i'm taking the one minute. we just have to do this and get this passed going forward. i was bringing up the matters of new york with the decline of the sub way and grand central terminal. it's very difficult. as the city sub way goes, so does the city. i'm asking you to pursue the uncomplicated solution. this is about giving the public the chance to vote on the most important decision for this railroad which is in the process of electrification. it's going to take some bold leadership for you to step out. because really we have to have the lowest common denominator going forward which is the basic sales tax. thank you again for affording me

the extra minute. i appreciate it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have one question remaining. >> hello. my name is alexander and i'm calling to urge the board to move the measure as the legislation was originally created and how it was passed by the san mateo county district board and board of supervisors. transit planning and transit service relies on constant and dedicated funning. not complicated and muddled escrow accounts that don't have transportation planning. i urge you to pass the tax as it was originally created to give cal train a more stable revenue

source and get it on stable footing as many other agencies in the region are. it's unfortunately that this has become such a political issue. i urge you to show strong leadership and take the correct action by passing it as it was ormingloriginally create. any other callers. >> with that public comment will be closed. i juf wanted t just wanted to mt based on a noticing issue. she waved sunshine requirements it allows for twenty four hours. the agenda was reposted with the correct date well before twenty four hours.

it's it well within compliance. >> deputy city attorney john kennedy. you are correct. the mayor did submit a proclamation and waived the sunshine requirements. this is in compliance since the agenda was posted within twenty four hours of the meeting. >> directors are there additional questions or comments for members of our team or the cal train team or just generally? seeing none i would just like to say we would like to see this go forward. i don't know this is the perfect ballot measure or language. it's imperative to ensure we

continue to fund cal train which is a critical part of our transportation net work. i think advocating and making sure this happens. i'm hoping through this vote and process we can get to a fiscally solvsolvent agency. it's going to be very hard to deal with in the short term. with that i see director has a comment. >> yes. as we all know the board of supervisors is the senior policy making body for the city and county of san francisco. our board is a junior partner in that enterprise. since the supervisors have staked out their ground on this

cal train sales tax issue, i believe we are duty bound to follow their lead. i will be voting for the resolution that is before us today. at the same time i do want to make clear that i would not have chosen this traditional approach path myself. in fact, it's just not very friendly to leverage your neighbors. i have spent considerable time over the last several weeks talking to those neighbors as well as our san francisco leaders as your representative on the cal train board. trying to find a different approach. thank you.

>> thank you, director. any final questions before i ask for a roll call vote? >> this is director franklin. i do have a few things i do want to point out about the cal train board and staff. i've spent almost three years on the board. i did start with the idea that we were more empathetic and aware of equity an equality issues. somehow we were more progressive in our policies. what i've seen and heard showed me to be wrong about that. doing a quick look back, i found that we had a fair equity study in 2018 possibly earlier, i remember my colleagues from all three counties coming down solidly on the side of better fair policies for low income riders. not once was there push back.

it's in tandem with the regional fair programs. those who can least afford the fairs. we still have work that needs to be done. no one is ignoring the issue of fair equity. developing land is another learning curve for me. all these parking lots that have moneying making signs on them. the survey showed we had two plots of land large enough. the housing policy pass by cal train board in february 2020 requires that 30% of each transit oriented housing authority is market rent.

all three came down on that policy. i want to thank all the staff of cal train who overlap a lot. so many of them-what i saw was a dedicated professionalism and concern for customers. last week i was simply pushing forb a clean measure to go for the voters. i realize that was a bit naive. as i read more opinions and those who crafted and voted for the legislation that enabled for this ballot measure, i feel i have to vote no. i feel it's-i would like to recommend that in request for our governance and changes is sf

representative. make sure they attend meetings and dial into briefings. make sure they have time to devote to important jobs. i found it a challenge to get clarity on the interest and opinions. i believe in doing right thing. it would be easy for me to hold my nose and vote yes, but on this i simply as cannot. >> thank you for sharing your experience on the cal train board and really highlighting some of the things that don't often get daylight here. we reflect your position. with that unless directors have additional comments we'll take a roll call vote. >> one thing. to the attorney, i do have a

question just in-to the city attorney or-if this board does not vote for this resolution, does that in some way hinder this going onto the ballot? just out of curiosity? >> deputy city attorney. it is a requirement that the mta board approve the sales tax measure in order for it to be placed on the san francisco ballot. if the mta board does not approve this resolution, it will not be placed on the november ballot. >> okay. thank you for clarifying that. >> just further point of clarification because this is important. the mta board would not have to approve this resolution. the mta board would have to approve a resolution. the seven agencies act to put

this on the ballot, is that correct? there was a previous action in the previous board meeting that was rescinded and removed from that agenda. we would just have to pass a resolution. not necessarily these conditions. >> my understanding is that all seven entities will need to approve a resolution unless all entities approve the same resolution, then the matter will not move forward to the ballot. as it stands right now the board of supervisors has approved the resolution with the conditions that are before you. if the mta board doesn't approve that same resolution, potentially it will not be put on the november ballot. >> i do have another question related to that point of

clarification. the major action is the sales tax. that's what really requires the vote. if we were to endorse the sales tax measure but make no reference to governance at all that wouldn't be sufficient because that's really what people are voting on. it's not part of the original legislation. it's about the sales tax structure. >> general kennedy in response to your question. the mta board could amend the resolution that is currently before you and remove the conditions regarding governance and pass that version of the resolution without those conditions on the resolution. that is a approved by the mta board. >> correct. the question is does that change how that is seen in terms of the larger ability for it to go on

the ballot? >> my understanding that all seven entities will need to approve the same resolution. either with conditions or without conditions in order for the matter to be put on the ballot. >> okay. great. are there any other questions from the board members, if not. is there a motion? >> i guess i'll move the resolution that's before us with conditions. >> is there a second? >> second. >> secretary could you please call the roll. >> (roll call) got the majority

so the motion does pass. >> no it would have to be unanimous. i'm sorry. >> city attorney kennedy, maybe to this point. maybe amend the time line for the other agencies acting. they haven't acted on this specific resolution. i'm try to go figure out what the time line is, should we decide we need to have another special meeting to vote on this? >> there is august 7th deadline to put this measure on the ballot. the votes that are scheduled include the board of supervisors

on tuesday of next week. the cal train board would be on the sixth along with the bta board. the-it's very clear, the legislation states very clearly that all of the other six agencies need to agree in order for the cal train board to approve something. that is not the case currently, not just because of sfmta's decision today. i'll note that the san mateo county board of supervisors and transit district have not taken action on resolution that include the conditions that were passed by the board of supervisors. there is not agreement among the six currently. >> to that point, when are they expected to act? >> those two boards have meetings next week. it's not clear whether they

intend to act on another rez leug. resolution. everybody could read the articles on what their opinions are and determine whether it's likely they do so. >> just extrapolating for that, if they haven't changed the voting, it's pretty much dead any way unless we're not going to take new action on the revised version. >> if that's the way it plays out, this measure would not be able to go on the ballot. that's correct. >> are there any other final questions or comments. i think at this point, we will-on this item. this motion doesn't pass. if there's something that does happen in the next week or so in which there seems to be alignment with san mateo county

we might need to revisit this item. this item is closed for now. i think that just to the public that depending on what happens in the next week, there could be another special hearing to take up this issue again. director did you have a comment? >> i think that's from earlier. >> okay. my comment for my colleagues is that we must conduct our deliberations in public. my question for my colleagues is do we want to act today to pass a resolution-a md fieda modified resolution because we're urgently approaching deadlines. do we have the ability to pass a

resolution to place the measure on the ballot with the absence of the conditions. i would love to hear reflections of my colleagues on that because we're currently convened and the deadline is rapidly approaching. >> if we remove the language of the conditions, i would absolutely pass the measure. i believe it was san mateo that already passed the clean ballot language. >> this is john kennedy with the san francisco city attorney's office. if you were to amend the resolution that is in front of you to remove the conditions that are listed in the resolution both under the whereas clause and the resolve clause, that will remove the conditions that were passed by the board of supervisors and you can act on that resolution if

that is what you choose to do. >> thank you for asking that question, director. i absolutely support passing the clean motion. >> i'm at a very unusual position here. i certainly don't want to argue against the merits of that approach. i do feel that given the fact that the pored o board of supers acted on this very question. that we do have some duty to follow their lead. if they had not acted, if they were not part of the calculus

for this seven agency monster that has to agree to put one measure on the ballot, i think i might feel differently. i think i've made my views clear. i would not have chosen this approach. i think we are where we are. i would not that in the last several months, we have had a back and forth with the board of supervisors about the limits of our authority, limits of their authority and the need to work more cooperatorrively together. moving forward in that fashion, i want to make cleur clear, i dt impeun my of