later. tomorrow morning is the official start of the first day fund a construction contract in the presidio parkway. we are going to mark that with a short ceremony in the presidio. we are expecting the federal highway administrator and business administration housing secretary will be attending. it is a major milestone to the project and is a reminder that the project is quickly becoming a reality. it is a hectic time of year, but i hope that you can join us tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. at you need any more information, i recommend you speak to transportation staff. we have also been busy with the licensing measure, putting it on the ballot. that will be in our topic of discussion later on as you know, this is our last meeting before the summer recess.

i feel we can go into the summer recess the way that a great deal has been accomplished over the past few months. we have updated our operating policies, completed the prop k strategic plan, and all of the five-year priority plans for prop k. lay the ground for another clean audit. we are moving into the next fiscal year with our house in order and as ready as we can to take on the new fiscal year. i should also that we hit the ground running earlier this year by improving emergency funding, department of public works on the ocean beachfront repair, and that we were able to successfully facilitate the $700 million allocation to the mta board's the reduction of service cuts, which the mayor and mta have now agreed with us on. that concludes my remarks. >> the executive director's

report. >> good morning. my report is on your desk. let me just highlight a couple of things in the interest of time. big news, good news, the first item on the report department of transportation staff recommendations are not for the local communities program. this is a program with about $44 million available to the region. it received more than $80 million in requests. san francisco was recommended for funding for all the projects sub. in fact, about 17% of the total amount of money available regionally, just for reference,

our population share is 11%, so this is is a commitment win for san francisco. the projects recommended for funding at up to $7.4 million. that includes the 24th street bart plaza, market and haight street granted in pedestrian improvements, public plaza development, the san francisco redevelopment agency alleyway improvement project, $1.3 million. these are big wins for the city. i am delighted to be able to announce them. i am indebted to the policy division, particularly, i want to recognize the good efforts of the senior transportation planner.

he was the one leading the effort. of course, i want to also congratulate the project sponsors on this major piece of news. supervisor avalos: just a question on that. how were these proposals vetted and how was it decided that these were the ones that we would go after? was that a decision the commission made? >> yes, this was run through the plans and programs committee, where the priorities were identified. essentially, they made a discretionary decision on these projects. these are projects that are city priorities that we have been looking for funding for a long time. supervisor avalos: obviously,

there is a great need across the city with these projects. there was discussion about mtc funding being made available for balboa park. i wonder if that is still a possibility. i know there will be funds coming shortly that will be available. i want to make sure we do not lose sight of that project. >> absolutely. that is one of the highest priorities we have, but we depend on the region a process as we can. the more money we can capturebñ u. the5/míu projects have to wait. i wanted to highlight that i 7eñg r,o with caltrans 3k),d$ñrepresentatives in washi,

d.c. making presentations to the federal highway administration,oñg#@5e office oe secretaryédó;çh for long-term l. they had a pretty good reception. i am hopeful that we will hear by august. beginning to crop up as we begin y)ty96px> i also wanted to highlight, among the other items on the and programs department to gñ a9vgáñim!ñe parklet avenue. this was informed by discussion we havedl c had with the commun, with commissioner chiu's2m'éjrq, and is the direct result of the

. program will of different demonstration site. one has alreadyb4fzwkpq,- on mission street. adsnwv5columbus avenue will be presented to an implementation committee for recommendations on the 22nd of this week. hopefully, we will seexos startr pilots on going in the not too distant future with the full support of the community. ¢ádand then i also wano ,greport, fe :lr ós removal study will be having another workshop inw[>-h brisbane, co-host could with the

a1, bringing ;åp city rea staff to talk about their vision for moving the bay shore intermodal station forward. ñ2jshould ÷ for more information. also wanted to quickly report that we have work unerway on yd cl. r phase of the audit and are t! row. that concludes my report. happy to answer any questions. supervisorñuz÷ãmirkarimi:z)ud6 c

comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you.

can we take this without objection? so moved. >> th>> item 7. reappoint brian larkin to the citizens advisory committee. supervisor.?d[,$e1v/v action? cu.jany public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. ÷u< appoint jolsna john to the geary ,i/l transit citizens advisory committee. citizens advisory committee. supervisor mirkarimi:c xj&y very good. any further commentary on this particular appointee? in any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. &y4zlwithout objection. so moved. gh >> >> item 9. jadopt a baseline budget, schedule, and funding plan for phase 1 of the transbay joint powers authority's transbay

transit center project. this is an action item. supervisor mirkarimi: these j2tñítritems were delivered on e plans and programs committee. any public comment? 7u$jseeing none, public commens closed. j accept but commissioner campos. without objection. so moved. next item. >> item 10. allocate $3,480,803 in prop funds, with conditions, to the municipal transportation agency for six requests, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules. this is an action item. supervisor mirkarimi: a denver plans and programs. any further comment, deliberations? any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. moves, without objection. next item. >> item 11. approve the third amendment of san francisco's 2008 lifeline transportation program (ltp) project priorities to include $1,691,391 for the municipal transportation agency's bus

service restoration project. this is an action item. >>y

however, at the time of

so moved. >> item 12. approve the san francisco safe routes to school education and outreach program for $500,000 in cycle 1 safe routes to school funds. supervisor mirkarimi: any deliberation, any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. without objection. so moved. next item. >> item 13. appropriate $790,000 in prop k funds, with conditions, for planning, conceptual

engineering and environmental studies for the better market street project, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule. this is an action item. supervisor mirkarimi: very good. any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. without objections. so moved. next item. >> item 14. approve a vehicle registration fee expenditure plan ("expenditure plan"), making required findings, submitting to the voters at the general election scheduled for november 2, 2010, an ordinance amending the san francisco business and tax regulations code by adding article 23 to (1) adopt a $10 increase in the annual vehicle registration fee for each motor vehicle registered in the city and county of san francisco, to fund congestion and pollution mitigation programs and projects, (2) authorize the san francisco county transportation authority ("authority") to expend fee revenue under the expenditure plan, (3) authorize the authority to contract with the california department of

motor vehicles for collection and distribution of the fee revenue, and (4) authorize the authority to take all steps necessary to administer the expenditure plan and all programs and projects funded by the fee revenue; and appropriating up to $400,000 in proposition k funds to cover the costs of placing the measure on the ballot - this item was forwarded to the board by the committee without a recommendation. this is an action item. supervisor mirkarimi: would you like to introduce? >> thank you. commissioners, i am referring to the item beginning on page 223 of your packet, specifically to the staff memorandum of july 16 on page 240. i simply want to give you a quick overview on the process so far can give you a sense of the task at hand. this is an item that the transportation board approved us

to develop and expenditure plan. essentially, the authorization was for staff to study, to analyze the possibility of placing a measure on the november ballot this year that would levy a $10 additional fee on vehicles registered with the county of san francisco. sb 83, which allows us to do this, from senator runny hancock, sets a limit of $10. it allows congestion management agencies in the state to choose to place this on the ballot, which is why this item was presented to you as a rather

unusual item. the authority board would be you boating to place it on the ballot. the authorization in december essentially gave us courage to develop an expenditure plan, which we did with the help of the advisory committee and stakeholder group and members of that stake holder group are included at the end of the expenditure plan for your information. it also authorized us to develop a benefit analysis, which is required by as the 83, because it is a user fee, and which show the people paying the fee that this is a clear benefit. this analysis was conducted by outside analysts. that was presented to you back in may. the scope of the work our thrust was to conduct two -- to

place this on the ballot, to gauge the likely success of a measure like this. we proceeded to develop expenditure plans. we gave progress reports to the plans and programs committee on this issue in january, april, may, and june. at the may meeting, we brought the other item included in this scope of work, which was scheduled for the delivery of this product, and we told the committee that because we had succeeded in getting a benefit analysis, we were getting ready to recommend action on this item in june to give the board more of a number to need to have more deliberation. at the june meeting, we therefore brought forward

recommendation of approval for the measures on the ballot. we conducted a poll in it march and it showed the poll being -- about being approved by 66% of voters. we thought that the matter should be placed on the bell from that. after some time, we tested and that measure against several revenue measures that were known or expected to somehow make an appearance on the november ballot, including the state parks thfee, and at the time we also had a couple local measures, a school measure and a teacher resources measure. when the committee reviewed the information in june, it felt it did not have sufficient information to gauge the priority of this measure against

other potential measures for the ballot. in june, there was another set of measures that had been introduced to the board of supervisors. we tested the measure again for potential revenue-generating measures. that is what you have before you today. the measure continues to get support in the 60's. consultants who advise us to say that it is garnering support that is statistically unchanged from the previous poll. so at this point, i think we have provided you with the best information we will be able to. i realized there are some issues related to the polling of other measures. we have had questions from the committee which were answered about the sodality of polling. of course, we have attorneys with us here to repeat the

information. the essential answer is that it is perfectly legal and there is history in california to corroborate. there is no problem with the expenditure from a legal standpoint. the expenditure of public funds to vet the viability of the measure before it is placed on the ballot. of course, the dividing line is once it is on the ballot, public money would become a problem, but we are not there yet. commissioners, that is the overall process on this measure. there is a small consideration that i have to put before you. there is a measure backed by the california chamber of commerce and other groups which has qualified for the balance with 1.1 million signatures called

stop it in taxes, and that would take any user fee in california and reclassify it as a tax. the immediate effect of that proposition on this sb 83 licensed feet would require two- thirds majority to pass. it will be an issue in the next election if that measure ends of succeeding. it will create a big problem for any other measure of that sort. i draw the distinction there between user fees and a tax. this is a user fee, and that is why it only has the 50% threshold for passage. another thing i want to point out, we have been engaged with

other agencies in the county. napa has opted out, but all eight others are serious about moving forward to put the measure on the ballot. we expect contra costa county to vote as well. marin county has already voted. the benefits of having the transportation community focussed in this manner, in a joint effort, it is it takes away any potential advantage of one company over another for not having this thing. of course, the other benefit is that there would be an awareness about the region that this is the first new transportation revenue source authorized by the

state in almost 20 years. so we would get the benefit of the press, moving forward. that is something that would be needed. if the polls are correct, this measure may not gather a two- thirds majority. any degree of awareness that we can garner from regional efforts would certainly be helpful to the measure. commissioners, that is as short a summary as i can give you on this issue. we have consultants from emc research, who conducted these polls. these are the ones that did the reallocation of prop k. you may remember that we were able to generate a 75% vote in november.

they have a presentation no longer than five minutes that i would like to give you to wrap up this item. >> supervisor daly: just a quick question. let me start by saying i support moving forward with this measure to the ballot. as a representative to the mtc, i think you are correct when you say that most attorneys in the region are also moving in this direction. that is something that has been discussed at other regional transportation bodies. i know emc did the research in 2003. i am wondering this time around how they were selected? i know that we were already getting pushed back about an out-of-county agency.

>> this went through a competitive procurement. in fact, we brought them on board in march. this was awarded by the finance committee. supervisor daly: maybe for the consultant, how did we select a language, in terms of the questions, the actual language on the measures? >> essentially, a quandary with measures that are not already approved for a ballot is what to consider the official language. we used the language that was used in the measures to introduce them to the board of supervisors for local measures. for state measures, we had a

line with an already been through the legislative process. there was no issue with that. we do recognize emphatically that the fundamental purpose of doing something like this is to place this measure in the context of a more realistic ballot with other revenue- generating measures to create, if you will, a worst-case scenario. we realize that every measure is likely to be on the ballot. but in that sense, what is important is not so much of the individual measures, which is why there was no polling on the individual measures, but more on the context they create. normal procedure would be to randomize the questions but we wanted to give you the worst possible scenario. after you have all of these

other options, we revealed this one that we're interested in, of course without reviewing -- revealing that. we recognize that language for measures that have not been finalized could very well trained. so the bottom line is, this poll does not tell you anything about the measures but the influence on the measures that we are dealing with here on s p three. to that point, the consultant can address it further. there is a strong, statistical value to this. in march, we had different set of measures. the fact that the number did not change from march