the locations planned and designated, to date. >> i am amy from city car share. this will be downtown san francisco and parks of berkley. 12 locations will be here. we have two locations at mission bay campus. >> with the criteria you used for this location -- >> part of the grant wanted to focus on priority development, outlining the east of san francisco and the west central areas of east bay. >> eastern neighborhood? >> eastern bay is the primary

location, and the bay view district. that is part of the grant. the other part is partners to install the technology. >> i want to encourage you, to think about the deep south and visitation valley, executive park area. both of which are project areas. in need of transportation and often just left and unconsidered. but there are many high-density projects that will be coming. you are scoping and i am just planting the seeds to take root and bear fruit.

>> i can do that for you. >> any other questions? >> thank you. >> i just wanted to reinforce the signifigance of this investment, that will make the electric car more viable in the eyes of the regular consumer. the beauty of the combination of the short-term rental of the city car share, so that, to the user, who will be taking the car a few hours, there is no risk. it is a trip to ikea or the trip to wherever, you need something you can't cary ory on muni. you are not making any

investment, but you want to experience how reliable it is. you can get -- with the best charges, we will recharge to 80% in a half-hour. it is a great way to chip away at the myths of how viable this technology is. we have a history of being early adapters and pushing technology we think can work. demonstrating it works. on a more policy fairness basis, in the region and ultimately the country, we want to make sure the technology will not leave the urban core behind. we have many dwelling swithout

garages. -- dwellings without garages. you have people who charge in their garage, they may bypass a number of families without a garage. it doesn't mean the technology can't work. we can make lemonade and do this through shared cars. other technologies need to be looked at. and we will have a chance to find money to put into that. as far as this is concerned, let's make the right investment in demonstrating how this works for us. in doing that ,, we will lead by example to improve the chance of adopting this technology.

>> this will help popularize the new electric vehicles ,hittin, g the market in 2011. the nissan leaf is supposed to be able to travel several hundred miles, and previously, this was more limited. the $2.4 million project gives us -- hopefully, people get more used to this. the longer distances people can travel. >> i don't know i've heard of one that can do several hundred, but i have heard a hundred miles. given the distribution of trips. there is a great piece of

evidence. the commute has stayed at a half hour. several people have longer distances ,longe, longer times,t there are shorter trips. the early adoption tailors it to the trips with a very appropriate technology. as you can see, this is a rich topic. the conversation is ongoing. >> just so you understand, this is our local portion. where does the funding come from? i apologize for not asking. >> i will let the city car share

do that. a number of years ago, the authority did provide a service grant. commissioner lena was the proponant -- proponent of that. we invested in a company that was a trailblazer who have done a lot of good, and are engaged in the technology issue once again. they can talk about their own bottom line. >> thank you. amy? >> hi. i can speak generally. we are a nonprofit. but most funds are self- sufficient. we got to that point that we can support most of our operations

with our revenue. we do have some grants for special projects. we are hoping this grant will help us add more electric vehicles. we have had our own funding to support this. >> we have support from the city of san francisco, as well as the other cities in our early years. >> i know about city car share. as we think about funding and other opportunities. it was just terriffic. we know this was not a pass through on our angle. >> cohen has a question.

>> how do you compete? there is a for-profit, the zip car. how do you compete with for- profit? >> as a local non-profit, we keep it as low as possible and we can be the low-cost leader. we distinguish ourselves as a local, and we feel we can locate as many locations through san francisco and provide different programs, we have an access program as well as other programs for reduced prices and distinguish ourselves in different ways. >> what is the outreach you do? >> the different developments,

we work with residents of those communities. and we are also working with -- looking for new partners. one in east bay. a big part of this grant is outreach and commmunication. learning about outreach of car- sharing in general, but also, this program. we want to try to educate the current residents. >> the fear is an electric vehicle running out and not knowing about the charging stations. more generally, it is critical for the success. what kind of efforts will you make so this will succeed? >> we are in the planning stages

for the outreach we will be doing. we will have focused mailers. the partnerships to reach low-income families or neighborhood groups. it is mostly between partnerships. >> other questions? thank you so much. let's open this up for public comment. does anyone wish to speak? it is closed. colleagues, can we move it forward? >> i second that. >> we move it forward without objection. >> item six, it is the report of the six months ending december 31 . >> i am cynthia fong, with more

on our financial position. as for the first six months, we have $115.1 million in cash and investments. 90% in the treasury poo. -- pool. this is a liability equal to $230 million. for the first six months we collected sales tax revenue, $3.5 more than anticipated, and we spent $26 million. the next six months is when we recieve the bulk of this. we will bring this up to the

committee for approval. according to the government code, we are in compliance and we also have enough liquidity for the expendatures. let me remind you, this is an information item and i can answer any questions. >> thank you so much. we open for public comment. does anyone wish to speak? thank you for that informational item. ms. cheng? >> introduction of new items. >> open for public comment? it is closed. ms. cheng? >> this is public comment. >> does anyone wish to speak?

public comment is closed. >> 9 is adjournment. >> thank you for the meeting. meeting adjourned.

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 t