a library, or to reopen one, and especially park branch, which is embarking now on its second century of service to the public. while generally i support the resolution and item 38, i am a bit disappointed that in the midst of many names of individuals and organizations in the community that worked to improve the design, some that worked on that are not mentioned by name, but only generally as community members or members of the haight-ashbury community. it would improve this resolution, were you to include the names of the haight-ashbury neighborhood council, the library users association, and the historic preservation commission. all of them worked to approve

what ultimately has been produced. i am proud that the library users association alerted the commission about library renovations. they reviewed a number, including park branch. those efforts resulted in one of the parties that is mentioned being brought in to provide architectural presentation of guys, when neither the architect nor the floor of yours included architectural preservation experts. this is the oldest of the san francisco public library buildings. the original wood floor was not restored, nor the original stairs or original skylights. there were a number of excellent improvements. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> happy black history month. i want to talk about black

history, medical marijuana, and lgbt. this is a picture of glory. you cannot go see the african american gis. i want to thank new village for kwanzaa. today, we learned that black history is actually american history. the month of february, we celebrate our chinese new year, black history, medical marijuana week, president's day, the super bowl, groundhog day. it is women's heart month. it is important to everyone. i saw this lady. she got nine months before rosa parks. if i write a book, it would be

called diversity in justice while black. we have heard a lot in this city. i think giving these owners to everyone, that we should bring these people together to work on a concrete situation, to give people these recommendations but not bring them back through the year is in vain. as we know does, our country in a civil war. in washington, we are waging the third civil war. it is up to everyone to be at this table. this is something else that is going on. we are going to talk to the president on president's day about cutting uppe ssi. call cara. this is something. black history month, all you supervisors the finale did a great job today. but we had lgbt people.

president chiu: thank you very much. any other speakers for general public, and for today? seeing none, general public, is closed. we can now return back to item 32, concerning the proposed charter amendment. i understand madame clerk has already read it. supervisor kim: apologies to my colleagues for not attributing the amendments in writing. i am proposing three amendments to the charter amendment for the june ballot. the first amendment is the board

of education shall set the compensation for its members not to exceed 1/2 the the annual salary of a first-year teacher in san francisco. we are striking, "beginning july 1, the chief a new officer shall adjust the annual salary amount to reflect cpi, providing that cost-of-living adjustments to not exceed 5%." the third amendment is striking all of subsection d, which outlines how the city would fund the board of education salary in the future. the school district would like to include this in their own budget. president chiu: supervisor kim has made a motion to amend,

seconded by supervisor c ampos. can we take these without objection? supervisor cohen: for a point of clarification, what is the impact going to be for striking these subsections will it disrupt the process? supervisor kim: it does mean this will have to come back to us as a committee of the whole next week for us to have a hearing on these amendments. if it is approved next week, it will be done in time for the june ballot. i am sorry. in two weeks. next tuesday, we do not have a meeting. we do not have a board of supervisors meeting next week. supervisor cohen: i do not know the entire policy. is there a way we could have it a little more time to review some of these? president chiu: we would need to

accept these amendments today in order to consider them in two weeks, and we would not be able to change it. that being said, if individuals are uncomfortable with these amendments, we could take a short recess, or we could adopt them, knowing that is what the charter sponsors want to do, and have a discussion next week on the charter amendment. supervisor kim: that has been to the rules committee a few times as well. supervisor mar: i appreciate the amendments. i would like our legal counsel to give some input before the committee as a whole next week on the funding. if the school district is going to cover the funding, we do not have the authority, if it is passed by voters. it is the authority of the board of education and the superintendent. i know that jill wynns from

the board of education and others were here. there were mixed ideas when it first went forward on the board of education with supervisor dufty's version. i would like supervisor kim to talk about the discussion of the members of the board of education. president chiu: there is a different option we can pursue today. we could split the file, and and one version, and send both versions to next week, with two different hearings. >> you do not need to have two hearings. we can consolidate them. that way, we have plenty of time to look at both versions. i think that is appropriate, considering the way this is being trimmed forward. it is not enough time for members of the board who are not

on the rules committee to analyze this. that way, you would be able to do both in the next two weeks. supervisor campos: i was going to make the same point. maybe we could split the file so we have two versions of the same document going forward. what i would say about this item is, and i know that supervisor dufty was in the chambers before, in a prior like i served as general counsel to the san francisco unified school district. i have seen firsthand the work that goes into being a member of the board of education. that is very difficult work. you are asking individuals to spend a lot of time overseeing a very complex and significant operational budget of close to $0.50 billion. what this charter amendment is trying to do, the reason my supervisor -- why supervisor

dufty supported it and by supervisor jane campkim, a formr member of the board of education, is moving the port -- we want an opportunity for everyone to be able to serve on the board of education. it is prohibited if people are basically not able to put food on the table. it basically allows people who are not independently wealthy to be able to meet their obligations, and that we serve on the board of education. in the end, i think it is an investment worth making. it will pay for itself many times over. we want board members to have the ability to put the time and energy, as some many board members already have done, but it is also recognition that serving on the board of education does not mean that you

have to subject yourself and your family to extreme poverty, which i think is a real possibility unless we make this change. i think it is a very modest proposal. i hope we get as many supporters of this as possible. i would encourage the rest of the board of supervisors to be supportive of this measure. many of us would not be here today, but for the fact that at the time supervisor magnus allis made it possible to increase the salaries of members of the board of supervisors. for many of us, without that change, as much as we wanted to serve, it would have been very difficult for us to serve in this capacity. i think the same is true of members of the board of education. it is important as a matter of equity and good public policy to support this policy. thank you. president chiu: thank you.

supervisor elsbernd: if i could procedurally hope this move along, if supervisor kim would withdraw her motion, i would like to motion to duplicate the file, and then amended version b -- and then amend version b and send both versions forward. president chiu: are you ok with that? supervisor elsbernd is making the motion, seconded by supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor elsbernd: we can move supervisor kim's amendments for version b. president chiu: again seconded by supervisor mirkarimi. we will continue these two files

to sit as a committee of the whole two weeks from today. before we vote on that, and the follow-up comments? supervisor kim: thank you for helping us move this along during the process. i want to actually recognize supervisor dufty, who was the original sponsor for this measure. i took over as sponsor after he departed the board of supervisors. i am coming in somewhat midway in this process. i am excited to see this finally going to the ballot. in answer to questions about feedback from the school district, there has not been a unified voice as to how people would like to see this amendment go forward. there have been several different perspectives, but also a look at how we could make this palatable for voters as well. some of the amendments, such as allowing the district to set the compensation and putting in a maximum, so if the district wanted to be flexible about

compensation they could decide that at the board -- i heard general support for that. there was also a strong, for some folks -- a strong messaging linked this would be linked to first-year teacher salary, kicking out the cpi indexing. i am open to keeping subsection . -- subsection d. this was put forward because there were concerns from supervisors about this coming out of the general fund. the school district offered to put this in their budget. if folks want to keep subsection d, that is something i would continue to support. i would still support the second draft of this measure as well. thank you so much for your flexibility on this. if you have any questions, please contact our office. we are more than happy to answer

questions. president chiu: can we take the motion without objection? that shall be the case. these items will be considered in committee of the hole in two weeks. can we now proceed to the adoption without committee reference text >> items 35 through 40 will be acted upon by a single roll call vote unless a member asks discussion of these items. president chiu: would anyone like to sever any items? supervisor elsbernd: 37. president chiu: if we could take a roll-call vote on items 35 through 40, except for item 37? supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye.

president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: item 37? >> resolution urging the governor of california to protect proposition 10 county funding, urging a permanent diversion of 50% of all future prop. 10 revenues. supervisor elsbernd: can i ask to continue this item to our next meeting? president chiu: seconded by supervisor mar. without objection, this item will be continued for two weeks. are there any in the mornings for this week? >> on behalf of supervisor avalos, libyo cante and john ross. on behalf of president chui,

jack baker. on behalf of the board, for the late carroll and marks. that includes the business for today. president chiu: we are adjourned for today.

commissioner mirkarimi: good morning. welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority meeting. i am are his mirkarimi. >> avalos present, campos present, chiu and accept. chu absent. chen absent -- cohen present. elsbernd.

elsbernd present. commissioner fairly. present. commissioner kim absent. commissioner mar, absent. mirkarimi, present. >> weiner present. we have a quorum. commissioner mirkarimi: read item two. >> approve mendoza of the january 25 meeting. action item. commissioner mirkarimi: motion to accept minutes by commissioner campos and seconded by commission farrell. >> item two, commissioner avalos. >> aye. >> campos, aye. >> champion chu. >> kwlie. elsbernd, aye.

roll call. >> there are eight eist, and it passes. commissioner mirkarimi: would you read items three and four? >> chair's report, item four, executive director's report. information items. commissioner mirkarimi: i have brief brief marks. this meeting will be brief. we had another busy month at the authority. there has been quite a bit of activity in sacramento as i am sure you have been hearing and reading about relating to transportation funding as the can he bait over the state budget continues. what we have seen so far in ferms of the governor's proposal is encouraging. the administration recognizes to the need to maintain funding commitments and the potential negative consequences of not keeping those commitments. there is a recognition that

investment in san francisco is a key actor in reactivating the economy. we have worked to develop a consensus on sustainable communicate strategy. the latest chapter is introduced as bill 57 which proposes to give cities of oakland and san jose one representative each on the m.t.c. the move would effectively give alameda and one ought county with three votes and other counties just two. this is a serious time when we are trying to build a consensus about the path forward in terms of how we are going to grow over the next three decades. san francisco won't take this, and we have called the united nations for assistance. just kidding, seeing if you are listening. san francisco needs a stronger, not weaker representation, and we are going to make sure we make that opinion heard. we have a position on the bill at the authority, and

commissioner wiener has introduced ledge slakes which i hope we will be able to get behind. san francisco is called to bear a larger burden of housing and development in the region over the next three decades, and we need to make sure that trance and other infrastructure services will be there to meet the demands of growth. the region needs to be prepared to help us get there, we should not have to worry about how many votes each county has on the m.t.c. at a time when that debate happens, but nonetheless, this is a crucial discussion. on other matters i remind you that the legislative advocacy trip is coming up in mid march, and that our presence in washington, d.c. is important this year in the context of the expected re-authorization of the six-year surface transportation act. there is no better way to show support for our projects than

to be there exchange them to the people making the tough choices. i am going to ask all the commissioners to consider if they would like to go to the conference, and you should talk to t.a. staff in that comports with your schedule. this concludes my report. thank you again for the good work of the p. and p, finance committee and all commissioners. please, director? >> good morning. i am the executive director. i have a report on your desk and several things i would like to highlight. the first one deals with the regard pressing issue of the short-term and longer term structural deficit problem that cal tran is confronting, currently pro can't jecting an annual $$30 million deficit for fiscal year 2011-2012, which as you have heard, if left

unaddressed could result in a drastic elimination of essentially all but other services. that would eliminate the weekend service to giant games and so on, and also the elimination of the san jose-to-gilroy leg and elimination of seven to 10 stations. there is a significant amount of activity over the last month trying to deal with the issue. the hearing will be held on march 3 to receive public comment concerning the proposed declaration of fiscal emergency and associated service reductions. this is not really the time for a discussion about this, but the structural deficit has to do with the way that the joint powers board is structured and the three partner agencies that

are contributing to the annual operating budget, including the san francisco valley transportation authority, san, mateo, and sfrkt. they have had to pass that on to cal tran. cal tran depends on those three agencies' contributions for more than 35% of its operating budget. as an aside, you are aware that the authority contribute capital money to cal tran through prop k, but not operating money. a couple of advocacy grooms have formed around this issue. there is a group called the friends of cal tran that has organized several meetings. it is headed by the former mayor of palo alto.

and another group has been active trying to address this issue. there was a meeting in january of that group that i know commissioner elsbernd attended, and several of my staff as well to try to onlyize the options for dealing with this. it is a serious issue. it is a serious mobility issue, and a serious air quality issue potentially for the peninsula and san francisco, and we will continue to track it and be involved in it, looking to structure a policy-level solution. not just a band aid for this year, but something that can help us into the future. on other regional related news, the regional transportation plan and the san francisco transportation plan have released calls for project. there is a joint call for project going on now for the regional plan and the san francisco long-range plan,

which we are putting together, talking about the update to the san francisco long-range transportation plan. these are documents that essentially become the blueprint for hour investment happens in transportation over the next two and a half or three decades. so they are important. the san francisco trance -- transportation play rests in the regional plan, which is in turn for the receipt of federal money to transportation projects in the region. currently we are encouraging the public to submit comments. our website has a web-based form that people can use to suggest projects. we are encouraging people to particularly suggest projects that would contribute to the region's ability to achieve it's air quality goals. but we are also planning meetings with all of you and your staff to make sure that we have specific guidance as to the priorities in your zrict.

it maintains a hotline in addition to the website and hot lines. the number is 415-593-5244. for people who are listening and interested in suggesting projects to the plan, that is the number. i made a comment last week already that i think is worth reiterating today, that the secretary of transportation, ray, lahood made an announcement last week for a $53 billion high speed rail initiative, leading to achievement of a goal of having 80% of the population of the u.s. within reach of a high speed rail line in 25 years. it is very ambitious, which kicks off with $53 bill over

the next six years. it has already run into a serious opposition of the house as the new leadership of the house prepares to make budget cuts, including that program. it is nevertheless a very interesting opportunity, and i think it is visionary of the administration to put this on the table at a time of climate. we are confronted with a number of climate change issues that need to be addressed. the authority is dealing with a number of new funding opportunities that require calls for projects. those are all on our went. they are summarized in a memo. i will leave it at that not to make the report so long. there is and annual call for projects for prop k that is coming up which has a due date of march 25th, and that is for the programic aspects of prop k. those are the line items that include a lot of small items lihe