we met with internal stakeholders and we met request external stakeholders. we had discussions around processes for the release of these police reports and came up with this policy to present to you for a review and adoption. >> this is a policy you worked on with the department of police accountability? >> correct. we did give us a recommendations and we've included some of the recommendations they were part of the stakeholderring meetings as well in the development of this general order. >> great. i know that the police accountability had some stakeholders present tonight. i ask that we keep it tight please and we appreciate all the work everybody done. i think it's controversial one. >> i will add, the policy is a policy that we believe we can work with. it's the process we're going to develop is still under way and we're still working with the stakeholders to develop a process as we all know, we implemented general order, there's a process that we implement. we have changes that go along with that as we learn the process. the policy is something i think w

communicator effectively with stakeholders, and identifies ways, and and more ones efforts, and conduct critical research to inform efforts to reduce lead exposure and related health risks. our goal is to generate better data so we can pinpoint high exposure communities and target resources quickly and effectively. building off of the action plan here's what epa will do next. we will develop an epa specific implementation plan by march 2019. this will include performance metrics and keeping ourselves accountable to the action plan. we will provide regular updates on our progress and we will continue our aggressive stakeholder engagement and outreach. improving how we communicate risk is one of my top priorities for the agency. we must be able to speak with one voice and clearly explain to the american people the environmental and health risks they face in their daily lives. our need to improve risk communication in my mind goes back to our response to 9/11 with the information the agency released around the ground 0 residents in apartments and condos in new york city and up not being th

three, communicate more effectively with stakeholders. the document identifies ways to streamline and improve federal messaging on dangers of lead exposure, particularly to minority communities and those with limited english proficiency. i will say more on the epa's efforts to improve risk communication in a minute. number four, support and conduct critical research to reduce lead exposure and related health risks. our goal is to generate better data and maps so we can pinpoint high exposure communities and target resources to them quickly and effectively. building off of the action plan, here is what epa will do next. we will develop an epa-specific implementation plan by march of 2019. this will include performance metrics for monitoring our progress and keeping ourselves accountable to the action plan. we will provide regular updates on our progress. we will continue our aggressive stakeholder engagement and outreach. improving how we communicate risk is one of my top priorities with the agency. we must be able to speak with one voice

stakeholder team. we will start the effort in january, 2019, and it is our intent to complete it by the spring of 2019. we are targeting may of 19. i am open to any questions. >> thank you for that. that was helpful. are there any questions from members of the authority? seeing then, is there any public comment on this item? no public comment period public comment is closed. thank you for that update. we will live for thursday and the tjpa presentation. next item, please. >> item 14, item on final approval, approved the revised job classification salary structure and updated organization chart. this is an action item. >> mrs. fong? >> chair peskin the, would you like me to go through a full presentation for the sake of time? >> colleagues, just so you know, the personnel committee of the transportation authority match last week, consisting of myself, vice chair tang, and member kim, we are just where in we reviewed and recommend to all of you the revised job classification salary structure and updated

we have a new group that will manage to unite all the stakeholders now. it is called the san francisco taxi coalition. we want substantive change. we will have a nonprofit. we will try to help change the industry, whether you cooperate or not to. we would like to work together with you. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, directors. last time you had 200 people here. this room is full right now and similar to the room being full that day. and downstairs, one of the courtrooms was full. with that, 200 people came to tell you, don't do it. but you are sitting here to do it against 200 people. all these people with the pink stickers, you will listen to them and you will follow them. how come you ignore the 200 people who told you two don't do it, that is going to take away at 900 medallions into the city not to go to the airport. that will affect 2400 jobs. 2400 jobs means that each one, if you count one person with a wife, and one child, that is 7200 people whose lives will be ruined completely. how many people do you support?

we do that between the state departments of ag, the federal government, and stakeholders. so pedro, our nmembers are the commissioners, secretaries, and directors of agriculture in all 50 states and four tear tors. in that role, they're the chief ag negotiator, a co-regulator with the federal government, also an agrucultural ambassador. >> you deal with policy decisions. does this farm bill being debated in congress in your mind a sound policy decision? >> we need a farm bill. yeah, this is good to have. we have to get this passed next week. here's the story about agriculture. agriculture in our affiliated industries, we provide economic viability. $1 trillion to the u.s. gdp, 21 million jobs. and agriculture is very important to the u.s. economy. all of us eat. we all enjoy the sustainability and the affordability of foods that are our choice. so we need a farm bill. this is right now, ag is struggling, and farm income is down. the usda recently said this week farm income may be down 12% this year. so the bottom line is we need that farm bill. we're looking forward to its

all stakeholders should contribute to the appraisal standards. we are encouraged that the recent reform plans have many common elements and that agreement is emerging. we look forward to working with his committee and the next congress to find remaining solutions to the issues. >> thank you. morning.

we want to identify and implement fair stakeholders.mentfairand stakeholders. we want to identify and implement fair and effective accompanying measures within this timeframe. while there have been protests in different parts of france, the focus has been paris. some of the protests there have been violent. there have been clashes with police, and extensive damage done to property. four people have died and several hundred have been injured. the protests are called the ‘gilets jaunes' — that's a reference to the high—vis yellow vests that the drivers who started these protests wear. and this isn't over, despite that government backdown. benjamin caughy has been one prominent voice as these demonstrations have grown. he's saying "the french are not sparrows. they don't want crumbs but the whole baguette." the far right leader marine le pen is getting involved. "six months? probably a coincidence if itjust carries us a few days after the elections". that's a reference to the european elections in may. well, all of this is piling pressure

>> i want to represent the entire industry, but to the stakeholders that we have spoken with, this is amenable to the stakeholders that had approached us and have been discussing amendments with each of our offices. >> if this committee made a decision to change to go 2-3 backward supervisor peskin be comfortable with that? >> i would be happy to take that back to him for consideration. i don't know i can make that representation. >> i understand. thank you. i appreciate that. >> that was a good point. thank you. >> i have a question based on your note to the city attorney based on what president cohen just said. if we were to make an amendment that said from 2-3, is that a substantial amendment? >> this is on supervisor peskin 's amendment about a two dispensary up based on the definition of ownership. if we were to say let's raise it to three, if he did that on monday. >> if you adopt the two today, and increase it to three on monday, that would not be a substantial matter. if you made it three today and went back to two on monday, that would be substantially. if you want to leave y

it will include key stakeholders, transit operating agencies, regional partners, and caltrans and so forth, and a committee that would include a wide range of stakeholders like those that are concerned about the wide range of the transportation system, neighborhood associations, network and environmental advocates, and to really get all those folks at the table so that they can provide in-depth input as we go through the entire study. we'll also continue our work partnering with pier cities where they also have implements or are considering congestion pricing so we can keep learning from what they're doing. so we're looking at starting this as soon as we can early next year and wrapping up by mid2020, and we estimate the costs to be 1.6 million, and we'd fund that through a combination of sources. and what we're looking at is prop k, where there's already 500,000 programmed in td 41. if you endorse this scope moving forward, then we'll be returning early next year with a request to appropriate those funds. we also know there's programs fees that are programmed for pricing and intensi

we do that between the state department, the federal government and stakeholders but, our members are the commissioners, secretaries and directors of state departments of agriculture in all 50 states and four territories. in that role, i am uniquely the chief egg co-regulator with the federal government and also an agricultural ambassador . >> is this farm bill a sound policy decision? >> we need a farm bill. yes. this is good to have, we have to get this past next week. here is the story about agriculture, we provide, economic viability, $1 trillion to the u.s. gdp, even million dollars so agriculture is important to the u.s. economy. all of us eat and we all enjoyed the sustainability and affordability of foods so we need a farm bill. right now, add is struggling -- the usda said farm income may be down 12% this year. the bottom line is we need the farm bill and were looking forward to its passage and that our members are keen on getting that . >> did this drop become because of trade policy? >> it's a conglomeration of things coming in this year, trade stability hasn't been helped.

i encourage the fourth piece about peer review and engaging stakeholders and better understanding and communicating what the terms and outcomes of the agreement are. with that. >> thank you, commissioner vietor. >> colleagues. i've heard it a couple times already but i'll just say it again because it's that important. we didn't always have the opportunity to have such engagement from the public on topics such as this. whether it's the freedom of information act, the brown act, our sunshine ordinance. i highly value it. i'm here because i want to be here not because someone told me that i had to be here. we have a saying, in my movement, the labor movement, organize or die. that is about as much of a fact as you can get. i want to associate myself with commissioner moran's comments about the subject matter as well as the comments made by commissioner vietor. it's not an action item so if there's no other communities, we'll move to the general manager report. next item. >> all right. the next item is the capitol improvement quarterly report. >> good afternoon, commissioners. dan wade. i

all stakeholders should contribute to the appraisal standards. we are encouraged that the recent reform plans have many common elements and that agreement is emerging. we look forward to working with his committee and the next congress to find remaining solutions to the issues. >> thank you. morning. it is an honor to testify before you today. i am the president of the local lending group. ifp or before you today as the vice president of the home lending association. the only association representing independent mortgage bankers. our healthy to financial system. when the large banks pull back from lending, like they did during the great recession, it is small banks that stabilize neighborhoods and provide home ands to qualified low moderate income minority homebuyers. we commend the chairman and the representatives for thoughtful and detailed legislation. there are many positive provisions in this bill from a small lender perspective. notably, requiring a cash window for small lenders. pricing parity on fees. and language that seeks to include a

that the differences and with that republican idea and then we need the stakeholders and the american cancer society. we need everybody looking at those proposals and then for that next big step forward. >> there is risk for the national democratic party to be potentially accessible. but there is some danger but there's also an opportunity joe mentioned one west virginia but also team made the campaign with the affordable care act. it must be one of the most pro- trump to be deeply loyal to obama care expanding health care coverage by referendum did they embrace medicaid expansion cracks there are differences on the democratic side but with that republican orthodoxy was so stark with those differences in a comparison. >> but what about the opioid addiction in virginia crack. >> even if you have read other books about the crisis it is largely about the appellation but they are everywhere. >>. >> secretaries are was right in this is a crisis came out of a medicine cabinet. it's very different than others we have had in society that is the tragedy of it it is more about moms than anythin

instead of waiting to proceed to regular order or following the regulatory process, stakeholders are asking for an immediate statutory change because of ongoing litigation this bill will help to resolve for some stakeholders. i'm concerned by rushing this legislation through, we have not been givened a quit time to consider the implications of this change or how this definition might impact consumers and other industry stakeholders. the f.d.a. is best positioned to krt public health impacts of defining this term and how this policy would interact with other agencies efforts regarding the nutrition labeling, such as a broader definition for the term natural. additionally, i'm concerned by the precedent this legislation creates and believe that passing this bill only encourages stakeholders to seek additional statutory changes where definitional clarity for their product when is they believe the f.d.a. has not acted as sbishesly as they wish or when they are facing litigation. we should not be making changes to the federal statute when they are -- we should only be making them when the

all which requires extensive review and development for the stakeholders. thank you. >> thank you. >> i think that is the conclusion. i did want to begin part of the packet. we do have a summary of the recommendations here. i ask if i can pass out -- or have the commission secretary pass it out. that would be great. that was what we initially put out. the recommendations in there still hold true. the time report is actually going to be online early january. we were hoping we would have it ready today. but i think, atc has been sharing this with folks in the community. we are trying to make some of the recommendations more specific where we can. and not changing them. but trying to make them more specific. the folks in -- especially in the engineer community are looking at this understand where we are going with it. that is going to be coming. that should be out by the beginning of the year. but we did want to make sure that you had some of the documentation that we put together for this report. we are happy to take questions. we are trying to keep it short.

we have been working with the stakeholders on the bike lane. the bike coalition the neighbors as well as parent the san francisco friends community to come up with solutions that will be safe for everyone including the students, cyclists and drivers and pedestrian. we appreciate the thought partner him the mta has offered. we field the overall design and speed of implementation pose a risk to the friends community and greater community. we are eager to keep on conversations with the city with no proposal with safety for all. unloading san francisco friends school is committed to safety for all, not just our community but the greater community as well. while families from all over the bay area come to the school we reduce car traffic encouraging carpooling, taking public transit and biking and walking. many families and community members do this. in order to prevent the cars from cueing up we partnered with the transportation consultants to redirect the carpool down clinton park. we have been grateful for the livable streets. we ask it be shifte

we want to make sure our members are at the table with mr huie and you all and any other stakeholders to ensure that existing building stock and any of the recommendations done by this great team have our involvement and take into consideration what an existing building built at different time frames. when you look at the report, it provides to you a detailed breakdown of the building stock in san francisco and when they were built. you can tell that they were built at various times. you will be interesting to see how my members react to how this commission and the department decides to enact any of those recommendations. i do humbly request that we be at the table to help override those and make sure that they are -- that they have not only the buy-in, but have the time frame to implement them in a way that makes them. not only for the building owner but for the businesses within the buildings. i want to thank the team here who wrote the report. it was based on data. we appreciate that. there are recommendations that could affect building numbers and we want to be at the table to hel

it does appear that -- did facebook completely take care of all of the stakeholders? did the public have the same seat at the table as money, as the internal? obviously not. the public didn't have any stake. they will now. so some of this regulation is good. this attention is good. the flip side is silicon valley and now beijing and others, there is magic here. it's magical. and i think left, right, center, wherever you are, there is a good respect that magic happens and if you snuff out this magic we could kill this incredible engine of innovation. where do you draw the line? it's nuance especially since folks don't understand how it happens. they think it's a couple kids that writes code and it happens. >> if you are on the inside and we are on the outside peering through the window trying to get a scoop every once in a while, is there any kind of peer pressure inside tech to say what you knock it off? you are going to attract the regulators? like a stephen king sort of thing? >> yeah. >> you know, stop it, because you are ruining it for the rest of us. >> there is