for the date of november 16th, 2021. secretary silva, can you please call the roll? >> (roll call) madam chair, you have a quorum. >> next item please. >> item 3. we have no announcements since we are in a virtual meeting. approval of minutes for the

regular meeting, the public comment to number is 888-808-6929, access id, 9961164. to address the board, dial one and then zero. >> that brings us to item 4, the november 2nd regular meeting minutes. before i open up the public comment, directors, are there additions you would like to make? seeing none, i'll open public comment. if you want to speak to this item, please press one, zero to put yourself in the queue. >> you have one question remaining. >> guess who? just two items, one a minor correction on page 4, the fourth

speaker was mary maguire. her name is spelled correctly on page 3 but on page 4. i wanted to take a moment to appreciate board secretary silva, i like very much the way she concisely characterizes public comment, expressed and commented are good words as is shared, it is pretty neutral and concise and pretty useful. not all city minutes follow that standard, but she sets a good tone and i just wanted to appreciate that. thanks. >> thank you very much for that. moderator, are there additional calls on the line? moderator? >> you have zero questions

remaining. >> we'll close public comment. is there a motion on the minutes with the correction of the name? >> so moved. >> second? >> seconded. >> second silva, please call the roll. >> (roll call) the minutes are approved. >> second silva, please call the next item. >> item number 5, communications. >> i'm going to give my covid-19 announcement. due to the covid-19 health emergency, this meeting is being held virtually and all members of the staff and public are participating via teleconference.

we have asked you to participate remotely by writing to the board or leaving a voice mail message. if you sent it in advance of today, it has been received and we appreciate your thoughts and comments. if you have not yet expressed your communications to us and would like to, you may do so mtaboard@sfmta.com. the microsoft teams, sfgov tv and phone line are three different services. there could be disruptions but we are pause the meeting until things are reconnected and never go forward without that being the case. i want to thank everyone behind the scenes who makes the meetings happen and thank you, the general public, for your patience. >> this meeting is being

televised. for those watching the live stream, there's a time lag between the actual meeting and what members of the public are seeing on tv. if you are watching and wish to excellent on an item, please call the phone line when the item is called. for members who wish to make public comment on the agenda, the phone number is 888-808-6929, access id is 9961164. to address the board dial one, zero. make sure you are in a quiet location and mute any computers or tvs streaming the meeting. you will have two minutes to provide public comment and i will announce a 30 second warning and when time is up. introduction of new or unfinished business by board members. >> board members, are there items under new unfinished business? i see director lai has raised her hand. >> i want to acknowledge and

thank staff for hyper linking the agenda now. that will help the public out in navigating the planning department. hiring status, director tumlin, i don't know if you have an update on the briefing about that? >> i don't. the hr division is overwhelmed dealing with return to work and vaccination requirements. i will need to check in with them once things are settled down and they are able to catch up on hiring recording. certainly by january. if january is okay, i know that would be doable. >> that would be great. thank you. thank you chair. >> any other items under -- yes, director yekutiel. >> sorry, i can't raise my hand, which is probably by intention

and i'm reading you loud and clear -- bad joke. i wanted to let the board know this weekend i spent time with station 7, the local fire station here in the mission and i had a nice long conversation with the assistant chiefs and captain of the station and they put me on top of the fire truck, the god damn thing and i went around the area, went on slow streets, closed streets. they gave me a tour of some of the difficulties with emergency -- saving people in emergencies with the shared spaces and lengths of the ladders and took me to some intersections they've had issues with. there was a call with an active fire and they rushed me into a car and we drove to the fire. it was a very eventful afternoon

and in service of i think two important agencies and departments working in closer step with each other and i just want to say i really appreciated the time that all the folks at the fire department gave me. looking forward to spending more of it with them and i think it was a very productive visit. we learned a lot from each other and i look forward to continuing that work. i want to thank olivia and chief and all the folks at station 7 for making it happen. >> great. thank you. any additional comments from board members? if not, i will open up to public comment. this is time for members of the public that you may comment on new unfinished items brought up by board members, the items brought up by director lai and director yekutiel. they're the only two items we may discuss at this time. if you're on the line and would

like to be put in the queue to speak to the item, press one, zero. moderator, are there any callers on the line. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> we'll close public comment and secretary silva, please call the next item. >> item 7, the director's report. >> thank you chair borden. today i have a whole lot of brief updates and will include an update on the office of equity and inclusion. i'll start with good news. we are grateful that yesterday president biden signed the infrastructure investment and jobs act. we are grateful to secretary buttigeig and speaker pelosi for making this happen and for the president's effort in getting it approved and signed. it will result in a significant

increase in transportation related capital funds over the next five years. we expect about $4.5 billion are guaranteed to the bay area through the regular highway and transit formula funds. i do want to emphasize that the funding can only be spent on capital projects and not on operations. while the funds are really good for us and we have set ourselves up strategically to receive them, these funds do not follow our long-term operating budget process. we have been involved in helping to craft the details of the bill. it increases capital investment grants that are well aligned with funding critical sfmta goals like the muni program as

well as -- it is also going to be easier to meet their commitment to us to upgrade the light rail system and replace light rail vehicles and provide critical funding. we are very relieved that this bill is finally signed and the money will be coming through. we're also relieved you may have heard a little bit in the paper about the department of labor's determination that california agencies subject to the public employees pension. the federal government may be

spending up to $12 million in grants to california agencies. we wanted to let you know because pension resides within the san francisco retirement system. sfmta is eligible to receive federal funds as the issue is resolved for other state transit agencies. this means that our grant for rail vehicles and nearly $215 billion in recovery plans will continue to move forward and we'll be receiving that. good financial news this week.

vision zero report, last wednesday november 10th, westbound motorist ran a red light and broadsided a northbound vehicle at franklin and union. this has gotten a lot of press. the vehicle was pushed on to the sidewalk, pushed a pedestrian up against a wall and resulted in a pedestrian fatality. a long time employee at sherman elementary school. we have met with district 2 staff and will meet with the principal from sherman elementary. we have heard strongly from

district 2 supervisor stefani, she wants us to take bold action in taming franklin and union streets. we will allocate funds to address it. in the meantime, we'll be doing regular upgrades that we do as part of rapid response, including checking all the signage and signal heads and so on. next is vaccination.

98% of our employees are fully vaccinated and additional 1% are partially vaccinated. 1% of the agency is either non reporting or non compliant. while we still have at least 50 operators out as a result of the mandate, this is a significant improvement but still more operators than in a single graduating class. we are concerned that if these operators don't get themselves vaccinated in the coming weeks, our winter 2022 service improvements could be postponed because we'll have to graduate another operating class to

deliver that service. we are encouraging operators to do additional overnight. we're requesting overtime for almost the entire system. we are offering cashing out of covid vaccination time. we're not getting much acceptance unfortunately, we're not getting many operators taking us up on the offers of overtime. let me pause now and hand the floor over.

>> thank you. hi everyone. good afternoon chair borden, vice chair eaken and board of directors. i will give a quarterly update on our commitments related to corrective action. so a year ago, this board adopted the phase 1 racial equity action plan, focusing on internal commitment and you probably recall that several of the actions were specifically related to discipline or corrective action and primarily grouped into three big areas of work, one had standards and support around disciplinary actions and the second with consistent data collection and monitoring and evaluation and the third was training and

capacity building. over the last several months, the office has been hosting a series of workshops with partners across different divisions to implement actions of the racial equity action plan, specifically our employee labor relations team and leadership across hr. transit and safety. and those meetings we have been taking time to simply analyze data around corrective action and review our findings and problem solve around system improvements it has focused on discipline among transit operators for two reasons. one is having enough data to

analyze and because of how corrective action occurs at the agency. i want to draw your attention to the graph at the bottom of the slide there. that highlights that the vast majority of the work force lies within the transit division. roughly 70% of the people employed here are in transit. data was analyzed from the past two fiscal years, every incident of corrective action among operators was analyzed. this led to several systems improvement effort. first was data quality, these help to ensure we have complete and accurate data across all our systems in hr and transit. the second outcome that was a

precursor of all of our corrective actions in transit. now there are three categories for corrective action. formerly we had a non safety category and we found it helpful to really understand how discipline occurs and where we need to improve in our system. relative risk analysis was for total and individual persons. one person may have several instances of action and that was separate that every time it occurred. and the next slide summarizes what we found. over the past -- this is high

level -- over the past fiscal year, we found the vast majority has to do with safety. 34% were in performance category with a small observation in conduct. when we did further analysis and performance, we found that most cases were attendance related and those incidents could have a series of causes. we want to refine our systems to support behavior change and having this analysis of the drivers discipline, we have more in site to focus our efforts. and the next slide summarizes

the analysis. we found among transit officers, there's disproportions for african americans, african american women transit operators, they were disciplined in attendance and different for african american male, they were in safety and attendance. very important for narrowing our focus to refine the systems and better monitor our trends and make corrective actions in terms of how we issue corrective action for operators. the next slide has more of a summary of what we're doing about the findings. this slide has several actions, many of them started a year ago when the racial equity action plan was first adopted and several are continuing. so we have now the work across

several divisions developed a comprehensive data base. this ensures that it's documented and staff are counseling specifically the managers in transit but across the entire agency as well. we can have forms to track what is going on. and within the transit division, the deputy senior operations manager has ongoing weekly meetings with all of the managers and this is where we

discuss action in real time to make sure there's not different types of corrective action being issued and for peer sharing. there's been other efforts within transit to make sure we're doing our best to reduce bias in disciplinary actions. another action added on to really make sure there's not bias coming from customers is that when there's a customer complaint, it has to be corroborated with video evidence before corrective action is taken against operators. next step, there's much more work to be done, especially with the findings. we plan to have several different scopes of training for staff at different levels. hr training on the new systems

so everyone is clear about data entree. there will be training coming up at transit as well, specifically safety and trying to understand the common drivers for safety related discipline and supporting operators through increased training and racial equity training specifically for leaders responsible for corrective action and we want to clarify the standards for bundling of discipline, occurring in upcoming workshops.

we want to move away from the word discipline and substance abuse, or dirty test and use more common form language and last one, the equity data project which is a series of dashboards and data sharing efforts to have transparency around areas of concern when it comes to racial equity. thank you to staff across several teams to make this work possible through workshops and 0 ongoing efforts tied to the racial equity plan. if there's no further questions, i'll turn it back over. >> thank you.

i know we have more of the director's report. are there pressing questions or wait until the end of the report? no pressing questions. we'll go ahead and continue. we'll probably have questions in a few minutes. >> thank you. >> thank you. just a couple more items before closing out. i wanted to give you central subway update. as you probably know, we have been installing and testing ticket vending machines throughout the system. and we're about to do the last disruptive work of the project, which involves the fourth and king intersection. that rail line needs to be rebuilt in order to be able to run the t-line directly into the subway and clean up some of the

mess. the n and t lines will be operating as buses. we'll continue to operate the other lines in the subway and add additional shuttle service on the subway, but the k, t and n lines will be operating as a bus. and also, wanted to give you an update on shared spaces. this has been in the media lately. as you know, as we worked with other city departments to spin up the program, we worked extremely quickly and simply trusted small businesses to follow guidelines. and our focus was on saying yes in order to save small businesses. now we have to go back and clean up some of the issues where merchants went above and beyond the guidelines or where we have learned more about critical safety and americans with

disabilities act compliance issues. we have been collaborating with other city departments to start prioritizing wheelchair access and other ada issues and critical fire truck access. for all other changes, we are giving merchants until july 1st of 2022 to come into full compliance with all of the city guidelines around shared spaces. one exception however is shared spaces along the high injury networks, dealing with that by march 30th 2021 so we can paint the safety zones at the corners

as soon as possible and ideally by april. want to make sure you all know that our team is closely coordinating with police, fire, public works, planning to offer a coordinating response to merchants and that we're trying to get plenty of time for merchants to comply. we have been collaborating on community engagement. since september 22nd, we have developed a detailed website and survey in five languages and conducted over 50 public outreach events and presentations and done 14

meetings with the disability communities. the survey has gotten 7,000 responses. tonight is the premier of a film called "moving sf" about the history of muni. it will be shown publicly november 22nd at 9:00 p.m. i'm happy to take questions. >> great. i see that director hinze and director heminger have questions. >> just a few comments and a

question. on the fatality on franklin and union and my condolences for the loss of your staff person. far too early. just a comment, i think a couple of us have asked this about update around safety of students getting to school and what the agency is doing around that. particularly since it -- school is in full swing now. that would be a good topic, whether it be a hearing or something along those lines or

memo to us. this collision was not on the high injury network, i would urge the board and staff to look at conditions on the non and city streets.

on shared spaces, the resource page, i was wondering is that live and up yet or -- do we have an update on that? >> i can check with the team right now and find out if that is live. i believe the planning department was leading that work. we can get an answer on that. >> perfect. thank you. thank you chair. >> i share your sense of relief about the infrastructure bill. now that it has been signed and passed i assume you'll be developing a strategy for how we can take maximum advantage of the formula and the

discretionary funds and just speaking as one commissioner, i would encourage you to involve the board in that thinking because a lot of this has to do with political judgments about where's the right place to apply for the money and how to share the wealth with all of our many transit colleagues in the bay area and california. i thank you for the clarification about not applying to the san francisco retirement system. do you happen to know if any other transit agencies are in the same boat? >> i can't confirm.

>> i have to say, i'm not deeply alarmed myself. this is too much money for someone not to solve this problem. we thought we had it solved several years ago. it is too bad it has come back to us. in the case it doesn't get solved, can we get everybody else's money? >> i'm on it. >> thank you. director lai. >> thank you chair. actually director heminger, you asked my infrastructure question. i have one i'll save for later in the agenda. i'll move on to perhaps the jfk

update. director tumlin, could you remind us of our role and our relationship with the other city departments that are involved with that jfk closure opening discussion? >> yes, so all of the streets under the jurisdiction of recreation and parks department require the agreement of the board of supervisors. so we as staff don't have special responsibility nor do you as the mta board have authority over park streets and other exceptions to your authority include streets like illinois which is under the jurisdiction of the court commission. our role has been playing a strong support role to staff in

helping to develop solutions since the issues are transportation and accessory lated and the access issues are city wide issues. so how can people best get to golden gate park. similarly how can rec park manage mobility within the park in order to take advantage of what is an imbalance in parking demand where by there's a concentration of demand on the eastern part of the park and empty spaces in the western part of the park and hundreds of commuters parking in eastern golden gate park because they would rather park free in the park than pay $20 a day at st. mary's or ucsf or wherever else they may be going. our role has been advisory on

park related transportation issues and then playing responsible role to improve access. >> that's what i recall our relationship being as well. the final decision rests with the board of supervisors. i went to the website, if i remember correctly, there are three options being shared right now. is there a future point you see the options being revisited or how would the board be engaging with the options. one of the things i didn't perhaps i missed it, but i did

not quite see in the options is exactly what you were eluing to, what is the mta going to provide for mobility for the three options being presented. >> i want to make sure we are not discussing an item not on the agenda. i want to make sure we are maintaining this side of the line since this is an issue we have discussed before and publicly available information. can you help us not -- >> sure. thank you director. deputy city attorney. this item is listed i believe under the director's report as an item for discussion but it should not be a full blown discussion, it's not a normal agenda item. short questions and answers are permitted. i think you can answer director

lai's questions but then perhaps we can continue on to the other items. >> great. and the streets director is here overseeing the mta role. tom, could you answer that question? >> i'll be quick based on susan's challenge. director lai, in addition to the questions about if jfk drive should be closed to traffic and which segments, we're looking at a bunch of supportive access improvement items we could work with to implement as part of a proposal, including adding ada accessible parking spaces, more accessible drop off space in the concourse garage, addressing congestion around the park on the roads and safety for people parking and being dropped off on fulton street. better way of finding new

options within the park and improving very importantly, improving the frequency and quality of shuttle park system. >> i'm so sorry. i'm just curious if it is coming to mta board. if we will be engaging on this at some time. >> at this point, the ultimate decision is going to be with the board of supervisors and likely going to be coming after the first of the year. i think we're still talking to rec and park about the right way to get both the city's transportation policy makers, and the rec park commission involved. >> thank you. >> and i see director eaken and director yekutiel have their hands up. director eaken?

>> thank you so much. i have a question -- i'm not seeing her on screen. there we go, hi. i wanted to thank you for your thoughtful work and passion and really rooting out some of the causes of racial equity in our agency and encourage to see the discipline question. when the initial action plan came to us, several months ago, that sort of discipline mindset struck me wrong. and i'm glad i want to see you move to corrective action. my question is what challenges if any do you anticipate affecting all of the changes you would like to and what support do you think you're going to need to be successful. >> that's a great question. thank you. as far as challenges, i think the biggest challenge is that

the magnitude of sort of behavior change is so big, it may take some time to truly connect with people in behavior change and our leadership team not just within hr but transit, we want to find best practices and where to apply those in corrected action related to the performance category. the biggest challenge probably is really an opportunity for learning and that is understanding what can motivate behavior change and what can we do to drive different behaviors. as far as support, i think when it comes to -- obviously we've had a lot of conversations around corrective action and discipline and how they play out in our systems. there's pain for some folks or past suffering and i think that as we try to move forward to a space of more equitable standards, more consistent support across the board, having

space for compassion across levels of work is where we can have more support. the messaging around us being in it together and working to keep us accountable is helpful, especially when there's a lot of conversation from a lot of places that shift people's perception of what is happening, including how seriously does management take this issue. the continued support to keep us accountable in sharing updates and us collectively operating in the spirit of construction is the most helpful as people try to grapple with challenging things, it is difficult to change behavior for some folks. >> thank you so much for your leadership on this. one other item i wanted to echo, it is heartening to see supervisor stefani and her support. very appreciative of that support for vision zero.

and another piece connected to that, thinking about jfk and this idea of vision zero, especially in our parks, which should be safe and comfortable recreation for our residents, if mta does not have authority over these streets, i'm curious about the question of speed limits in the park. there's a question of access, which we have heard through the numbers. there are thousands of parking spaces and will continue to be in the park. and just in recent experience, i just have had the thought of we should be making sure that cars are driving safely and slowly in the park to make sure that we don't have vision zero fatalities and injuries in a park that is meant to be fundamentally a space for recreation. i wanted to ask the question of

-- maybe we can just flag whose job would it be to think about speed limits in our parks. >> tom, would you like to answer that? relative to our work -- >> i'm sorry i don't have a simple answer. there's a lot of overlapping state legislation on this. so we do work with rec park to set speed limits in many parks in san francisco. a couple years ago we changed a speed limit and lowered it. golden gate park has specific state legislation around it and rolls we have -- to apply the state speed in other parks are a

little different in golden gate park. susan, is there anything you can help me say about that? >> no, thank you. i don't have anything further to add right now. i think as we continue to work together on ab-43, this is something we can clarify for staff and the board and help on that and get back to the directors with some more specifications. >> okay, thank you. >> i want to say thank you for speaking to us today. you took my question vice chair eaken. as more action items come up and more thing us need from us as a board, obviously we're here to serve this agency and that includes every single employee

and customer in our work. i'm really glad that we got an update from you and keep us in mind as you might need anything moving forward. i only have one area of conversation which is shared spaces. as you might imagine, i have heard from fellow small business owners, yes in the press and from individual business owners wondering what to do. i think there's conversation about dates and amounts and exactly what changes might need to be made. i guess i wanted to drill down a bit director tumlin and ask are we the ones leading the effort to make it so that small business owners who want to keep shared spaces know what they need to do in order to make sure they are in compliance or is another agency doing that and what does the timeline look like to make sure any small business owner who wants the keep the

shared spaces understands what needs the be done to make that happen. >> thank you again. so shared spaces, currently offering shared space are already getting information from the mta giving them some feedback about what areas of their shared space are likely to need modification as we roll into the permitted program july 1st of next year. so some of those are some of the issues mentioned around traffic safety and visibility and fire department to check out issues around accessibility that the public works department has jurisdiction over. people are hearing from us. we are trying to get as much head's up as we can. some will need to make changes to the shared spaces.

>> how -- go ahead jeff. >> and the san francisco planning department maintains the shared spaces website, updated to include all of the new detail and updated next week to include revised versions for the shared spaces guidelines. >> are we sending them e-mails or going out there and kind of making site visits. i think i remember folks from dpw -- if we are quarterbacking this process, how are we making

contact with these folks -- and note my sports metaphor. it is very rare and won't happen often. i'm glad that was caught on camera. >> so we are sending out written communications to shared spaces owners about all issues that these issues that are going to require a correction now or july 1st. all three agencies are going out together to do joint site visits to as many shared spaces as we can. the best way to talk through the problems is for the people who have the safety for a live conversations on the street with the shared spaces owner to operate in real life and motivated to have the permit

extend. and we're making sure written communication goes out as well. >> thank you so much. >> great. directors, are there any further questions or comments for the director? seeing none, i will open up to public comment. this is an opportunity for members of the public to comment on the director's report and any of the questions or answers provided back to directors. if you are on the line and would like to be in the queue to address this specific item, press one, zero. moderator, are there any callers on the line? >> you have four questions remaining. >> first speaker please. >> can you hear me now? >> we can. >> so just two issues on the director's report.

on the pepra, public employees pension reform act, i think i understood what director tumlin said in the discussion with director heminger to mean they're continuing to certify mta as an eligible grant for operating but more so capital grant purposes. it sounds like there was advice from the city attorney or advice from mtc or the state. if there are documents that evidence that, i would request a copy of those if they are privileged, i would ask if they can be redacted so i can see whatever documentation exists to establish that. it's kind of an important issue. i believe ac transit has their

own pension system but they may also have some employees that are members and i think it largely relates to changes that were affected by pepra and i noted in this morning's paper, congress member spear is going to be retiring, if there's anything the agency needs from her, it might be a good time. and finally on the equity issue, i think i heard just now that in the future, video evidence will be required for operator discipline. that's news to me. there isn't always video evidence. there wasn't video evidence prior to video cameras. i think that's a change in practice -- >> 30 seconds. >> that may benefit operators that doesn't always benefit the public. i would encourage whoever to not

always require video evidence. if there is video evidence that confirms misconduct that warrants discipline or whatever we're calling it, great. but there may not be. i would not require video evidence in all cases for discipline or whatever we're calling discipline without calling it discipline. >> thank you your time is up. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> you have six questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hello, thank you for having me. regular caller and supporter of all things mooney. i just wanted to call in, one, thank you director tumlin for holding the line on the vaccine issue. it is important to have safe rides for everyone. i just want to reiterate my support for that. second, thank you director tumlin for your vote to have

free transfers by 2024 i believe. and go anywhere pilot by 2023. i think those are awesome things and really just appreciate your support for a better, more fair policy and one last thing, really appreciate the ability to come into and use muni through a smart pass on my phone. thank you for your great work and thank you for being awesome every day. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> you have five questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> what i would like to talk about is when it comes to the critical racial theory, which san francisco is attempting to

address chronologically, you all need to be given an orientation. you just have to google it and see the articles that pop up and how it has been addressed in san francisco. that is for you all to do your homework. i've been all over the place and celebrating because you're looking forward to the infrastructure money coming our way. one of the things i would like you all to address is for the taxi drivers, it's not mentioned in the director's report but it is connected every time directors speaks, you should bring about some healing and when taxi drivers die and their families are adversely impacted

and you all think you can go on your way, that's wrong. you have to pause, think, have empathy and do the right thing. thank you very much. >> you have three questions remaining. >> next speaker please. >> hello. i have one comment or two about the director's report. last night at a save muni meeting, union leader was there and he told us there is no operator shortage, so please do not cause worry about operator shortages. (please stand by...)

>> caller: i want to call out -- access for all, this interest group they are propping up at the moment and spreading disinformation. on the website right now,

there's no mention of the 837 car garage. there's no mention adding additional spots. there's no mention of adding spots for low income san san franciscans. it's about free employee parking on public land. thanks so much. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: hello. good afternoon. chair borden. just a few things. glad director tumlin told us about the impact that will happen at the train station. it will be great to see who kind

of traffic issues we'll encounter that weekend. i believe there's a warrior game on sunday night the 21st. it will be great to know what impacts this road work would have on ability to serve chase center. my heart goes out the to the educator who died at union and franklin. it is really sad. it will be great to know the role of the crossing guard had there at that site and what he had witnessed. i think it's very sad. i hope that we can come up with a solution at this situation. last, about the shared spaces. there are some shared spaces that are preventing site lines. one example is over at sycamore

alley coming out at valencia which police officers use too. shared spaces makes it difficult to see cars coming from the south on valencia street. it will be great if there was some modifications. thank you very much for your time. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. are there additional callers? next speaker? is someone there? with that, we'll close public comment and move to the next item. >> clerk: item 8, citizen's advisory council report. >> chair borden: we have mr. chen joining us today. >> good afternoon.

i'm mike chen here today. our last meeting on november 2nd had one agenda item. it was about the service restoration plan. we heard the item and did not have any resolution to come before you on the board. i will note that we are having intense discussion brought by the district 8. we will have further discussion around the j church and possible alternatives this coming thursday, the 18th at our administration operations and customer service subcommittee and further discussion possibly in our december meeting on the 2nd. that concludes my report. >> chair borden: are there any questions by board members? we'll open up the public

comment. if you are on the line and would like to speak on the citizens advisory committee report. please press 10 now. are there callers on the line? we'll close public comment. thank you so much mr. chen for being here to provide the citizens advisory committee report. we appreciate your service. please call the next item. >> clerk: item 9, public comment. >> chair borden: this is the time for you to make comments on any item not on today's agenda. nothing we've talked about before and nothing we'll talk about after. any sort of thing under the subject matter jurisdiction of the sfmta is what this time is for. are there any callers on the line? if you like to speak to public

comment, please press 10. we will close public comment. next item. >> clerk: item 10, the consent calendar. these items are considered to be routine and will be voted on by a single vote unless a member of the board wishes to consider an item separately. members of the public if you wish address the board, press 1, 0 to added to the queue. item 10.1, address controller to allot funds and to draw warrants against such funds available or will be available in payment. state farm automobile insurance

company versus ccsf, files on march 15, 2021. for $22,463. item c, trudy scott, filed on december 10, 2018 for $9795, item d, amro elsakkar filed on august 27th 2020 for $7000. item 10.2, making environmental review findings and approving parking and traffic modifications. item 10.3, authorizing the director to execute a first amendment to the arrangement between the sfmta and friends of the cable car museum for

five-year term. item 10.4 establishing the 2022 sfmta board of directors parking authority commission and people and governance committee schedule. that congratulation the consent calendar. >> chair borden: are there any items that you like to sever from this agenda? seeing none, we'll now move to public comment. for members of the public who like to comment on any of the items on our consent calendar, these items are under the 10 section of our agenda. if you would like to speak, please get in the queue by pressing 1-0 and indicate which item number you like to address. [ indiscernible ] >> just acknowledging that we are approving our calendar for

calendar year '22 and acknowledging this year we had couple of challenges with various religious holidays. i encourage the public, this is the moment to flag if there's any concerns. if there are any concerns or conflicts, please make sure we know that today. >> chair borden: is there a interest to sever this item? >> not from me. >> chair borden: i will sever the items in the event people want to address it. i want to address january 4th and ask a question about that. if you like to address any of the items, now is the time. are there any calls on the line?

>> caller: can you hear me now? this is david pilpel. i have comments on e10.2, 10.3 and 10.4. on 10.2, traffic modifications i have no issue on the substance on the ceqa reference. on page 4. the second paragraph under environmental review, sfmta under authority delegated and determined -- i don't really need it for today. but in the future, can you just include the date of that determination? it's got the case number. but including the date of the determination both there on page 4 and in the resolution, that

would be very helpful. other comment i had on 10.2 starting on page 2, the little description blurb under each item. modification a, provided our eligibility, i ask whoever is writing this, word it in such a way that modification a would provide. this proposal would do blah. it is before you. those are my comments on 10.2. on 10.3, i have no objection on

substance. i understand reducing the concession fee based on lower attendance and covid and all that. i'm concerned that retroactive approval is bad form in general. i note this agreement expired july 1, 2019. the m.t.a. could have exercised its option to extend for another five years prior to july 1, 2019. i would anticipate once this goes to board of supervisors, somebody might ask about retroactive. they are not fans of retroactive approvals of things like that. in the future, where there's an agreement that's expiring, it would be best to bring that to the board at least a month and more like three to six months prior to the expiration date so you have time to consider. you're not under pressure.

you have options and choices. no issue on substance. on 10.4 on the meeting schedule for 2022, i would be specific either in the resolution or the attachment somewhere about the start time for meetings. it is normally 9:00 a.m., i believe currently for p.a.c. meetings. it's not clear what times the special meetings and workshops would start at. i think it's important to note that for purpose of all kinds of reasons. i will be specific for start times for meetings. as for jewish holidays. i appreciate the question, if i could avoid september 27th, which i believe is a scheduled p.a.c. meeting, that's the second day of -- you could

reschedule the meeting so it starts earlier you can complete the business so people can do their thing. the ceqa reference in the resolution is to last year's determination. in this case, i don't see a need to have that in the staff report or the resolution. it's not a ceqa issue. it's a board meeting schedule. the determination was as to last year's schedule. i'm not sure you can use that same determination. thanks. i'm wondering ceasar day is a legal holiday. i don't know what holiday

june 20th is. it's listed on the graphical der as a holiday. i ask you post the adopted meeting schedule on the website. those are my comments. thanks. >> chair borden: thank you. are there any other additional callers on the line about our consent calendar? we'll close public comment on the consent calendar. i see a number of hands. director yekutiel and director heminger. >> director yekutiel: jews need to be in synagogue by sun down. it's a big agenda. it might not be bad to start early so we're not rushed.

>> director heminger: i did want to follow-up on this idea about retroactive approvals with our counsel. i used to work at the board of supervisors back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. supervisors i worked for used to blow a gasket when something said ratification of action previously taken. counsel, do we have the legal authority to take retroactive actions on anything? >> thank you, director heminger. i have deputy city attorney who worked on this. yes, you can take retroactive

approvals. this is a lease. may be stephanie can confirm. when the lease ended it went month to month. >> that is correctment. once the initial term of the lease expired, then it went to a month-to-month term. the item before you is to extend the term based upon the underlying conditions of the lease agreement. >> director heminger: if it went month-to-month, why do we have to go back and change that? why can't we start with the last month-to-month? >> it relates to the extension of the term and the number of years that were authorized to extend the term and the original version of the agreement.

in order to honor that and stay within the original term as contemplated when the board first approved the item, staff is asking for retroactive approval to 2019. it's not to further extend the term beyond who was originally contemplated when the item was first heard and approved by the m.t.a. >> director heminger: aren't we giving the tenant a relief? is that another reason why we're trying to claw back the past? >> the city attorney is correct. this is kind of an odd agreement. it's kind of a management concession fee. it's not pure lease. it's an option to run an

operation. the retroactively has to do with resetting the clock on that five years back to that date. i will say, yes, there was month-to-month and there's a lot of work. the strategic real estate group has been super busy renegotiating all our leases with lot of our small businesses in san francisco, due to the pandemic. the retroactivity has to do with sticking with the original approval of two five-year extension. a extension start when the original lease expired but month-to-month with covid and everything else going on, negotiating that concession fee was part of that work. >> director heminger: there was no money riding on this month-to-month versus retroactive approval pivot? >> i wouldn't say it's substantially other than it's reduced noting covid and activity and working with the concession on any negotiations.

i would say largely it was the intention with the original approval of the agreement that we execute these extensions. again, negotiation, staff time, covid, were all elements of getting this item to you. >> director heminger: thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. director lai? >> director lai: just quickly noting for the benefit of the public that january 1st, which is our board workshop is chinese new years day. however, due to constraint and scheduling we will be out for dinner. that is fine. i wanted to respond to one of the public comment that asked about june 20th. that is a federal holiday for

juneteenth. that became a federal holiday as of last year. >> chair borden: are there i in other comments? i want to ms. cleveland knowles clarify whether or not we have to notice in our schedule meeting, provides the actual time or is it sufficient to add the dates? >> i seem to remember, i don't have this calendar in front of me. in the past regular times have been in the narrative of the staff report. i assume that when ms. silva posts these meetings dates she will note the regular time as well. >> clerk: yes, i can do that once i finalize the schedule.

i can take added note that indicates that we start a 1:00 p.m. >> i think that will be appropriate. >> chair borden: to the point of juneteenth, it was a new federal holiday. now things are closed on juneteenth, i don't know is there a official date for next year that's been released as a federal holiday date? >> yes. it is june 20th. you have a meeting on june 21st. >> chair borden: i wanted to make sure. one question i do want to raise. i know we're planning to return to city hall in january. how soon are we thinking all our meetings will be at city hall? second meeting -- i wanted to ask directors around

january 4th, that meeting is close to the holiday. i know that -- let answer the question about remote meeting and secondly whether or not we want to move forward. >> clerk: at this time, i haven't received any additional updates from the city administrator's always or the mayor's office. the last update was that we would not resume in-person any sooner than january 1st. i am assuming that come january, we'll be back to in-person. >> chair borden: director eaken? >> vice chair eaken: i'm glad you raised this given proximity to holiday travel dates, it might be prudent to move back the january 4th date. i'll be in favor of moving it to january 11th if that was acceptable to colleagues or some other solution.

>> chair borden: i would also support that. i know lot of people haven't been able to travel in the last couple of years and now traveling first time this year and having people come from mexico who will be with me. >> i will be supporting many san francisco small businesses on that evening and on following days. i am sure we'll appreciate extra time. >> clerk: just for clayification, are we proposing to have two weeks back-to-back and have hearings on the 11th and 18th? >> chair borden: if that's what director eaken want. we can debate that. we can figure out whether or not we can eliminate the meeting and not have to have that meeting. we do have a workshop coming up

in early february. do we anticipate there are things that we need to core in january prior to the board workshop that would be hindered if we did not have two meetings in the month of january? >> director tumlin: not that i'm array of. do you have a sense whether we got enough capacity in january? >> i know couple of items that staff are tracking for that january 4th date. i'm unsure if they're able to move to january 18th. i can't provide a solid answer on that.

>> chair borden: i think if we can -- if staff -- december is looking really crazy for december meetings? >> clerk: you have one meeting on december 7th? >> director tumlin: we're expecting to be continuing at this space for several more months. we got lot of issues that we need to address in early 2022. >> chair borden: the question may be perhaps is to directors, would we prefer to have a second meeting in december, 21st in december, that way we would skip the meeting on the 4th and provide staff the same amount of opportunity to present to us.

director hinze? >> director hinze: i would be in favor of a second december meeting. my only concern that i would have -- since it's not a previously calendar meeting. i wanted to ask staff that question or counsel or somebody. >> if you add a december

meeting, we will still have enough time to give notice for that meeting. >> chair borden: director eaken? >> vice chair eaken: i want to be cognizant of the amount of work and prep time that goes in to staff by getting ready for the meeting. it does feel like moving the january 4th to alleviate that backup which falls during the holidays. that seems ideal. curious if moving to december 21st is workable? >> director tumlin: may be most helpful if we could have him back to speak to his needs during budget season. another potential option would be to go ahead and calendar a second december and a first january meeting and then work to cancel those meetings if there

are no agenda items. >> as christine said, we have a number of items building up for december 7th and now it's getting really packed. we're going to have the transportation authority come in and talk about the sales tax proposal to get your feedback on their proposed program. we likely will have updates on our financials and work with the controllers office. that is getting tight. based on your proposal, we would have one meeting in january, one in february for actions. with the issues that will arise during budget season, i do get little concern we'll get a staff backlog or we'll be back to

meetings until the late evening. >> vice chair eaken: the 7th has passed. would a meeting on the 21st will be better? i imagine most staff not working during the holidays that much. that would require them to have to work new year's eve and up to the holiday to prepare for the 4th or get it out of the way in advance of that time period. i guess the question is, we're talking about moving the januare 21st. may be we can take couple of items off the 7th and hear them in december. would it be problematic to have december 2nd meeting?

>> what i know about the december 7th, it probably does make sense to have second meeting in december to lower the pressure level on that meeting. it's getting very long. at this point, i think january, director tumlin, we're going to have to manage the agenda and the timely items. i want to remind the board, we're going into a season of labor negotiations and the budget. i think you should be informed that we could ask for a special meeting. i think second meeting in december will probably work. >> chair borden: is there a consensus that we would amend our agenda to add a december 21st meeting with the intent to cancel the january 4th meeting. we can put that there as a

likely but guaranteed -- i don't know how people want to handle it. i'm happy to cancel all together. i know when i was on planning, whenever there was a meeting, people complained it was not fair to the public. i feel bad having heavy -- we found that in the september holiday, we were meeting, we had low public comment. i think it's because of that nature. happy to hear what people are thinking. >> director hinze: i would move that we add a december 21st meeting to our existing 2021 calendar.

i will consider that a motion plus our calendar as listed in the item. >> chair borden: i know -- technically this is about the calendar for next year. how do we have to take -- i imagine we would have to bring back -- >> what i would suggest is that the board direct staff to consider a special meeting on the 21st voting on 2022 calendar wasn't on the agenda today. staff has heard your preference for that loud and clear. i would either keep the january 4th date or not as the board wants with the inclination

expressed to cancel it if it's not necessary. either way on the 2022 calendar will be fine i think. you can keep the january 4th date or take it off. i wouldn't recommend a formal vote. >> director hinze: thank you counsel. >> i would recommend for clarity for all the reasons you mentioned around low turnout. that we cancel january 4th meeting if we approaching consensus on the december 21st meeting instead. >> chair borden: we will approve our agenda minus the meeting january 4th. >> so moved. >> chair borden: please call the

role. >> clerk: on the motion to for item 10.4, canceling the januar. [roll call vote] that motion is approved. we did not approve the remaining items on the consent calendar. >> i like to motion to approve the remaining items. we did have public comment. >> second. >> chair borden: please call the roll. >> clerk: on that motion [roll call vote]

the consent calendar is approved. >> chair borden: thank you. next item. >> clerk: that places on regular calendar, item 11, presentation and discussion regarding the youth transportation advisory board. youth townhall report. >> chair borden: i'm excited about this. i'm excited about hearing more about our youth advisory board. >> good afternoon. i'm acting chief financial officer. this is the best part of my year about two years ago, i think you remember, director tumlin and i went to the city youth commission. they asked that we create a specific youth transportation advisory board. in the midst of covid and everything going on, not only were amazing coordinators able to set it up and bring in the membership and orient them, they

had a year of meetings to date. they recently had a townhall by which two of our members will share with you their findings. this to me officially kicks off the budget process for you. this will be your first presentation. starting off with youth and really sharing what their lived experience is like and getting a sense what they see on the streets of san francisco will be invaluable to you as you consider the budget over the next couple of months. with that, i will turn it over to these amazing san franciscans. >> good afternoon chair borden. good afternoon honorable members of the sfmta board of directors. i'm member of the sfmta youth transportation advisory board.

we're hare here -- here today to present a report on the youth townhall.

>> board members, we found ourselves on this board because of our shared interest in transportation, public health, local government and social justice. we are all excited to represent the diversity of our peers and our city. to briefly summarize our application process as well as the work we've taken on, starting in january 2021, is when we submitted our applications. the following month in february we were confirm as members of the sfmta first ever youth transportation advisory board. in march, board members had a very introductory crash course on sfmta and ytab.

ytab mission goals and work are rooted in equity, accountability and empowerment. at ytab we believe transit and transportation system as a whole should be accessible to all. we felt that youth who use public transit, heavily affected by it were not represented. our work aims to correct that and give youth a voice. in terms of accountability, we do lot of talking at ytab. our work does not stop there. to follow through by taking action to reach our goals and prime example would be the youth townhall that we organized. we hope to see similar compliment from accountability by sfmta by addressing the recommendations and concerns that we have voiced and will voice in our presentation today. finally, we found our work to be incredibly empowering. we've been empowered to voice

our concerns and make change. we have the privilege of engagely youth-led work. this empowerment belongs to sfmta and ytab staff and directors and make our work feel meaningful as possible. this is the work that ytab aspires to accomplish. we hope to identify the unmet needs of san francisco children and youth to examining the existing services, practice and budget of sfmta. we hope to design and conduct outreach to youth and their communities on sfmta services and projects and begin addressing gaps and dialogue. we hope to develop and deliver recommendations to staff to improve sfmta services. finally, we want to report to

the sfmta board of directors and director of transportation on the activities, goals and accomplishments of ytab on at least a biannual basis. >> so why hold a townhall? ytab recognize the consequence of the budget and learn that a budget is sfmta's value. we learned how to placement of resources replaces value. part of sfmta outreach has not been successful identifying youth needs. in order to fulfill its duties, ytab found it necessary to take a new approach. ytab youth outreach has was been taken in the past.

in the budget townhall, ytab introduced itself to san francisco youth. we need it month make ourselves known to san francisco youth. when we began work on the townhall, we split in four subcommittees. to receive meaningful feedback, we felt it was necessary to dedicate time to reach out to youth. budget guide created a guide to help youth understand the budget. since many students are not wear of the budget, the committee created a guide that was clear and easy to understand. implementation along with creating the agenda and developing the programming.

the implementation committee presented at the townhall. our groups collaborated to include each member's unique voice and committees. our townhall schedule reflected three main focuses. giving information on sfmta, question and answer feedback and group discussions. after briefly explaining sfmta history and responsibility, implementation gathered feedback using a survey to ask youth about their general experiences with transit. this allows ytab to get into the positive and negative of youth experiences and more general feel for what needs to be

addressed. later in the presentation after explaining sfmta's budget and impact, we gathered more feedback that allowed ytab to - youth to tell us what they thought. we held a group discussion about the feedback and questions that you had. to close out the presentation with information about you can further get involved, followed by a general q&a. >> the people who have responded to the online form asking about their experiences were all from 12 different zip codes and from 13 schools or organizations around the city. on the top left pie chart showing the age of responders at the form. we see majority of them are 16 to 18 years old at 68.8%. we see that those are the second highest number of responders are 14 to 15 years old.

18 or over at 12.5%. the responders who 13 years old or under make up the lowest number of the pie chart. if we look at the pie chart which shows the gender, half of them are male, almost half of them are female at and the rest are non-binary at 8.3%. we see that the white responders make up 33.3% of the chart, asian responders make up 47.8% of the chart. the hispanic and latinx responders make up 14.3% and the african-american responders make up about 4.8% of the chart. lastly, the graph on the bottom right shows how the responders joined the townhall. substantial number of responders

joining by youtube stream, followed by zoom and lowest number of responders joined in person. another common issue we heard about was the discrimination from muni workers. then another issue we heard about how the free muni for all youth service was handled. if a student forgets to bring their student i.d., they may be stopped and asked for more information. if they don't want to answer that question, it can lead to

arguments between the conductor and the youth rider. another issue we heard was the communication for muni. riders were not updated on any situations about muni lines. for example, closed lines. this is especially important because if a student did not hear about the line that they depended on, inwas closed, they will wait there waiting on a bus that will never arrive, causing the student to be late to school. the last issue we heard about was safety of bake lanes. an attendee who responded, they face safety problems when riding their bike. common requests we received were to improve frequency of lines that stopped near schools.

another request we received was for better training of muni workers to better handle if a student did not bring their i.d. to verify if they or she was eligible to take muni for free. better training of muni workers would lead to less discriminatory acts from the youth riders. lastly, responders requested that bike lanes be improved for better like riding experience around the city. in our townhall, our attendees were not only given forms to fill out but an exercise or they are given a budget and tasked with deciding what to spend that budget on. the first focus area that many of the responders of this activity wanted to spend on was maintaining the existing infrastructure and implementing the racial equity plan.

the next focus area that many of the responders chose was to make the existing transit faster and achieving vision zero. the third and final focus area was solving the last known problem and rethinking curve management. >> using the input collected through the townhall and through the meeting experiences survey and questions and comments from attendees and comments from board meetings at ytab meetings and through input collected from the youth committee city wide. ytab has come up with a set of 16 different recommendations aimed improving the service for youth that depend on muni and improving the agency for youth to access like meetings and improve the experience of youth while using the services.

recommendations are split in four different categories of that first category that i mentioned, ytab recommends that the sfmta pursues dedicated funding for transit operation for 2022 and 2023. ytab recommends to diversify possible funding it streams to allow for expansion of transit service.

ytab recommends the sfmta expedite its next bus replacement to make predictions more accurate for riders. many youth reported this being an issue. ytab recommends work expeditiously to replace the system. finally, ytab recommends that the sfmta expand the network of transit only lane to reduce the risk of traffic of vehicles. in the category of school service, ytab recommends that the sfmta improves afternoon school service for lines 29, 44 and 48 which currently experiences overcrowding.

this not only prohibits other passengers from accessing muni service, leaving them standing and waiting for another bus. it allows for youth to get around to the city but allows for all users to access the designation. ytab recommends that -- getting feedback from constituents that rely on services to get wherever

they need, getting the feedback from these constituents that depend on these services is crucial to finding ways to improve them. ytab recommends that the sfmta continues to meet and work with sfusd to resolve problems causes crowding. this is a problem that came up over the summer. it is impossible for the agency to allocate necessary resources at the same time. we recommend that the sfmta continue to press issue with the school district to better serve youth that depend on muni to get to school. >> this next area is communications. ultimate comes out of a lack

strategy by the sfmta for reaching out to youth. ytab recommends that the agency work with ytab to design social media content promoting outreach events designed for youth targeted for youth riders and service changes that will affect youth. we believe social media is the key tool for youth. it's where youth spend large portion of their time.

many sfmta meetings are held during the school day which means youth can't participate. this compounds an issue where sfmta unfortunately struggles to serve the youth because ethical issues serving minor. it means that youth unfortunately, don't have a strong voice in giving feedback to the agency.

the final recommendation is safety. this is especially important since youth is a vulnerable group. the first recommendation is that sfmta work to provide safety and security by partnering with community groups. when youth are on bus, they are punished for behaviors that nost the their own that's caused by other youth. there's a aspect of profiling

many youth feels. ytab recommends that the agency makes its door opening policy available to the public and reexamine is for situations. this is especially important on key lines like the 29 where there's lots of schools. youth experiences passups. due to lack of frequency, there are lots of patrons waiting at stops and sometimes only way to get on the bus, they have to wait for the next bus 20 minutes later is to bang on the door or go out in the street. sometimes the doors open and sometimes they are not. that incentivizes that dangerous behavior. clear and consistent policy will be helpful and increase safety. furthermore, ytab recommends works with the shelter coordinator.

this concludes our recommendations. >> as we conclude our presentation, we wanted to take this part of our report, thanks all other members. we are the people here sharing this report with you. no no way shape or form, we are the only people involve in this process. the names you see on this slide represent our other board members. they were all incredibly

important in putting this all together and conducting the outreach and running the townhall. again, we wanted to voice our appreciation for our fellow board members as well as our ytab directors. that concludes our presentation. we thank you for your time and attention. we at ytab all 17 of us are excited to have the opportunity to work with staff to get these recommendations implemented to make the system better and make the system work for the youth that depend on it. we are open to any questions you may have. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you so much for this thorough reporting. it covers so many areas of topic that i have thought of. i'm so happy that you done the study to articulate these things. one of the questions i did have about how closely in the study

that you looked at issues around discrimination with youth? was there any trends racially specific that you saw whether it's just universal? >> thank you, chair borden. most of the attendees that most of the youth that responded in surveys and responded to that was a problem, specifically in areas like pass-ups and being asked to leave, most of them did not report a correlation or connection between race. they said it's a blanket issue. mostly discrimination based off the fact that they were a youth rather than an adult. we are looking to investigate this further with the formation of new subcommittees. one will be tackling doing research like that and looking at all aspects of this. as of now, none of the attendees

of the townhall reported any connection between race and discrimination of pass-ups. >> chair borden: i know one of the things sometimes there's a huge amount of students together on a bus stop. i take the 49 a lot. the -- i wonder if it's the volume of people that also has -- if there's a correlation between whether you're talking about a few students or a large group. we've had a lot of issues with pass ups in the last year especially because of trying to maintain covid protocols then also crowd generally. >> thank you for this question. i go to lincoln. we have noticed before covid also that when there was a group of may be four or more youth often those were holding

skateboards, were passed up at stops where buses seems to be partially empty. we knew that they were taking passengers. we also noticed that it's less likely that the pass ups are at stops youth are in very large groups unless the bus is incredibly full. when there are large groups of youth, often times they are blamed on the bus for actions of couple of youth which leads to getting kicked off the bus. which makes it difficult for youth to get to and from school on time. >> chair borden: i can ask a million questions. other directors are raising their hands. thank you for this. director hinze? >> director hinze: great job on your presentation.

i know these thing can be nerve recking. great job with your presentation. first question is really a follow-up to chair borden's question. as you know, we hear a lot of about alleged discrimination on muni from sort of general public. that's the smart concerns me the most. when i read the report, there was specific discrimination to youth. you talked little bit about the pass ups. could you talk about more about what you meant by what might be considered discrimination towards youth speakly? i was wondering, one of your

recommendations was around sort of for lack of better term, youth kind of sensetity and cultural and awareness training for operators. i wonder if you had any thoughts on that or if your group thought about that more. >> thank you for that question. i will take the question in reverse order. they kind of go together. the recommendation about training, cultural competency training, that was the recommendation about complicit bias against some of the instances that lenzy talked about around youth holding a skateboard and operator passing them up in a group.

that recommendation is mostly aimed at complicit bias training to help resolve these issues of youth being passed up for no reason and left on the street. in regards the general discrimination that you asked about the main example considered not the pass ups without reason on the street. some other things we did want to highlight, it's less of tort sof intentional discrimination.

making sure that meeting issues are at times when you can actually provide that comment is a way of resolving the issues where you feel discriminated against. they do not have the ability to raise awareness. >> director hinze: my last question, you mentioned you will be forwarding -- have you given any thought to what those subcommittees will look like? >> yes. the subcommittees will be on

communications. working with the communications team to increase outreach aimed at youth improve outreach that is aimed at youth. one subcommittee is on research. another is on planning effort regarding initiatives like slowed streets and issues such as traffic and fourth subcommittee will be looking at incorporating new elements of traffic safety around schools and more community-driven planning efforts. there will be four subcommittees forming early december and right now we are in the process of us members and the process selecting which subcommittees we wish to be on. >> director hinze: okay, perfect. thanks to all the members of

ytab for your service. >> chair borden: are there any other director questions at this time? seeing none, i will move to public comment. this is the time for members of the public who like to comment on our ytab report, you may -- [ indiscernible ] >> vice chair eaken: i wanted to echo chair borden. thank you all for your service. it is such an important reminder to us all of the unique perspective of youth and the ways which we may unintentionally omitting or missing tints to include you in this process by having meetings at 1:00 on a tuesday when many of are you in school. that's incredibly helpful. it's very helpful reminder that

you all really do rely on transit and walking and biking to get around our city. can you rhyme us and the public what percentage of san franciscans generally fall in that category of either don't have access vehicle at home or not of driving ability. just so we can all remember to design for these fellow citizens in our work?

it's easy to forget. lot of people don't pause to think about that when we're having debates, over half of the residents of our city are dependent on other ways to get around. thank you to the ytab for helping remind us of that and brings us perspective. i'm really proud of you. thank you for your service. this is really wonderful

addition and thank you, jonathan an staff for your service setting this up. >> chair borden: thank you. director yekutiel. >> director yekutiel: thank you very much for the presentation. lots of note taking on my end how we can be do better job to follow your lead and example. i thought one of the slides mentions the issue with students forgetting their student i.d.s and not being able to qualify for free muni for students. i wonder what our internal procedure is for that particular case? do we give people a pass? can they only get free muni when they show their i.d.s? >> i'm hoping that transit director is here. i was wanting to ask more detailed questions about that. my understanding that is not our

procedure. >> director yekutiel: i thought we just let people in? >> director tumlin: i think julie may have had to step away. >> i'm on. i want to echo the thanks for this feedback. it resonated with me. since i have an opportunity to interview everybody for the youth board. i've been excited to see what you guys are going to do. it's been incredible. we do as director yekutiel indicate, we do instruct operators not to get in conflict over fares. they are there to collect fares. if somebody doesn't pay their fare for whatever reason, even because they qualify for a free program or they are choosing not

to follow-up with the policy that day, we rely on our fare inspector program to enforce that. our fare inspectors coached and trained to be very generous and accommodating, especially as we rolled out the free muni for all youth program. >> chair borden: director lai?

>> director lai: i want to echo my colleagues in thanking the youth for devoting their time. it can't be easy. thank you for engaging your fellow students at your schools. that's a very powerful platform. to that point, i wanted to know what is your ongoing engagement process with your respective schools? i see that through your outreach, you done some engagements before. is there a plan to discuss with your student bodies about the sourcing? what's your message for collecting that feedback? >> at the present, there's no active mass outreach effort from ytab as a body.

going forward with the launch new set of subcommittees there will be a larger emphasis making sure that ytab is focused on outreach.

>> director lai: to the point about harassment and safety concerns that youth has been experiencing. in other safety related hearings that we've had, part of m.t.a.'s tools is to rely on some of our visibility staff that are the officers or assistant program ambassadors. i'm curious from the youth commission perspective, have you found those types of staffers who represent m.t.a. on transit

to be providing a higher level of safety and security from your perspective? >> i guess i can start. for me personally, i have not seen mtap on meeting vehicle to date. i can't exactly -- i know i felt unsafe on muni couple of times.

>> there's not a lot of feeling of safety coming from that. i don't think we see them very often. >> chair borden: thank you for that feedback.

the youth made it pretty strong case that we need to look into the timing of our hearings affect them including the service restoration discussions and also any time we're engaging about safety, i would ask a question to staff. is there a reason that we cannot do a time specific hearing item? sometimes what the board of supervisors do? is that possible for us? >> we could that. we done it on occasions for items. we did that considering the names of the chinatown station. woke to that. >> director lai: thank you. >> chair borden: aredly neater director -- are there any other directors? that have questions about the

ytab? at this time we're opening up to the public. that's member of the public who like to comment on the ytab report, you may press 1, 0 and put yourself in the queue. are there any callers on the line? with that, we'll close public comment. i do want to say, i think this is really -- this is very important. i'm really thankful for your feedback. i think lot of the things that you identified are issues that not the discrimination, which is a new one, i think, it's something to work on. i do think there's a bias towards kids sometimes that can exist thinking that's a nuance or whatever it is. this inclines people towards younger passengers. which is completely not the system that we want to be. director, i would love to hear

about to get operator support welcoming students and making them feel like they're not pariahs or treating them like they are pariahs? [ laughter ] >> i know many of our operators really do put a lot of thought and care into taking youth and students around and many of them hear from parents and others actually self-select on to some of the school routes to provide that support. i also know that over the past three years, we went from never having an issue to having skateboards, smashing, doors is number one causes of vandalism.

they shouldn't get taken out on youth who are using that as last mile transportation. i didn't surprise me when i heard those complaints. we'll work with the students and with our operators and our trainers to try to come up with some important themes and sensitivity training so we can give to our operators to respond to this input. we want people to feel safe and supportive at muni.

this is something we need to do follow-up on p.p.p. i appreciate it being raised here. >> chair borden: if you're on a subway, i was running. they could see me running down the platform. what is the policy around that?

>> on the subway, we have to operate when the doors are closed, they are closed. i do know some of our less frequent routes that operators do have similar attitudes or judgment as they see customers. but it is kind of a fine -- it is a fine one that we need to continue to work with, customers and operators so that we don't on a frequent route, even in extra 30 or 45 seconds of delay can really help create bunching and problems on the line versus on a route that is less frequent in the stakes are higher. we do want operators to be on

the lookout for customers. >> chair borden: are there any final questions or comments? is there anything ytab members you want to add with questions you heard from the directors? seeing none, i want to thank you so much for joining. i'm so excited to have you guys part of the team. we look forward to having more reports and being at your meeting sometimes. thank you so much for your time and service. we look forward to making muni better. thank you. please call the next item. >> clerk: item 12, presentation and discussion regarding transportation 2050 and the 2022 muni reliability and street safety improvement general obligation bond.

>> chair borden: i want to make sure, did you take public comment on the ytab item? >> we did. i'm dealing with time changes here. thank you. good afternoon board members i'm acting chief financial officer. another exciting item for you today. i'm following up on our muni reliability and street safety bond and my powerpoint is frozen.

there will be technical difficulties during the meeting and there will be awkward pauses.

>> we did look at the schedule. we have one meeting. we must be at the december 13th capital planning committee. just three elements i did want

to cover for the board on the elements by which we did the fund programming of the bond. the three area specifically. first is project delivery. as some of the boards may recall, performance delivering on the 2014 bonds, we had difficulty. we were funding too many projects, lot of those projects were starting at zero where no prior planning and outreach occurred. we saw a significantly slow spending and there were concerns expressed by both the board of supervisors and the city's general bond to deliver on the bond program. we have recovered that and we have issued all the bonds from 2014 all dollars has been issued and are moving towards projects. that's the first element. this time, we really looking at projects that can spend a significant amount of the

dollars one to three-year period. [please stand by]

is another source that we typically program over a long period of time. so our last alternative is that we self-fund the project, meaning that we have no source that we can go to other than the local san francisco sources and

those are proposition b which we have discussed before and the mta's own revenue bond. so as an example our parking assets are almost always funded by revenue bonds because it's an enterprise function and we should pay for it. our ability to fund is an important component of the selection of programs. next slide. so there was also a question about streets funding and the overall five-year capital improvement program. so one of the items today will be important in having that discussion as we develop our next five-year cip, but i did want to present to the board that, you know, funding, the safety of our streets and meeting our vision zero commitments is absolutely has been a priority for the mta board and has been a priority for staff. it is part of my job, when there is a gap in funding to come up with very specific funding plans and strategies by which we can fund and achieve the objectives

that we have for the organization. so you will see we have been working to increase street funding over time, even in the last cip, we were still overall to increase street funding. i will report to the board now that due to the impact fees and other impacts that we are expecting our next five-year cip to be smaller than the prior, but we remain committed to funding the needs that we have, both to achieve vision zero and to get improvements and other street projects. and the board in the last budget committed to funding our safe routes to school non-infrastructure program. so that's not the bond, but through sales tax programs and other grants we are absolutely committed to funding that, even to some component of our operating budget. had covid not happened, that was the intention of the board in the last budget. so we're committed with the needs reflected in the capital plan to analyze that gap and to

come up with the very specific program to achieve the funding levels necessary to achieve what we want to on san francisco streets. next slide. so kind of overall to give you a sense where we are and as an example of the other funds, the active transportation program is a grant from the state that we often look to to fund our programs, and sixth street was awarded a $6 million grant, and geneva signals $2 million and powell street, $4.4 million. so these are civil projects where we have significant street improvements curb-to-curb and they usually leverage other sources. such as the geobond, we use those local dollars in order to have skin in the game when we want to apply to federal and state forces, having the legal required local match and also showing that san francisco has made a commitment to the project. we received another $21 million for the fulsome project, and a

curb-to-curb project. we had a grant, and, unfortunately, we did hear today that we didn't get it for howard street. however, and this is a good example, one of the projects that the transportation authority applied for around ramps, and vision zero improvements did get funded. that will relieve the pressure for the one grant program which is a federal source program by mtc and county by county and that will help to make those dollars available so we can come back for howard street and, again, take advantage of that source for specific improvements that we need to make on the street. next slide. so this is the original program, i'm not going to go into detail but i will say that criteria, again, of how soon the programs have the ability to spend funds, meaning they have projects that are ready to go to receive these funds, and the asset requirement which is, again, state law and how can we use general obligation bond dollars. lastly, there's no other choice,

there's nowhere we can find money or we want to leverage to bring in other people's money. those were the core components in our staff recommendation which was the program that we showed you in the last meeting. that said -- next slide -- we did go back. there were some things that were brought up at the prior meeting so i'll start with option 3 on the right. you know, could we just match proportions that were in the last general obligation bond? i will start off by saying that this is a pure policy decision for the board. so we will take whatever direction with regard to the general obligation bond and we'll build a bond program and integrate that in. and the five-year cip that does not include the geobond, because we can't approve sources that have yet to be approved by the voters but we can show you the impacts and the gaps if the we e

have geobond would pass. and we have the 2014 bond, a little more around 28.5%. but we would focus again on critical infrastructure because we do have projects and programs that really have no other source to go to and so there are resources to look to and we would match street level funds that were proportionately in the 2014 bonds and we will see the note at the bottom, 28.4%. option two is a bit of an adjustment. again, what we have heard from the public and based on our state of good repair report, we need to designate these funds to critical repairs of the system to make sure that it's reliable that, we can maintain our vehicles, that we deal with seismic issues and also issues on our physical plants and facilities. we would provide some dollars that would help us to leverage, especially the project which is nearly $400 million and also transit reliability.

but also increase dollars for street safety needs, signals and speed reduction. and then option one was our original recommendation. next slide. so you'll see here that this kind of reflects the dollars and the layout of how that would work. again, based on the state of good repair report and what we heard from our public survey, again, repairs of the muni system is a high priority. and the other categories, we add more dollars to streets related programs. it is largely focused in the first two categories, safety and visibility at intersections. and major corridors, again, because that's the type of physical improvement that would need to be at that requirement and largely the type of improvement that we would make. we do have some room -- the last category, that $22 million to $30 million has to do with fully funding five years or

improvements up to 2024 on our high injury network based on the vision two strategy that you saw at our last board meeting. but, again, we are here to take your direction and we'll build the geo-bond program around that direction in the next few days. and then we will integrate it into the five-year cip. that's all i've got. >> chair borden: thank you. first, hands up. you would never guess, director heminger. director heminger? >> director heminger: there you go. first of all, i would like to thank the staff for providing these options to us. i think that is a healthy way of deliberating on policy. and, frankly, i hope that we could do it more often in the future. i don't think that you need to worry every decision with a set of options, but major decisions

like this, a big bond going before the voters, i think that it does make sense. and let me also acknowledge that, you know, no parent likes to have a choice about which of their children they love more. and to some extent that's the choice here, because the extent that transit gets more, and streets get less, and vice versa. i think that is just the -- the rule of the road. one thing that i think that is a new fact that i think that does weigh in my mind on which of these options to pursue, is the infrastructure bond that we -- the infrastructure program that the president signed this week, because that program has very significant sums of money in it, both formula and discretionary for public transit. and it has a much smaller amount for streets and pedestrian safety and the like.

and the amount that it does have is discretionary. meaning that it might come to the bay area and it might not. you know, just to give my colleagues a sense of scale, the overall surface transportation bill, which is the largest component of the infrastructure program, is a 50% increase over past numbers. that's unprecedented. the amount of formula transit capital money, the money that we use to replace the buses and keep the rails in good order in the bay area is going to grow by $1.1 billion. that's a billion dollars just in the bay area. we don't have to beg anybody for it in washington. we have to beg mtc for it here, but it is a decision that we get to make regionally and given the past precedent, you know, muni

is going to score a lot of that $1.1 billion itself. there is also a very significant increase, a doubling in fact, of the transit capital program in washington. it is a discretionary program. but it is one that we have done well in as a region in the past it is one that, for example, bart is using to completely replace their train control program. and i don't know why we can't do that with muni as well and with the program funding doubling, that improves our chances of doing so to a considerably degree. to wrap up, my own view is that given this very, very large funding opportunity, new funding opportunity for public transit, i feel a little bit better about

moving some money from the transit side of this program to the street side of the program, because transit will have access to all of these new sums and will be taking a few years at least to swallow all of that money and spend it. so at the appropriate time, madam chair, i would like to move option 3, and for now i'll conclude my comments. >> chair borden: great. thank you for that. i do have a question maybe to as related to that. how soon do we think that we'll know in terms of -- i mean, what is the time frame i guess based upon the bond and when we have to ultimately vote to put it on the ballot, versus when we should know about the funds, i guess, that we're going to get from stimulus? i mean, not stimulus, but bif? >> yeah, so the -- as director heminger said, what happened is

that it was a five-year reauthorization of our traditional formula funds. they essentially layered additional dollars on top of those formula funds. we would get the first chunk of that, so as director heminger laid out, mtc will do the programming of that. we actually have an item coming to you on the next meeting on how to lay out our normal funding funds, funny enough. so with the fiscal year we would see that cash in september, october of next year period. we would see those bump ups. >> chair borden: but aren't there funds that compete for that mtc would have as well? >> so, yes, transit capital priorities is the process that mtc uses to allocate those dollars. the restriction is always score 16. so while director heminger is correct, mtc is restricted. so while the grants itself

allows us to use those dollars, technically on any transit infrastructure, the regional process does largely restrict it to fixed guideway improvement, so our rail and overhead and our vehicle replacement program. so typically expansion or mid-life overhauls have not been eligible. and anything related to muni forward has not been eligible within the region for the use of those dollars. like director heminger, that's for to us work out with mtc on how those dollars can be used. we have always asked for more flexibility here in san francisco on the use of those dollars. that was taken into account with the bond and the transit infrastructure that we would try to get. >> chair borden: so to that question, the train control -- would that fall into the area that could be funded currently? or distributed? >> yeah. so, it is -- so the train control systems is an interesting project because it's

replacement of infrastructure, which pre-existings in the muni tunnel, so it's eligible for that. but we are talking about expanding the system on to the surface as part of those phases director heminger is right we have looked at the capital grant program, and for capacity. we did a study a year ago on the eligibility and our timing of entering the process. that tends to be very complicated. and kind of the way that we're laying out the project makes it difficult. but it's our job to figure out how to pay for it, so director heminger is correct, that there are grants and different sources for all of the line items. probably except for the heavy infrastructure stuff where it is we have nowhere else to turn but to the voters of san francisco. >> chair borden: great. with that i'll move on to director hinze and then director lai. >> director hinze: , yeah, you sort of laid this out. you did the presentation and did

a good job. very specifically laying out other ways to fund street improvements. so i was sort of wondering otheo with option two or three, other ways to fund the other investment categories that are taking a haircut, that would take and the staff have other alternative sources that are that you are thinking about for funding those projects, or is it mostly all tied to the -- is it mostly tied to the geobond?

>> sure, if we look at the three that are transit, the second one has to do with projects that are related to muni forward, right. so signal timing improvement, adding the red lanes, stop improvements, the work that we have done -- you know, we spent a lot of money on in the past decade. you don't see as much modification there because we can't really use federal moneys on that and they have made some available and there will be some available through what is called the tpi program. joel, it's the transit initiative program, which is meant to speed up the reliability of transit within the region so that's a grant that we would use the bond as the local match. so we do need to leverage, gain, a san francisco contribution for that and there are going to be dollars in the new sales tax program which we will leverage, so that is the one that is the

hardest for us. on the train control system, again, because it is heavy infrastructure and related to a lot of the -- our normal formula funds, while we need dollars to leverage, that's why you see that is where the modification occurred the most. the agency is fully committed to funding that project. so one way or another in the five-year cip we will bring forward a funding plan for that project. it's just adding a higher level of risk because we have to count on exterior funding sources and timing. so for the board, it is a risk question on those categories. >> director hinze: and i know that one of the lessons learned is quick and efficient spending on these -- the bonds. so i guess that in the options where the team would get an increase in funding, and -- do

they have i guess sort of projects in the hopper that are ready to go that they could use the bond dollars for? you don't have to be specific because i know that we can't assume passage. >> sure. and maybe that's where -- and this is why we did want to have the transportation authority come to you with their current proposal for the next sales tax program update. in -- on the major street projects, the ones they mentioned, fulsome and howard and 6th, those have been our big projects. they're largely designed and ready to move. so, again, we have been very aggressive to get those fully funded and going to numerous grants. i think -- you know, and tom maguire might want to join the party for this. i think our commitment, again, is to fully fund implementing

improvements across the full injury network by the 2024 period. and, again, our five-year cip will propose to do that. this bond will support that. the second category in the streets, the major corridors largely have to do with traffic signals. we -- we have some significant traffic signal projects teed up and they are significant dollars. we all know that the cost of signal projects has been going up. but we think that we can also leverage the sales tax program and essentially advance funds if the dollars are needed for project delivery. so the sales tax program actually gives us a lot more flexibility to bring dollars in if we need them if the project is ready. the geobond, if the project is not ready the dollars sit there and it's hard to move it to something else and then people ask us questions why are all of these dollars sitting here. and, tom, you might want to speak to this -- on the major corridor like fulsome project,

that's three or four years of outreach and design and legislation. so i'll let him speak a bit to that. >> yes, thanks, jonathan. i think that the simple answer to the question, and this will be a little equivocal, i guess, but on the one hand the beauty of doing the quick build work that we have been doing with your support over the last few years is that there are miles and miles and miles of streets where we have done the outreach and had public events on what the streets should look like and it's sitting and ready to be rebuilt in concrete. so the optimistic point of view, is that we have so many miles of streets that are ready for the kind of work that we did at fulsome. and that said, there is a lot of preliminary engineering and work that needs to go into that level. we have to get into the utility questions, we have to get into the coordination with public works. and buc. so these projects are not as easy. so they are not shovel ready today. depending on where this

discussion ends up, we will make sure that we -- we identify in advance a bunch of the projects that you currently see as quick build and make them shovel ready, for whatever the funding sources, whether it's this -- >> director hinze: i couldn't hear you but i think that i got the gist of your response. and then my last question is, jonathan, could you remind us of the oversight for the obligation bond and what sort of standards, for lack of a better term, that we might be held to in selecting the projects? >> yeah, thank you for that question. so last week we attached to the item the geo-bond report which we are required to develop. it talks about the oversight and the process by this we will select projects. so generally it gives more details on each of these categories and the things that we will consider in the projects that we will fund. the city has a general obligation bond oversight

committee where we are required to prepare a quarterly report and provide updates on where we are in delivering the projects. the board of supervisors, anytime that we come forward with an issuance and we come to you, the mta board and we go to the board of supervisors, and we do get questions about spending, timing and cash flow and why or why not we are delivering on the bond. so, you know, again, we had a lot of lessons learned from the first bond. over time we have corrected a lot of those issues. project delivery and timing and cash flow are important components in the decision. and, again, for the board it's questions of risk and having dollars sit there. >> director hinze: great. >> chair borden: i know that director lai has to jump off soon. you had a couple of questions, director lai? >> director lai: yes, i want to confirm again that $10 million is proposed, i guess, an

increase in option 3 for the streets project. like, we are confident that we will have something shovel ready for the extra $10 million, is that what staff is saying? >> we have, again, developed the five-year cip. and there are still civil projects where we will put these dollars on to make sure that they're spent. part of our original programming was based on closing the gaps on major signal and/or corridor projects. again, this is why in the last meeting i said this is a big five-year cip discussion. because what will happen is that you will hear the capital plan today. it will say that our streets need this. we will tell you through the five-year cip how much money there is and what the gap is, and this is really part of us trying to close that gap. we will -- >> director lai: jonathan, i'm going to pause you there and i'm going to say that i think that later on in the agenda we'll

hear the 20-year capital plan, i wish we had pushed that forward. and i will pause there and hope maybe easier questions. one is, you know, forgive me, i just don't really understand how this works -- but to me $10 million out of $400 million is very minimal in terms of a deviation. how hard of a maximum bond issuance cap is the $400 million, is that the upper range and no way to move it? >> yeah, we can't move it. >> director lai: all right. and in terms of how we craft the geo-bond measure, is there any way that we could build in some flexibilities to, let's say, to exchange pots of moneys between streets and other pots? because, you know, quite frankly, i don't think that we're going to get far enough with the clarity, you know, of what federal funding would be available to us in the infrastructure until probably well into the -- the campaign

season itself. so i'm hoping that the answer is, yes, like, maybe we don't have to make this final decision quite yet if we do get an influx in infrastructure money, then maybe we can shift some of the dollars over to the street side >> as part of the bond report, that kind of sets -- so another lesson learned is that we had too many programs in the last bond. it was too many. and it was really hard for us to move money around. when we had a project that was ready and could spend the money and we could have found funding somewhere else. so we're trying to avoid that this time with fewer programs more directed. i am happy to take the feedback and we're working with the city attorney.

we have adopted our recent zero action strategy. we have talked about the high injury network piece a little earlier today. today there was also a piece around completing a citywide network for walking and biking by 2024. let me ask you this, as you say, you are absolutely committed to achieving vision zero, do we know what that piece will cost, the streets improvements and the vero -- and the vision zero action, do know what it will cost, and do we have a believable, credible, funding strategy to implement all those by 2024? because that feels like a very relevant question right now. >> those are great questions. the capital plan, which you are about to see will lay that out because that is included in the street category where you will see with the need over 20 years is, which includes that particular element, the maximum need. when we bring this forward, we

will say this is the gap or the -- and these are the discretionary dollars. what we have not done, and i really admit it, we are really good, you know, we are the joint transit agency in the united states. the fta and transit agencies are really good but the full funding plan, you know, this is the project, this is the need, how will you do it, we are not that good on the street side, for various reasons. we increasingly are getting better at it. i think we have been outstanding at making the case for competitive grants to the state and federal government. once we identify that dollar amount, yes, we will come up with a full funding plan a strategy to fully fund that dollar amount. the other thing that i'm committed to is, and some categories of the sales tax, we have advanced dollars. into categories, traffic calming

and signals, we did not advance dollars. meaning we could have brought more money into the current period and pay the financing cost with the t.a. if we had the projects ready to spend the money. so that is a tool that, you know, as the acting cfo, i'm willing to work on this with the transportation authority if the dollars are required. but again, you know, my job to advocate on behalf of the agency is if we ask for the money, we better be ready to spend it because it hurts our credibility the next time we asked. i'm committed to advancing prop k., or whatever the new sales tax is, even bonding against the tax, which we have the ability to do, to come up with a funding plan with a project within a particular period of time. >> okay. if i'm hearing you right, we don't know what it will cost yet to do the things we dealt with two years ago, and we don't have

the funds at hand to implement that vision. >> but that is what we do as part of the five-year cip. ifs say we are a month from knowing that. the capital plan gives you the twenty-year view of the visionary level of need. i can have the answer for you at the board workshop. >> okay., okay. i hear you say 20 years, i hear you say five years, and i am aware that we are coming up on two years until the vision zero deadline. i feel like if we have an opportunity in front of us to secure more funding, we were reminded earlier in this meeting that it is just so tragic that i would be in favor of the director's motion to go with option three as well. let me ask you a few more quick questions. i noticed that the lien's share of the funding, the lien's share

of the month -- of the funding does not change across these three scenarios. it is a constant. i am just curious why you think that is so thick despite the scenarios. >> sure. that get's -- that gets back to the presentation at our last board meeting. the number 1 asked that we have in backlog is our facilities and our yards where we maintain all of our vehicles. that is well over $2 billion and within the region we can't use our federal funds, and we are looking to leverage these dollars. we have about a billion dollars of project that we are ready to leverage against this 250 million, but we have nowhere else to go. this was it. in fact,, part of the reason why the bond got advanced two years early was to meet the cash flow requirements for some of those major projects, which we are ready to spend the dollar zone.

>> even the infrastructure funding, this will not cover the need? >> no. >> okay., that's helpful. it is interesting, and the irony doesn't escape me that, you know, the desire is to use the funds quick and efficiently. and that is the exact same desire of the quick build program to get them off the ground quickly and efficiently, but because of the 15 year asset requirement we can't actually, is what i'm hearing from you and your colleagues, we can't use these funds for the quick build. can i interrogate that a little bit more? is it that everything up -- project funded has to have a 15 year asset or is that an average across all projects? >> this is where we are trying to create flexibility for the board and why we have that 22 to 30 million-dollar category. the good thing about having the 250 million in facilities and the maintenance yards, where we maintain the fleet, is that those are 100 year assets.

it gives us flexibility across the bond to put in improvements that, over the average of the bond, we would still have 15 year improvements. we have never tested this, but it is one of the areas because, you know, the priority of the board i heard was getting those quick build improvements built along the network by the period. either we will designate these dollars to simple projects to release flexible dollars, or the amount of money essentially covers what you heard. >> great. and then just a last question, if these are not, so we have identified quick builds as part of an effective way to get safety improvement on the ground quickly, this is not a great funding source. what are the best ways to fund the quik builds. what are the best opportunities? you said in the flexible or general funds. is that the best? >> the best source is the transportation sales tax.

i think there is discussion about how much, you know, chair borden was on the last advisory committee. she had some background on how that process works, on how, you know, those dollars are laid out. i think you should review the program, the transportation authority will come to you and that is an area where we have maximum flexibility on timing and cash flow, and putting those dollars out of the quick build or heavy civil project depending on the need at any particular time. going back to the original proposition be, the chief source of street improvements has always been the san francisco local build tax. >> okay. thank you so much. i don't believe that we need a vote today. this is just a presentation. we have a motion. i would be willing to second that.

>> no one seconded it so it kind of died. >> i would be very happy to second that motion. >> we didn't calendar it for action so we cannot take action. >> okay. so in terms of bringing this back to the board of december, are you looking for the consensus of the board? >> if i get the general consensus from the board on option three, we will build the bond report, and i would like to bring it for consensus on the seventh if you all agree and you feel no further discussion is required, then what we will do is when we develop all the sources, this will create gaps in areas where we will add sources. and we will show you the critical gaps on major programs and we will have a discussion about how to fund those and what strategies that we can have to take care of that.

>> chairman brinkman: thank you. >> thank you. are there any other comments before i open up to public comment? seeing none, i am opening up for public comment. these are -- this is for those members who were on the line and would like to comment on item number 12, our 2050 plan and our reliability general obligation bond. it is always confusing. anyway, now is the time to do so. you can press 10 if you have specific thoughts around what option of the board you would like to see advance in december. please do feel free to weigh and with that. moderator, are there any callers on the line? >> you have three questions remaining. >> first speaker, please. >> good afternoon, chair borden and directors. my name is jody and i am the

executive director for walk san francisco. i want to thank the staff are putting together this proposal to show options and explore the increasing geo- bond to include much-needed funding for street safety projects. however, when we see this presentation as a standalone, it looks like you were having to choose between safe streets and robust transportation systems and this is clearly not a complete picture. what is missing from the presentation are all the upcoming transit safety funding sources going to the voters in 2022 and how they all work together. in addition we know that there is the federal infrastructure bill this week where we will be eligible for millions in transfer funding. we need a presentation to show how all the resources are working together and understand the remaining gaps and all of the nta's capital needs. while san francisco believes transit is essential to getting to vision zero and tran10 safety goes hand in hand, these needs

should not be framed as an either or. based on information being presented today and since we have not gotten a clear understanding of the cost, san francisco is asking the directors today to support option three in expanding the geo bond to match the 2014 levels of funding for street safety projects. we really need reliable funding sources that impact all of us. thank you. >> think you. next speaker, please. >> you have two questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> excuse me, this is herbert weiner. i came in late because i had a medical appointment so i didn't get the full presentation. my concern is transit has priority in this allocation of funding and that there are more buses for the fleet.

clearly we need more buses for the fleet in light of the growing population of the city, it's density and the growing need for transportation. any budgetary planning has to accommodate this. as for bond issues, my problem is that every bond issue that has been approved, there has been no -- has not been proven. to my own credit, i voted against every bond issue possible and i encourage the public to do the same. basically, these measures have thrown money down the drain and i strongly encourage the public to vote against it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have one question remaining. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, directors. i am a san francisco transit rider. i agree that we need a better

understanding of all the funding pieces that have to work together. it is unclear about where funding would come from and what the funding would be made up of. we are here to support the original zero obligation fund, which provides essential fund for transit riders and frame -- and transit control infrastructure. this should not come at the expense of transit funding. furthermore, investments that improve reliability our investments in safe streets -- safe streets. it means fewer cars on the road. [indiscernible] we have been hearing the past couple years how far behind they are in funding. it sounds like an unacceptable risk to transit. [indiscernible] it is not

guaranteed nor does it come close to addressing -- [indiscernible] investing in reliability will help riders, it will attract riders and have us work more efficiently. >> thirty seconds. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> with that, we will close public comment and i think, directors, if there is nothing else to be said on the topic, we can move on to our next item. >> that places you -- >> sorry, sorry.

go ahead. >> okay. go ahead. >> pardon me, i'm not clear on the process here. the purpose of providing options was so we could provide direction and if we are -- and if what we are going to do is just talk about options and that -- then let jonathan read the tea leaves and decide which one to put in our agenda packet, i think we have defeated the purpose. at the very least, we shouldn't have it in the consent calendar because we really haven't consented to anything yet. if it is not on our agenda today, you know, that is just the way it is. there's nothing we can do today, but if we are going to vote again on this, it seems to me we ought to have all options back on the table again so that we can have the policy trade-off discussion that the idea of options implies.

>> great. i mean you and the director acknowledge that you are interested in option three. i don't know if other people want to indicate their interest. i know that she jumped on the line. did you want to add something? >> think you, chair borden. i wanted to -- exactly what you just said. if other directors would like to express their preference, that might help clarify it for staff. >> i would add that i am generally getting the sense from this discussion that we will prepare the program around option three. i think that based on some of the public comment, i will say i am not that concerned about the areas where we are reducing the transit categories because, on major cord or projects, there is almost always a mix between red lane, signal work, so we will

make that work depending on the core door. as an example, we are doing a major transit infrastructure project on the l line. major transit infrastructure, vision zero improvements all along the corridor. i remind the board that we will fix this and we will come back to you with the gaps. we will have a fair conversation about the gaps. you will get further information about that today, but this modification to option three is not substantiate and i don't think people will lose with the infrastructure bill, the upcoming new sales tax and i'm happy to come back and give you all the details around that. i will take option three at the direction and we will prepare that for action at the next meeting. >> maybe you can sketch out how we would make up the loss. >> i can do that. >> i will take the direction that we will move forward with the action on option three.

i will present the consequences of that so people can understand, like, did we lose anything in making that change? there were alternate sources to cover that. there will be alternate sources including the passage of the infrastructure bill that we will make up this minor shift. >> maybe if you could identify how you could back that with sources that we know that are coming available. that would be ideal. [laughter] >> we get it all. director? >> i was just going to say that i completely comfortable with you preparing -- staff preparing the program around option three, as long as you grey out a chart or some narrative about how we are going to cover the categories and the programs that

are getting less funding than they would in your original proposal. i am completely comfortable with option three at the moment. >> great. director eakin, i know you wanted to speak up, too. >> they covered it. i am good. >> just to echo my colleagues, think you, chair borden. i know we spoke to this previously, but we are just $22 million away from reliability and service and, you know, transit, and there are ways to cover that. it sounds like that is what will be coming in your presentation. that is what i would want to know. >> okay. >> any other final comments or questions before we move on to our next item? >> seen none, we will move on to our next item.

please call the next item. >> item 13 is adopting an updated sfmta strategic plan to fiscal year 2024 which outlines the vision values performance metrics and goals for the agency. >> great. i believe director tomlin is back. >> i will start. thank you. i will turn things over to travis fox will provide additional context and i will bring us home. hopefully that is working. is it showing? >> it is. >> okay. great. let me dive in.

we are here today to present the agency's draft strategic plan. it asks for your adoption. the strategic plan is a relatively simple document. it tries to succinctly summarize our values, visions, and goals as an agency and set strategic directions for the firm -- for the agency. we have updated this based upon lots of feedback that we have heard from you all and the public. it synthesizes a whole variety of agency documents and policies. everything from our vision zero policy, to the most updated policies that you all and the board of supervisors have adopted. this afternoon, what we will do is talk about the process that we went through for developing a strategic plan, some of the new elements that we have included this year, the process for

implementation, and then we will talk about next steps and how we will come back to you as we operationalize the document. so to talk about the process, i would like to bring up travis fox. travis? >> great, thank you, jeff. travis fox with the chief of staff office performance team. it is good to see you again. before we dive into the details of the plan, as jeff mentioned, i wanted to provide background about how we got where we are today. our last strategic plan was adopted by the m.t.a. board in 2018, and shortly after director tomlin arrived, we started on a new plan. while the process was put on hold for several months as the agency focused on response and recovery efforts related to the pandemic, we picked up steam late last year aware that with several new members of the board and executive team, and the importance of supporting the city's economic recovery, it was

clear that it was time to reengage in our planning process. we have been diligently working on this for the past several months. i do want to take a moan -- a moment to thank the champion of the strategic plan throughout. without their efforts we wouldn't be where we are today. briefly, in terms of what is different during the cycle, what is different with the plan? while some of the characteristics of the plan are similar to the ones in the past, i want to highlight a few changes. first, the plan represents a shift from a mission and strategic plan that supports the value driven organization. well some proposed goals that you see, such as safety and transit remain similar from prior plans, other have a new or stronger focus such as equity, economic recovery and trust. as we all know, metrics have always been an important part of

our plan and we are doubling our efforts to match our priorities with the metrics to gauge our project and help us affect -- effectively demonstrate how we are fulfilling the values. and lastly, we have streamlined the structure of the plan to facilitate easier communication. i will explain that on the next slide. thank you for piloting this. our vision, which was historically a brief statement, has been expanded to a narrative that shows the desired state fact transportation system and the true purpose of the agency. mindful that given our broader vision and how it speaks to the purpose, we have removed a mission statement from the plan. many of you are familiar with the elements of the plan, but i want to have a common language so as we advance to the part where jeff speaks to the redetails, we are all on the same page in terms of the terminology that we are using. as i mentioned previously, we are shifting to a value driven plan. they fall into three groups.

we have workplace values, which are principles to establish a staff work together to accomplish agency goals, we have system values which are principles to guide the allocation of resources and how the agency works driven by the city's core values and then we have bridge values that are commonly held across the workplace and transportation system. we will monitor success in fulfilling these values to the associated metrics. it is worth noting that the metrics that we have here are indicators specifically for this plan, but will continue to monitor our other long-term measures, operational indicators that we use inside the organization, and our charter mandated metrics as well. we have removed objectives from the plan in favor of a more simplified approach, rather than having goals with objectives nested underneath, we're just using goals this time around. there are few more goals, but this remove some of the unnecessary complexity from the plan. last, but certainly not least,

we have the critical programs and projects to help us reach our goals. all of these initiatives will be incorporated into work plans and staff performance plans as applicable as well. we will be talking about initiatives here today, but there will be a series of ongoing future projects that will be identified in the association with the budget process and brought to you in the months to come. i'm not going to belabour the point at this time, but i want to give you a quick glimpse to see where we are today and how each element was developed in a coordinated manner. i want to talk about external and internal input. before handing it back to jeff, we'll talk about our efforts to incorporate external and internal input. it is a critical component of any planning work to understanding stakeholder needs. we are fortunate that the agency is working on or has currently completing several plans and

programs that have engaged take holders across the city, and input from the board's policy and governance committee and advisory committee have informed us and have been incorporated into the plan as well. the plan is rooted in the agency's work in connect s.f. and recommendations of the reliability working group, vision zero as well as ongoing work with the climate action plan and others. and in addition, of course, the work that has been completed in conjunction with the agency's covid response has formed the plan. last but not least, the sfmta conducted a community survey to engage the needs and priority of the public. as reported to the board last june, the most important issues were equity, reliable transit service and keeping it in good repair and improving safety for pedestrians. this will be reflected in the plan. on the internal front, in

addition to gathering input from external stakeholders, we had the opportunity to work closely with the agency's office with their listening sessions with staff last summer. this was an important effort to engage in housestaff were feeling during this unprecedented -- unprecedented time and understand what they need from the agency. in addition to the input from the listening session, the plan team also conducted a series of discussions this summer with each of the agency's divisions to hear more about the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities that they are facing as we look to living and operating in a post- pandemic system. i tried to wrap that up as quickly as possible to give you an idea of where we stand. i will handed over to jeff to give the full details of the plan. >> thank you. now we will talk about the plan elements themselves, which include a vision statement, a lot of details around values and how we would measure the degree to which we have obtained those values, and then actionable

bills. let's get into that. our vision is relatively straightforward. it recognizes that transportation is not an end to itself. it is a means by which we help people achieve other goals. rather than starting with transportation, we start with the city and our vision is is a city of diverse and vibrant neighborhoods connected by safe, reliable, affordable transportation for all, and our high-level goals for the agency include us working to make sure that we get people where they need to go, support the city's economy, support racial, social and transportation equity, provide options that work for all, prioritize transit, walking, cycling in accordance with the transit first policy, and combat climate change. and finally, her statement is

this transportation network is the foundation of a more diverse, equitable, culturally vibrant, healthy economically driving an innovative san francisco and bay area. that's a lot of words, but it covers whole array of topics that it is our responsibility as the sfmta, in order to allocate our resources, in order to achieve these outcomes, and adhered to our city's values. let's talk about our values. we tried to distill down an immense amount of material into some straightforward value statements. we start with values for our own workplace. we will not be able to serve the city unless we are a strong agency where people feel a sense of belonging and safety. we start with respect, inclusivity, and integrity as values for the workplace and

then we have some relatively straightforward values for the transportation system, including economic vitality and environmental stewardship. and most importantly, we have two bridge values that connects the workplace to our investment in this city, and that includes equity and trust, so these are seven core values, each of which we detail out in terms of how we would actually do that. let's talk about that. under our equity value, we have four key definitions and for each of those definitions we have quantitative performance metrics to track progress. i will not go through each of these, but as you can see, under safety, we look at our usual vision zero recording, as well as things like muni collisions,

and for equity we look at the equity strategy metrics, like percentage of scheduled service hours delivered on our defined equity roots. we can go back if you want to talk about any of these issues in detail, all of this was, of course, in your board packet and presented already. under trust, again, we have three core definitions around accountability, transparency, and trust. and we draw from our existing data sets, particularly around asking our customers what they think of us. so our annual customer survey is critical to measuring trust and the same is true of our employees survey for internal trust. we also, you know, want to measure things like customer requests and how quickly those are addressed. undervalues for the workplace,

again, we define respect, inclusivity and integrity and we have many ways of measuring our values for the workplace, including our own internal customer survey work that we do each year, and the detailed metrics that are included in our racial equity action plan, which we report back on regularly. under economic vitality, we look at, you know, larger economic vitality, but also the way in which the transportation system contributes to economic vitality indirectly by offering high-quality service and a resilient system, and this includes metrics like our usual parking metrics of ensuring that we are meeting parking availability targets for the parking system, the dollars that are awarded to disadvantaged businesses, the efficiency of our streets, including the

capacity and total passenger miles travelled per vehicle miles travelled. are we able to manage the streets of san francisco in order to move more people? we have all the usual metrics of reliability in the transit system, as well as the asset condition and mean distance between failure metrics that you have seen in our other reports on the state of the transportation system. under environment of stewardship, we also include metrics around of ability and climate action, and you can see typical metrics like our carbon footprint and that of the entire transportation system. the degree to which we are providing coverage within a quarter-mile walking distance of all san franciscans, and metrics like the percentage of trips that are made using low carbon modes. finally, i wanted to talk about

how we are working to operationalize these values. we have a set of strategic goals that are cross divisional that have been set by the sfmta executive team. these are 10 primary goals that will be our major efforts for the coming year, along with key actions for all of our divisions, and teams throughout the agency. these 10 goals are all about achieving specific outcomes for the public that include reducing disproportionate outcomes and resolving past harms towards marginalized communities. this goal was developed with strong participation from our racial equity and inclusion. the second is including a work environment that is responsive, equitable and inclusive. a goal that was developed largely through our human

resources team, which will be responsible for implementing it. there is a lot of detail behind goal number 2. there is a related goal of recruiting, hiring, and investing in a diverse workforce. number 4 is making streets safer for everyone, and the detail under this goal focuses on more vulnerable populations. goal number 5 is delivering reliable, equitable transportation services and this covers all modes, along with project delivery. goal number 6 is eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions by increasing use of transit, walking, and cycling. goal number 7 is building stronger relationships with stakeholders. it includes a lot of action items around trust building and community engagement. goal number 8 is delivering quality projects on time and on budget, something you have heard his talk a lot about.

goal number 9 is fixing things before they break and modernizing systems and infrastructure. a topic you have heard a lot about. and finally, goal number 10 is positioning the agency for financial success. something you have heard about in the last board item. so now we will talk about how we will truly operationalize the plan, link it to our budgeting and decision-making, and report back to all of you and to the public on progress. as we have stated, and as was stated by the youth transportation advisory board, the most powerful statement of any organization's budget is not it strategic plan vision, -- the most powerful statement of any agency's values is its budget. so one of the things that we are working on is greater clarity in our capital and operating budgets about the degree to which each budget item aligns

with the strategic plan, because that is how we allocate our limited resources in order to achieve our goals, and we will also be working on aligning the strategic plan with individual staff performance plans, particularly for the executive team and senior staff, and, we are, of course, finally working on adjusting the many, many dashboards in order to have the strategic plan be something that we can report on regularly and be transparent with the public with the degree to which we are living up to our values and goals. let me go back. we will also be using the dashboard to report back to you and the public and to also track our progress with quarterly

progress updates and metrics reports to the board, reporting on the semiannual controller's office report, the sfmta annual report, and the biannual municipal transportation quality review that is required as part of the charter. and that is a very quick summary of a lot of work that has been done over the last year. i'm happy to take questions, along with my team members. >> thank you for that. sorry for the delay. >> thank you, chair borden. thank you so much, dr tomlin. i love this stuff and i think the strategic plan is great. one thing i brought up or i

thought about and wonder if you have any issue with is actually having the 10 objectives in the strategic plan as part of the staff report that we review when we have to make our votes. right now the transit first policy in the city is the top sheet, which is great. obviously we love it, but the strategic plan is only as good as we are being held accountable to use it to guide decision-making and the decision-making of yourself and the agency. it seems somewhat insignificant, but i would appreciate being reminded what is a strategic plan, what are we supposed to be prioritizing every time this body prepares itself for the votes that we take. i don't know if you have any objections to that, but i think it would be helpful. >> i'm glad you were thinking about that. it has been one of the things on my list to talk with all of you about what is the best way to set up a staff report to help

you track our larger strategic goals. what is in there right now is in response to the priorities of many years ago, so it is time for refresh. if, at the board's direction i will enthusiastically work with staff to create a recommendation for how to best cue up the staff reports for you. >> cool. i will leave that to the rest of the board, or whoever the right body is. it will be great to have our strategic plan at the top to remind us specifically the 10 very clearly laid out objectives that are at the end of the presentation. so when we are reviewing the decisions, we can reference it back. >> may be we could even do something simple and graphical like a consumer report card noting to which degree the items

before you help to implement those strategic goals. >> totally. i think that would be great. i want to ask you a tough question because it is fun. was there an objective that got the chop that was not on the top 10 that you wish could have made it that didn't make it, that may be deserves an honourable mention? >> that is a really good question. as you might imagine, there has been a lot of work smithing in the involvement included well over 100 people. there was many, many rounds of editing. the core staff really hung in there. what . there was a desire to get to a number like 10 because we like 10. you will notice that some of the goals incorporate multiple

concepts, but all speak to a single seam where the metrics can be rolled up to speak to the single seam. that is one of the ways that we incorporated all of the considerations that we heard about. it was by organizing the goals as themes and then having subgoals cover all of the issues that the entire executive team and senior management team cared about. i am very pleased with the current text and i think there is remarkably deep buy-in by the people who will be responsible for implementing the plan. >> great. thank you so much. i am looking forward to checking back in here in 10 years and looking back on these goals and saying, you know, we did it.

thank you so much. >> great. i see several hands. i am not sure who was first or in what order, but i will do director him see. >> all right. i will just ask a question for reflection, if you will. i know we talked about it, and i know there is some information on this in the appendices on your slide, but i wanted to get your thoughts on it as to how we performed with our last strategic plan and how that informs the developments, and particularly around some of the metrics, and to that point, i

will just say that i think for another vehicle tracking, i would be supportive of the director's suggestion that we somehow figure out staff reports so we as board members can more easily track how we are doing on the strategic plan goals. so looking back on the old strategic plan, and your thoughts on how it has informed the development of the current one. >> yeah, i will let travis speak to that a bit more. one of the things that is fascinating to me is how much the world has changed in such a short period of time. the strategic plans don't have a long shelf life if you want them to remain relevant and to remain guides and how to prioritize the allocation of limited

resources. certainly in this around we have elevated topics like equity and defined it in a much more actionable way, both for external work and for internal workplace work. issues like project delivery has risen in importance based upon our past experience. both bad and good. and issues around resilience since we have been living through that for the past two years, and i would argue have done remarkably well under the circumstances. we have recognize the importance and -- importance of resilience in a visceral way that, you know, it is san francisco. it is not a question of if, but rather, when the unexpected will hit us. travis, do you want to speak to our actual performance in achieving the last strategic plan objectives?

>> sure thing. i certainly echo your thoughts, jeff, in terms of the plan. and previous renditions we had a five-year cycle and i think we all know with the speed with which things change, that five years is far too long. we got caught off guard in some situations. we really need to look into this as a two-year cycle. as many of you know, with the prior plan we did report out on a regular basis how we were doing prior to the pandemic. we came to the policy governance committee on a quarterly basis to speak about our goals and actions and metrics, and try to demonstrate our progress, but really, with the onset of the pandemic, many of the metrics that we used before were no longer ones that we could actually -- it is hard to see -- basically it is hard to treat your strategic angles in the midst of a pandemic.

that is my very executive summary. i think we learned lessons on what are some metrics that we will have nevertheless throughout, but i know we have this in the presentation. i don't think, given the duration of the meeting, they want me to give you a full rundown on the performance, but we definitely could do a retrospective on that if you'd like. >> i was not expecting you to go deep in this meeting, but i think, i don't want to speak for my colleagues, but i would appreciate a retrospective once we have a few months down on this plan. i think we would appreciate a retrospective on how we performed. that kind of reflection is important. >> i will add, that it has challenged us to look at new metrics in -- and ways of gauging how our performance. we have added new measures to

our portfolio, but there are constant ones. we will continue to look at how we were doing during the pandemic and how we were doing now and in the future too. we will be looking back to the prior plan as well in our reporting. >> excellent. thank you, chair. >> thank you. the next person is director hettinger. >> thank you, madame chair. jeff, on the one hand, i congratulate you in getting this down to 10 goals. maybe next time you can get it down to five. one thing that strikes me and looking through them, though, is some of them seem to me to be the end and some seem to be means to those ends. like having a strong financial foundation isn't important in itself. it is important because it avoids cutting service so someone can't get to work.

you know, in my own view of the world, i guess i would think that one, four, and five are the meat of our objectives as an agency and a lot of the other goals are the means and support steps we take to get there. let me just pause on that and see if you agree with that assessment. we have a bit of a hodgepodge here. >> i don't disagree. from an abstract perspective, i would agree with you, but from a concrete perspective of organizing our work, i actually like the mismatch because it allows me to develop work programs for each of my teams. some of the teams are organized around keeping the house running. so that is the thinking behind this. this is not designed to be a strategic plan and the purest

sense, it is really designed to be actionable and measurable. as a result, it necessarily mixes some ideas, because that is the nature of our work. >> look, i am willing to buy that. you are sort of leading to the next question i have, which is how do you make this actionable? that is a problem i have had with every strategic plan i have ever seen in my career because they all have pretty words, but how do you make it happen? i also appreciate the fact that you have selected several goals where we are struggling. this is not a bunch of happy talk here, so how will you go about assessing the agency and assessing, frankly, your and our performance in achieving these goals? >> first of all, this is not set

up so that all of these goals are readily achievable. many of them are aspirational. we certainly do not currently have the resources in order to be able to achieve these goals. that is okay. i would also argue having been through many strategic planning processes and seen many failed ones or ones that simply were pretty and made people feel good but then were completely ignored, that strategic planning is not about this document that we are asking you to adopt. it is a process. so why we have written it this way is because it is a really -- it is the right document for where the agency is at at this time in order to help everyone feel like they are in alignment with the larger strategic direction of the organization. this is a document that is aimed at the workforce. it is not aimed at the public.

so my hope is that over time, people will start using the document and learning that if they refuse -- reference the document that they are more likely to get their budget allocation, that if they put their projects together in a way that thinks about these goals than they were more likely to get approval. this is the starting point for a process. i am expecting that the document that we do years from now will be quite different because we will have learned a lot from this process in the process of implementing it and particularly from the ways in which we realize, oh, yeah, we thought this was a great idea, and it turns out not to be or it turns out not to be operational. we need to frame things differently in order to help staff do their work and about why they are asking for these

resources or policies. >> you may have designed them for the workforce, but i think they are written in such a way and there are few of them that i think you could have gauged the public on these. i think you should certainly engage the board. one interesting exercise to me would be to have the workforce, the public, and the board assess where we stand on these 10 goals and see what kind of alignment we've got. i'm sure we've got some places where we are probably ships passing in the night. again, my main take away to you is i think you've got a good structure here, but it will only matter to the extent that it drives budgets and decisions later on. >> agreed. i don't want to waste time with a pretty documents that will sit on a shelf. >> thank you. >> thank you. director eakin?

>> great. i'll keep my remarks brief. i wanted to thank you for making this an accessible and readable document for us and for the public. this is quite succinctly and we really appreciate the work it takes to get there. second, if there is conflict between achieving some of the 10 goals in the list, how do you resolve the tension, and who is the decision-maker on the conflict resolution moments? >> welcome to the part of your jobs that you most dislike, right? the way the document is constructed is it makes it easier for my executive team to have a framework for discussing how to resolve those tensions. so it really starts with the senior management and the executive team coming up with a

recommendation for how to best balance resources against all of these goals. then it is my job to develop a recommendation for all of you and you all ultimately make the tough calls. you will make the tough calls based on a staff recommendation, the document is designed to help frame the staff recommendation and provide you with choices and evaluate those choices. >> great. and then all my other pieces is thank you for mentioning the connection between individual staff members, like goals and performance plans and these 10 goals, and i can judge -- i just wonder if you can talk more about what that will look like in practice, you could -- will those 10 goals get place at the top of the performance review chart and you will have to say, my work towards -- goes towards one, two, three? how will that get done?

>> it is a good question. still under development. we have faith thoughts about how that will be implemented and had my hr team not been completely overwhelmed dealing with the return to work and the vaccine mandate, we would have been further along. that is one of the issues that we will not be able to finalize until early next calendar year, but it is certainly our goal, and allots of the detailed writing, in very specific words, are there to make sure that all of our teams, including teams that you don't see very often but are essential to the functioning of the agency, that they are included and their work and, you know, creating the foundation for the agency, for the public facing work, that their work is included in this document as well. >> think you. madame chair? >> thank you. i think we have, next up, does

anybody else have a question or comment? at this point i will open up to public comment. this is the opportunity for members of the public who want to comment on the strategic plan presentation we just received, please put yourself in the queue by pressing 10. moderator, are there any callers in the line? >> you have one question remaining. >> first call her? >> this is herbert weiner. i must admit that i am overwhelmed by this plan and i don't have the expertise that perhaps other members of the board have, but how will this plan and resources to public transportation? there clearly is a need for an

addition of more vehicles to the fleet, and that is a net addition. that is one thing. the second thing is that while the controller's office does an audit, i would like to advocate and outside audit to correspond with the controllers' and that would consist of enlisting the services of some of the business schools in the bay area. that includes stanford, berkeley, san francisco state --

[please standby for captioner switch]

>> director tumlin: this is about transportation for all. the details we focus on our most vulnerable users. these seniors, people with disabilities and people with low incomes and other groups. >> chair borden: thank you. directors are there any other questions or comments for the director on the strategic plan? seeing none, i think we actually do have to vote on this. if there are any -- director hinze? >> director hinze: i will move the item. >> i'll second it. >> chair borden: please call the roll. >> clerk: on that motion. [roll call vote]

the motion passes. >> chair borden: that brings to our next item. >> clerk: item number 14. adopting the 2021 sfmta 20-year capital plan. financially and summary and assessment and sfmta anticipated capital needs. >> chair borden: mr. yip?

>> hello directors. i'm planner.

i'm joined with my colleague with the planner in the i.t. division. i will present to you 2021 sfmta 20-year capital plan for your approval. before the sfmta invest in bike lanes and update and make improvement, each project goes through a comprehensive process to assess and prioritize capital needs. this process starts with the funding the investments for our values. lot of the decisions has been to prioritize our capital investment. so we can make better decisions on what to invest in the future. funding and coin strains and capital needs. which we update every two years. the purpose is to ask for your approval of the capital plan.

i will talk about the purpose of the capital plan and identifying the capital needs. how we assess the capital needs, how we developed the capital investment packages and then how we plan to use the capital plan before we ask for you to approve it. first, what is the capital plan? we start with our strategic plan values. which you just approved. also known as the values for the transportation system. we do this because we want to make assure that our values consider other factors like funding, regulatory mandates. we use those values to define the capital plan. the capital plan has a 20-year horizon. it's funding a constrain and it's focused on defined investments with the description, time frame and cost estimate. the big piece here is that the

capital plan does not have funding as a factor in the capital plan. incancellation -- inclusion of the plan doesn't guarantee funding. because the capital plan is a visionary document. once we have a capital plan, we use those needs to define specific projects for the capital improvement program or the c.i.p. it translates the wish list from the capital plan to specific projects that are funded or will ultimately get funded in the next two to five years. for example on the left, capital plan, we had a broader capital need of moving forward. the purpose of the capital plan is to provide a pathway to meet our strategic goals and form local and regional plans, health

coordinate strategies and form development of the five-year c.i.p. on the left you'll see the capital plan coordinates the implementation of sfmta and city plans. once the capital plan gets approved, the sfmta use it to inform funding programs which touch upon our capital projects,

county regional plan and the citywide capital plan. the capital plan is comprised of ten capital programs. which includes communicates in i.t., facility, parking, complete which includes revenue and vehicle and security as well as streets, which include all our bicycle and pedestrian needs, transit guide way and transit optimization and expansion which include all our transit needs that expand capacity. as you saw in the august 17 special board meeting, once we developed our capital needs, we add everything up and further categorize them to three different investment types. restore, enhance and expand. we had $11.7 billion of capital needs that restore the

transportation system. most of our restore capital needs fall in the facility, fleet, parking and transit guideway programs. we have $9 billion that enhance transportation need. lastly, we have $10.6 billion of capital needs that we expand the transportation system. most of our expand capital needs fall in the streets and expansion programs. >> one of the questions from the board meeting was how our capital needs evolved. this chart shows how the capital need dollar amount by year from 2013 to today. you'll notice that the numbers change year-to-year as needs are funded. over time, we've adjusted for

inflation, we updated our estimates. we've added previously unidentified needs. we developed new policies. which have led to the capital plan becoming more visionary. for example, the jump from 2017 to 2019, reflects more accurate estimates and expanded scopes in the traffic, signal and sign streets, transit six guideway and transit operation and expansion program. it reflects the added cost in facility to support increased battery and buses needed for transit services and respond to regulations. the capital plan is where our capital needs meet our values. building off previous iterations of the capital plan, as well as to provide a pathway to meet our goals, this capital plan contains an assessment of our capital need to our values for

the transportation system. if you look at the safety value, street safety, tran system safety, workplace safety and security as the four indicators of capital needs that help advance the value of safety. you can view the criteria and indicators in the draft capital plan. the result of the settlement looks -- assessment looks like

this. for each capital need, the heat map includes an assessment towards the 13 strategic plan values. inside each cell, the heat map identifies specific indicators for each value. for example, back to the safety value, it had four indicators. assessment shows which capital needs support which of those indicators. from this assessment, this is a capital plan, most of our capital programs help us to move the needle towards advancing the values of service quality, safety, economic vitality and livability around half of our capital program really help us move the needle, around equity, accessibility, trust and climate

action. also couple of capital programs help us move the needle towards advancing values that are more operational in nature and these things are inclusivity, accountability and environmental stewardship and transparency. then from this assessment, we realized that our capital programs and values across our strategic plan goals in order tonettes goals we have to invest in variety of capital needs. we developed five capital investment packages which are base the on the key recommendations from connectsf. these packages are another way of framing how we turn our 20-year vision into a relate. they include make the transportation system work, which includes forum sub packages.

make the transportation system universally accessible, renew and modernize the rail system and build the five minute network and expand the rail network. two things to note of these packages the packages will be dependent. in order for it to expand, it must first make the existing transportation system work. it's not exhaustive. the package focuses on the biggest investment needed to reach our goal. how will we use the capital plan? pending your approval, the 20-year capital plan will form funding program including the five-year campaign improvement program. for example, when we turn a more general capital need into a specific capital mortgage we'll --project, we'll use that assessment. the capital plan is the work of

many personal and external stakeholders. we had technical advisory committee a our capital program managers, subject matter experts which i advised on the value of the transportation capital committee and the executive team. it's also the work of external stakeholders who help us determine the indicators for advancing the value. some of the things we heard from external stakeholders, expand recommendations, to prioritize values in the criteria as well as general recommendations for improving capital planning and project delivery process, including make transit reliability top level value. we heard that safety, equity, livability and economic vitality

are also top level values. we also heard that when a capital need becomes a project, we need to increase the accountability and trust to address financial and construction impacts. we incorporated this feedback when developing the capital plan. now, staff recommends that the board approve the 20-year capital plan. we're happy to answer questions. >> chair borden: thank you. directors, are there any questions at this time? there doesn't seem to be any questions. we're going to move to public comment. this is time for members of the public to comment on our capital plan document. this will be something we will

adopt for the next 20 years. are there any callers on the line? >> caller: this is herbert wiener, part of the capital plan is accessibility for seniors and the disabled. presently, accessibility is not on the books for seniors and disable because they are required to walk to the two to three long blocks to the bus stop. part of of this plan should include more accessibility. i am wondering if these long distances aren't in violation of the american disability act. you can be subject to a lawsuitly. this is a question that i have.

when you talk about accessibility, you must include accessibility for the seniors and the disabled. this is a problem that is an elephant in the room. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. are there any other additional calls? with that, we will close public comment. directors, what say you? >> i move the item. >> i like to second the item. >> chair borden: any further discussion? seeing none. please call the roll. >> clerk: on that motion. [roll call vote]

thank you, the motion passes. >> chair borden: great. >> clerk: that's close of business. >> chair borden: our next meeting is december 7th. thank you guys. bye.

>> my name is miguel bustos and this is a regular meeting for november 16, 2021. i'd like to welcome members of the public who are streaming live aswell as staff and those participating in today's meeting . following the guidelines for by local officials at this time the members of the commission our meeting remotely to ensure the safety of everyone including members of the public sothank you all for joining . madam secretary, please