there's no one

agency, no one partner can do it all. it requires partnerships, multiple partnerships, and i think the take away is high-speed rail is a partnership that is needed to be achieved. >> we want california high-speed rail. there's also the california transportation agency which has a higher perspective. i wouldn't circle the state function, state role around this around the high-speed system and agency. i would broaden it to the entire state transportation apparatus. >> i did have one more follow up. >> yeah. >> sorry. i missed. did the e.i.r. draft or sorry, the preferred entitlement document describe the conditions either at king or here at the salesforce transit center? >> you'll be able to see that in the draft. the -- the conditions are the same, and so if the conditions

don't differentiate between alternative a. and alternative b., you're not going to see a lot of numbers in it, but you'll be able to see the full breadth of the analysis, including the records set, preliminary engineering plans in the draft e.i.r.-e.i.s. when it comes out in march. >> so not in this stage, but in the draft e.i.r. >> yeah. >> you expect to share for plans about the assumptions. >> so all of those are available in terms of the various impacts and mitigations and all of that stuff. that's what's going to be in the draft because the stations are not the same in the two alternatives, so they're not differentiators at this point. they're the same in both, so all of that detail will be there and available for you, and the assumption that we're carrying is a temporary terminal at 4th and king because we already have environmental clearance on getting to d.t.x. -- >> of course. >> -- so we don't have to study

that again. if the lining up is done before d.t.x. is done, then we don't need to touch it at all. but we're assuming the need for temporary things there. >> modest -- >> all things that have higher platforms and things like that. >> sure. thank you. >> one more thing, if you can. when we talk about the san jose to hmerced segment, because its one public agency to another public agency with a lot of multiple agencies. but going south, it's not a public agency. it's a private rath ight-of-wa. how are those conversations going, what you can say publicly? >> i can say a few things. for those who are unfamiliar

with the rail corridor down south, union pacific owns the railway between san jose and gilroy, and that there's been interest in having greater use of that line for public transportation and -- for a long time and for long time, union pacific has said no, don't touch us. go away. we're not interested. this is one of those times where it's advantageous to have a state perspective. we've been in negotiations with union pacific about the use of that corridor since 2017, and those have progressed to the point that we know what the design standards are, we know what we need to do to accommodate freight and service standards in that corridor, and accommodates all of those needed things from a design

perspective, and we have enough confidence in the negotiations -- they're not concluded, but they'll conclude successfully, and we'll be able to have a shared corridor with both union pacific and it would allow california electrified service from san jose to gilroy. if things fall apart and we're unable to get to an agreement, we would have to revisit that at that point. >> thank you for the update. is there a board preference for when regular updates might be appropriate -- i mean, are there certain milestones calendarly? what's the right time for you to come back and update this group? >> i think we can figure out something. we can talk to mark. there might not be an every quarter item, but there are

certainly big milestones that happen in the program. one i would certainly look to next is our 2020 business plan being the next item that's kind of due up, so maybe we can focus on something along with that as well as continuing the environmental process milestones as they come up. >> i think that's a good combination. just don't let a lot of time come back without coming back and updating this board. we'll look forward to seeing phase three of this high-speed rail and plan getting across the bay. >> director chan. >> i just wanted to say there's been some news cycle around cap-and-trade funds around high-speed rail, whether the plan proposed by high-speed rail staff proposed by director kelly and staff should proceed or whether the legislature might want to weigh on

alternatives. so as that conversation continues, i think this authority, transbay joint powers authority it continue working at a state level to see if we can participate in some of those discussions. >> good point. >> any final questions? thank you very much for the update. appreciate it. next item -- or public comment. we've got public comment. >> clerk: we've got roland lebrun. >> so thanks again. let me start with the central valley. in europe, it would never be a high-speed lines, because they're high-speed, they never, ever bisect.

next, i will be talking just not just about the r.c.p., but about funds. i'm going to talk about legislation. prop 1 is codified in streets and highways section 2104. the first violation of this plan, is section 2704.04, which specifies that another --

[inaudible] >> -- and operate a system that complies with prop 1-a, including operating high-speed trains without an operating subsidy. specific section cpuc section 185032, subsection b. in closing, the next step, my suggestion is forget about san jose and focus on the segment between san jose and gilroy. >> thank you very much. next item. >> clerk: yep. item 16 is the san francisco

county transportation authority peer review update. >> we also in this intervening period heard from the apta peer review, and i appreciate that. this one was focused on a little bit more broad of a scope than the other one, but largely finds very similar things about the need to expand and deepen capacity in certain areas and to really regionalize this project in terms of the public's understanding of its importance and its value. you'll hear a bit more from john fisher, and i'll turn it back over. i'll just note again that there's a second piece with this work that will deal with more the government organizational recommendations? the first dealt with project messages and sort of benefits and positioning as well as its project delivery aspects, so

part two will come at a future date. thank you. >> thank you. and before i get started, i'd just like to add my thanks and congratulations to director reiskin for all your contributions to the city. good luck in oakland. i hope -- i know your commute changes, but i hope to still run into you at forest hill station along the way. i would also like to thank mr. zabaneh and your team in helping us get up to speed in all the meetings and the phone calls. it's not been insignificant, so thanks to you. as director chang said, the t.a. in april convened a multidisciplinary team to look at the different options for government oversight, funding and finance and project delivery to ensure that this is setup for success. the t.a. assembled a panel of

ten experts with diverse backgrounds, really with national and international local and megaproject delivery experience, specifically with finance and legal and procurement backgrounds to bring to bear on the d.t.x. program. this included as well as lawyers and engineers, we had academia represented, as well. the screen will show you the number of stakeholders involved. a lot of mayor's office, the city family, the regional operators. as i said, really, the -- the -- many of -- some on this panel participated in a number

of peer reviews and workshops not just in planning but also in governance and project funding and planning, so a big thanks to everyone who has spent time with us to provide input on this important question. so we've had a number of meetings, and we had a kickoff in april with presentations by tjpa, by caltrain, by the high-speed rail authority to make sure the panel had a consistent starting place as well as where current things stood, as well as the operation plans. there were over 22 confidential interviews with the stakeholders, agency representatives to glean input, as i said, on the current state of affair as well as what's working, what's not working. we -- we also embarked on a

pretty extensive effort for five case studies of -- of rail and megaprojects to glean lessons learned, and those included california high speed rail, london cross rail, gateway in new york and new jersey, the san francisco bay bridge, as well as the tosha, the high speed rail service and station in madrid. and these helped us form commonalities in projects facing just like the d.t.s. and in formulating some of the recommendations. we also had workshops on governance, budget and finance, and oversight.

and we had a workshop in june starting to vet ideas with representatives and stakeholders. it was great feedback skprks, really helped us shaped where we're going. that was the workshop phase of the -- of the reporting process. and then, we cdid go to the sfcta board as we noted at the beginning of this update. as director chang noted, we have moved forward and wanted to provide an update today on those recommendations. this panel really saw itself as focusing on technical and policy is