>> director pelham, since we're losing the services of ms ms. lorio, will it negatively impact the ability to fill the seven positions? since there's salary savings from the oppositioen positions, we engage her for another quarter? >> that's a good suggestion. and we have a meeting to make sure that we identify the needs so we can identify how we need to fill them. we know we need to put resources on them, because when there are exam-based positions, it requires a significant amount of work to accomplish that. our goal is to not let it slip up in any way in terms of priority emphasis. one other note on the budget for the january meeting and now on to february, we would be preparing to submit at the end of february, the mayor's office in early december gave us two targets, asking all departments to cut 2.5% in fy, '19 and fy, '20. because we're 90% salaries, we have very little overhead it. would require us to lose positions, in my view, we're ramping up. we need to make sure that the people are in their seats, doing the work, paid to do the work and h

ms ms. lorio, will it negatively impact the ability to fill the seven positions? since there's salary savings from the oppositioen positions, we engage her for another quarter? >> that's a good suggestion. and we have a meeting to make sure that we identify the needs so we can identify how we need to fill them. we know we need to put resources on them, because when there are exam-based positions, it requires a significant amount of work to accomplish that. our goal is to not let it slip up in any way in terms of priority emphasis. one other note on the budget for the january meeting and now on to february, we would be preparing to submit at the end of february, the mayor's office in early december gave us two targets, asking all departments to cut 2.5% in fy, '19 and fy, '20. because we're 90% salaries, we have very little overhead it. would require us to lose positions, in my view, we're ramping up. we need to make sure that the people are in their seats, doing the work, paid to do the work and have the tools to do the work. that will be our budget request that we bring forward to you in january. i'm hopeful with the continued support with the leadership from the board that has embraced this, we'll show that we're a good investment for the work and resources that the city has been given us. as we approach the end of the calendar year, i want to convey deep thanks to our staff, who have been working hard to try to support your process and public information. we have some folks here around this table in the room with us, but i wanted to take a note to say how much we have a terrific team and we're very, very pleased to see the work that's being done. we have a lot of work ahead in 2018. i'm hopeful that you share the enthusiasm. and, lastly, obviously, with the mayor's passing this week, the staff and i spent some time reflecting on publicer is vits and significant lifetime service and we share condolences with his family and staff and we want to make note what he give to the city and continue to be inspired by those that give a lifetime to public service. wanted to end on that note. >> thank you. commissioners? we'll take public comment. >> i'm bob plantold. some of us on this side of the podium are concerned about the possibility of reduction in budget when, as your director said, trying to ramp up. i think it's still possible to pass the budget at the february meeting if you seek an extension and that's been done a couple of times before by ethics. a meeting on the 16th is close enough to the deadline that's been granted before. and i bring that up because i suggested it may be worth looking at how much progress there's been in the last 1 1/2 years towards reducing some of the backlog of complaints, reducing some of the analysis on pending legislation and enforcement proceedings and, therefore, saying we still have staff we need to hire to bring all these backlogs to zero to keep us current and timely, to put out a case that 2.5% per year is inappropriate. it would put you going backwards. it would not keep you where you are. it would push you backwards, if you have a statistical report showing what you have gained and what you need to reduce and, therefore, find a way to impress the supervisors to not cut you by 2.5% to 5%. thank you. >> thank you. there being no further -- oh, i'm sorry. mr. bush. pardon me. >> we also want to know on behalf of friends of ethics that we posted on facebook our work we had done with mayor lee going back many years. that he had supported all the ballot members or didn't oppose the ethics ballot measures. my first time of coming to ethics was about 1992, when he was the chief administrative officer to give a tutorial to the ethics staff about how to monitor city contracts in coordination with the ethics commission. he is a man that did understand and support the work we were doing. in terms of the budget, and looking ahead, as i recall, budgets are ordinances and you would have the ability to put full funding for next year on the ballot in june to take effect on july 1. and so, might want to have that as a fallback position in the event that it appears that you would reduce the staff or ability to get things done. i certainly support and i think the public will support full funding for ethics. thank you. >> good observation, mr. bush. any further public comment? if not, we'll then move to item 10, discussion possible action regarding status of complaints received or initiated by the ethics commission. commissioner kopp? >> i request a closed session. >> is there a second for that request? >> i will second it. >> motion has been made and seconded. we don't need public comment on that, do we? >> i don't think so. >> all those in favor of the motion? we'll get it anyway. >> f.o.e. wants to wish you a happy holiday season. thank you for your amazing work this year and how as a unit you have come together so well. and i think the public is aware of what it is you're doing for the city and i think by in large seeing us on tv is sometimes hard, but they appreciate what it is we're doing. so thank you. >> thank you, charlie. >> and have a good holiday season. and while you're in executive session, i hope somebody brings in a box of cookies or something. >> you were going to bring pizza, remember? >> yes, we discussed pizza. >> and i'm sure the chair will deep that germane to item 10 on the calendar. >> yes. christmas cookies >> back in open session for the ethics commission, decemb december session. is there a motion pursuing to what we did in our closed session? >> i would move that we keep the closed session in confidence. >> second? >> second. >> all those in favor of the motion? >> aye. >> motion passes unanimously. so we then go to item 11. discussion of possible action of items for future meetings. i think some of the things that have come up tonight indicate things that we'll be doing at future meetings in record to putting matters on the ballot and just listening to what has been said. i would anticipate that in february we would have agendaized putting on the ballot the whistle-blower item and also our ordinance that we passed the last time in -- so that we get it on the ballot, both of them on the ballot in june, and have them effective as soon as possible. the third thing, which did come up tonight and i think it would be important, unless we get an indication from the city, the danger of the pudge the of the ethics commission being cut at this point when we've been able to protect it so fiercely the last few years, i think, is fairly substantial. we used to be not protected at all under the former executive director. we've done it with the executive director and also indicating from the commission that we would go forward with an ordinance relating to the budget, if they didn't pass our budget. so i think we ought to think about it, but also adding what was recommended by charlie marsteader, in that we put a measure on the ballot in june that the commission be fully funded, because we are now up and running. we're starting to get going, and to have a hole in the budget at this point, would be, i think, very sad thing to happen and destructive thing to happen. i'm just ruminating out loud regarding things that i would like to see perhaps agendaized for february. commissioner kopp? >> commissioner kopp: i never asked the executive director or you, mr. chairman, about a member requesting an item on the agenda. can that be done outside of our public meeting? >> commissioner keane: yeah. a member can request it and then there would be a discussion between director pelham and me as chair and the likelihood -- i can't see that i would not exceed to that request. >> commissioner kopp: all right. i will defer until the new year. >> commissioner keane: okay. any other discussion on matters for future meetings? any public comment on that? >> i have one. >> commissioner chiu: wee -- reflecting on the budget, if we were to explore a ballot initiative related to the ethics commission, i would suggest that we explore more broadly. that's not just for this upcoming fiscal year, but that we look at independent funding for the budget, so we won't necessarily always be subject to 5%, 2.5% increase over time, but that's the budgeting process so that the commission could be -- i don't know how it would work and that would be the work to be done, would be to have it it on the stand-alone basis and have approval be -- whether it's through a voting mechanism through the public or a mayor, but some alternative mechanism that could preserve the integrity of our budget. as i think back to where we started from when i joined the commission, we were sorely understaffed and have been chroniclely understaffed over the last 12 months. we were able to get increased funding, but with the decrease in fiscal year and subsequent year, it would gut completely the strides we've made in building up the team to do the work. and i take mr. plantead's suggestion to use the data to show the backlog of complaints. when we began this work, there were complaints stretching back to 2014 and now we're on the cusp of 2018 and now we don't have things pending from two months ago or two years ago and so that's very powerful evidence to show the resources that the city has committed to us and mayor lee was instrumental in that. when cuts were being asked for across the board, you know, he didn't mandate that we had to go along with those cuts. and i think that's part of his legacy, is the support for the commission and i would like to explore ways in the upcoming couple of months to see whether or not that support can be institutionalized in some legislative fashion that would help to preserve the independence and integrity and resources to do the work. >> commissioner keane: you made a very important point about mayor lee. ever since we started to emphasize it to him, he's been responsive to that. now we have a new day and everything starts from zero in san francisco when you get a shake-up like this. and so the new mayor, whatever the board of supervisors's views are, they're not necessarily going to or at all going to reflect what mayor lee's been doing. so these are things, i think, we should definitely do in order to instituti institutionalize what we've done so far. any other thoughts on that? okay. so additional opportunity for public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda pursuant to ethics commission's bylaws article 7, section 2. i see no public comment. and i suggest, commissioners, that someone make a motion to adjourn and adjourn in the memory of mayored lee. and the significant loss of his passing. i knew him since the 1980s and he headed the asian law caucus and i was involved with him in a number of matters over the years. and he's someone who made a big difference in record to our community and i would entertain such a motion. commissioner lee made the motion. >> second. >> commissioner keane: all those in favor, aye. >> passes unanimously. best wishes to everybody. >> chair peskin: good morning and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority meeting for today, tuesday, january 9, 2018. happy new year. our clerk is mr. alberto quintanilla. mr. clerk, if you could please call the roll. >> clerk: item one, commissioner breed. cohen present. commissioner farrell. farrell absent. commissioner fewer. fewer absent. commissioner kim. kim absent. commissioner peskin. >> chair peskin: present. >> clerk: commissioner ronen, present. commissioner safai. present. commissioner sheehy present. tang present. we have quorum. >> chair peskin: all right. could you, please, read the consent agenda and then we'll take public comment on the minutes. >> clerk: items two to three compromise the consent agenda. item three was approved at december 12th board meeting and considered for final approval. staff is not planning to present, but presenting if desired. if a member objects, any items can be removed and considered separately. >> chair peskin: is there anyp on item two, the minutes of december 2017 meeting, mr. rice? >> public: yeah. i want to point out and explain part problem is transportation roads are deteriorating. next time you talk to caltrans, charge them. they spend billions of dollars tearing down the bay bridge when all it needed was renovation -- >> chair peskin: mr. rice, there will be an opportunity for general public comment. this is just public comment on the minutes of december 12, 2017. >> public: all right. >> chair peskin: thank you, sir. seeing no other members of the public for public comment on the minutes, we'll close public comment and a roll call please. a motion to move the consent agenda made by commissioner tang. seconded by commissioner breed. and on that, a roll call please. >> clerk: on the consent agenda, commissioner breed. breed aye. cohen aye. commissioner peskin. >> chair peskin: aye. >> clerk: peskin aye. ronen aye. commissioner sheehy. sheehy i. commissioner tang. >> vice chair tang: aye. >> clerk: tang aye. we have approval. >> chair peskin: all right. next item. >> clerk: item four, election of chair and vice chair for 2018. this is an action item. >> chair peskin: okay. nominations are now in order for the office of chair. are there any nominations for said position? commissioner cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. good morning. happy new year. i would like to make the nomination to nominate commissioner peskin to be chair of this body. and correct me if i'm wrong, chair, i'm able to make a nomination for vice chair at this time as well? >> chair peskin: we can also open the nominations for vice chair at the same time if you would like to do that. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. you would have nominated to nominate our same colleague, katy tang, for vice chair. >> chair peskin: seconded by commissioner breed. are there any other nominations? is there any public comment on item number four? seeing none, public comment is closed. nobody else wants this job. what? [laughter] >> chair peskin: we do have a new house. that is true. we will call the roll. so, with that on the nominations for peskin as chair and commissioner tang as vice chair -- commissioner ronen. >> supervisor ronen: i just wanted to thank you, chair peskin and vice chair tang for doing this jb all last year and being willing to do it again this year -- job all last year and being willing to do it again this year. you taking this leadership means a lot to the city and i know it takes a lot of work and a lot of sacrifice in addition to your jobs as members of the board of supervisors. i just wanted to on behalf of the board thank you for that work. >> chair peskin: thank you commissioner. commissioner tang. >> vice chair tang: thank you so often ronen. we didn't have a chance to speak much about it at the december 12th meeting because it was just a little bit crazy inside here. and i forgot to mention it during item three. but i wanted to say that together with chair peskin, really doing a huge overhaul of schools has been meaningful. thank you to the staff and all the city departments. i hope everyone will take a look at the new staffing structure. all that information should be in item three. and if you have any further comments, suggestions, please let us know. but changes will be coming forth and fully implemented by 2019 i believe. >> chair peskin: so, i guess if voice chair tang saying some words, i'll say a few as well. i want to thank vice chair tang for her leadership on reforming safe routes to school, which i think was a major accomplishment. and we also celebrated a milestone that we all read about relative to the city wide vision zero strategy ending last year with a 41% reduction in pedestrian and cyclists fatalities since 2013. and i think that is really remarkable. but we are not going to stop until we get to zero. we've engaged i think in thoughtful discussions around project delivery, including the downtown caltrain extension, better market street, van ness vrt. we have initiated independent expenditure plan. we've learned a lot about transportation network companies and their impact on our public transit system and city streets and kon jucongestion. we've undertaken a really remarkable and ambitious identify a local contribution that we will get before the voters in november before the $20 billion projected need for transportation and operations through 2045. i want to thank the folks from the transportation task force who spent the last half year getting critical neighborhood feedback after the sales tax failed in 2016. so, i think it's been a very good year and i'm honored to continue to be your chair and look forward to working with all of you and our citizens. and with that, a roll call please. >> clerk: on the motion in favor of elects commissioner peskin for chair and commissioner tang for vice chair. commissioner breed. breed aye. commissioner cohen. cohen aye. commissioner fewer. fewer aye. commissioner peskin. peskin aye. commissioner ronen. ronen aye. commissioner sheehy. sheehy aye. tang aye. the motions are approved. >> chair peskin: all right. next item please. >> clerk: item five allocation of $110,000 in prop k funds with one requested and approach yaths of $180,000 in funds. this is ana item. >> chair peskin: mr. pickford. good morning. we are going to turn your microphone on. >> thank you. i mr. present -- i will present the first request and hand it over to my colleague. circulation improvements of the daly city bart station. this includes upgrading exiting pedestrians ramps that provides access to the bart station including the 14 r mission rapid to make it ada compliant. currently, the muni bus drops passengers at a lower level bus stop which you can hopefully see on the screen. it lays over in the upper level parking lot before looping back to the lower level. this ramp will allow the 28 to leave directly from the upper level stop, which mta will save about 23 minutes a route which could end up in $150,000 per year in operations cost. the operation will be separate with san mateo county, expected to be open in summer of 2018. i will pass it off to eric. >> good morning commissioners. on your screen you see there the dpx project overview that's already been environmentally cleared. i want to give you a background as it relates to this request. the dtx was cleared and has three tracks from fourth street to transbay transit center. they have performed various analysis. some concluding three tracks are appropriate and others are concluding three are appropriate. in this record, commissioner peskin thank you for the request for us to perform an independent peer review. the purpose of the request is to evaluate three rail operation studies as i've indicated and form key policy decision makers on the two versus three track issue. the request is for $180,000 of prop k. the three studies in question, one performed by a private property owner and his consultants, the other prepared by t.j.p. and consultant partners. and the feasibility study analysis prepared by sma rail consulting under the direction of the city planning department. we've assembled a peer review panel that we believe is first -- we want to make sure there's no conflict of interests. we searched into the database of consultants and selected the following panel there. representatives from t.y. lynn we was from the director of rail transit in new york and new jersey. the and the, elliott group and david nelson, all of them are significant -- have significant rail commuter and inner city rail operations expertise. we are happy with the team we have assembled in that regard. key stake holders, tjpa and the property owner who represents various properties on second street and all the way down the line. caltrain and most important too, the high speed rail, including the early train operator. we envisioned -- what you have in front of you is a schedule. we have already started the document review in that regard to get a head start on this because we know that schedule is very important here. we will have stakeholder meetings in the january time frame and have a workshop in february. the plan is to go ahead and have a draft report in february and a final report in march and come back to this board no later than april. that's the plan ahead of us. and i'm available for questions on this item or the item prior with mike. >> chair peskin: are there any questions on item number five to mr. mr. pickford or mr. cordova? if not, before we go to public comment, i just want to thank you for the peer review. i know it's on a tight time frame and i also want to acknowledge the t.j.p.a. who have agreed to delay the record of decision until we can have a real honest, meaningful peer review. and let me just say, it's my profound hope that we are able to figure out a way where there's no cut and cover at the throat or on townsend street where we don't have that level of surface disruption for years as well as resolving the two-track, three-track issue and look forward to your work and the results in april. is there any public comment on item number five? mr. lebrong. >> public: good morning chair peskin. happy new year. congratulations on your re-election and supervisor tang. this is great news. definitely spending money much better than the way we were -- last time we blew $5.5 million. i think it is important none of the members of public have been involved. but understand that you can have some kind of presentation of a workshop. again, assure you this is going to work. because five years ago, what i did is i took the timetable for london olympics, which basically was the same scenario which you have here and actually on the they use -- actually they used three platforms, not six. and in so doing, 25,000 passengers per direction, 50,000 passengers an hour. actually as people were getting on and off, we were really carrying 100,000 passengers. then i figured out a way to somehow do the same track configuration into soma without any surface impacts. i can assure you this is going to work but i don't know this is what you're going to look at. in closing, i'd like to remind you that whatever you come up with, there are some existing legislation and case law which mandates what you have to achieve if you want to qualify for prop k bonds. half billion dollars for dtx and half a million dollars for beautify case. i will be writing again to you to remind you what the issues are. thank you very much. >> chair peskin: thank you for your constant attention to this project. is there any other member of the public, members of the public who would like to testify? seeing none. public comment is closed. on that item a roll call please. >> clerk: motion. >> chair peskin: motion to move item number five made by commissioner cohen. seconded by commissioner yee and now roll call. >> clerk: on item five, commissioner breed. breed aye. commissioner cohen. cohen aye. commissioner fewer. >> chair peskin: commissioner fewer. >> clerk: fewer aye. commissioner peskin. aye. commissioner ronen. ronen aye. commissioner sheehy. sheehy aye. commissioner tang. tang aye. commissioner yee. yee aye. we have first approval. >> chair peskin: all right. next item, please. >> clerk: item six. approve san francisco project priorities for the local partnership program, competitive grant program. this is an action item. >> chair peskin: okay. the other mr. quintanilla. >> good morning. i'm a transportation planner. as you may recall last december, this body program, san francisco's form last year of the local partnership program for three tree resurfacing projects, today's presentation is about the other half of this state program. the competitive portion. the local partnership program rewards jurisdictions that have sought and received voter approval of taxes, tolls and fees or have fees solely dedicated to transportation. the california transportation commission administers this program and 50% is distributed through formula and prop aa administrator, it is eligible for both portions. the initial funding cycle for the competitive program covers years 2017-18 through 2019-20 and will distribute up to $300 million state and wide. funds available for construction only. requires a dollar for dollar match and minimum grant size of $3 million. project nominations will be considered in two different groups. one group for jurisdictions with water approved measures and one group for jurisdictions with imposed fees. based on the criteria shown on the slide and a potential repeal effort, we believe construction readiness would be a very important factor in the current call for projects. jurisdictions submitting multiple applications must establish project priority. throughout the guideline development process and in october once the program guidelines were released, we directed information about the program and call for projects. the city department regional transportation operators and other project sponsors, and we received requests to support nomination of three projects shown on the slide. jefferson street improvements and better market street segment one. all projects have challenges. but staff priority tried to reflect the most construction ready and most competitive projects to make the most for san francisco. number one, mission base ferry landing is close to 65% designed with environment clearance expected in may. we believe that the original benefits including bmt reduction and air quality benefits will make it competitive. the main challenge is securing funding from private sources. number two, jefferson street improvements phase two. it is at 95% design. but we believe that air quality and benefits are a little more challenging to quantify and might make it less competitive. the funding plan also depending on securing the $6.1 million in local match. and number three, better market street segment one which would be between six6 and eighth stre. since san francisco is an eligibility applicant to the portion through the transportation sustainability fee, we've been working with the mayor's office. we expect the city to submit the same projects but swapping the orders for jefferson as number one and terminal number two to maximize san francisco's potential in this funding source. project applications are due on january 30th. and we expect cpc to adopt a program of projects on may 16th. and with that, we'll take any questions. there's also project managers from san francisco port and dpw to answer questions. >> chair peskin: colleagues, are there any questions for all of the assembled staff from variation departments? seeing none, is there any public comment on item number six? seeing none, public comment is closed. i guess staff, you got it right. is there a motion to move this item made by commissioner fewer? seconded by commissioner ronen. and on the item a roll call please. >> clerk: same house? >> chair peskin: same house. same call. it is approved on first reading. next item. >> clerk: item seven, adopt the balboa area transportation demand framework. final report. this is an action item. >> chair peskin: commissioner yee, would you like to start? >> supervisor yee: thank you, chair peskin. colleagues, the framework document before you today was conceived during an earlier committee meeting on the balboa development. this is by city college. the balboa area has been increasingly facing challenges with traffic congestion and parking. we have seen in many other of our neighborhoods, we have seen this. the area is constricted by roadway capacity. the i-280 freeway where people exit and enter and existing topography. in addition to that, you have challenges even with transportation of bart, the balboa bart station. it's transportation in the morning when i stand there, there's actually a lot of people being dropped off using vehicles to get to the bart station. we have sort of a growing city college. we have new housing developments and existing neighborhoods that are all feeling the impacts of the changes. since the balboa reservoir is currently being utilized by city college as parking, any forthcoming development raises the issue of how the area can further accommodate the students, faculty, new residents and existing residents, transportation needs. this is why i requested an initial study on existing conditions and to help identify short term and long term solutions for the area. the concept of transportation demand management was presented as a tool to start the conversations. the framework document aims to identify some of the major concerns and often potential recommendations on parking and transportation needs. i understand that many committee members were hoping that the framework would deliver more or provide a different set of recommendations. it is not meant to solve the parking demand or execute any recommendations without further analysis. however, from this process we have learned how to improve upon med ol apology and how to -- method ol -- methodology. as an institution that serves working students, many of whom need to drive, we cannot ignore this as a major issue. during the development of the tdm framework, city college has been more engaged as a partner and we will be placing focused attention on parking needs in their facility's master plan. i strongly believe this framework has elevated many of the concerns about parking and traffic. especially the consideration of how recommendations will be burdensome to students and residents. this needs to be addressed if any development is going to be successful on the reservoir. i want to emphasize that the balboa reservoir developers who have since been identified will be undergoing their own extensive process to develop their own transportation and parking analysis. in fact, they are using the lesson learned from this framework to inform their process. while not everyone may agree upon the recommendation or how these recommendations were developed, the framework starts as a starting point. i would like to request that the ta staff to also include the memo as part of the tdm framework when it is established. i want to thank the staff a planning, especially jeremy shaw, who has spent several months and hours pouring over this document, meeting with community stakeholders and incorporating different feedback. i also want to thank the members of the balboa reservoir, as well as the balboa station area and the many community members who have engaged with this process from the very beginning. i look forward to these ongoing conversations on how to improve the balboa area. this is a community of change and we have a real opportunity for transforming this area for the better. right now, i would like to call up jeremy shaw. >> chair peskin: before we hear from mr. shaw, ms. cohen is on the roster. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i just have some questions. i will speak after mr. shaw. >> thank you commissioner yee. i name is jeremy shaw from the san francisco planning department. today i'm going to provide a brief overview of the tdm framework, which was funded at the request of supervisor yee by a neighborhood transportation improvement program. to set the context, there many, many land you and planned use initiatives going on. they include the balboa reservoir, and city college as well as transportation improvements for the balboa station area, pedestrian safety and transit operations. the balboa area tdm framework discussed today complements all these projects. but it's focus is limited to a -- its focus is limited, which i imagine you are all particular. to summarize, it supports people in making the choice for sustainable transportation. it is designed to use the existing transportation system more efficiently. they must accommodate the diversity o