but the flavor is not that different in the in. it is about scared resources -- scarce resources. you have a matrix in front of you. we are at the stage in the legislative session where not a lot of physicians have been taken, but there is an exception to that. a couple of bills we have been tracking that you have already acted upon. i will let marc take over. >> thank you. there have been developments. i just wanted to briefly touch on them before i touch on the matrix. last week, the legislature, as part of its approach to developing a budget resolution, did take up the transportation trailer bill. we were successful. we had a very nice book by both houses -- we had a very nice bow -- headed their device -- we

had a very nice cotevote in both houses. pegs the target at $330 million. it is expected to grow over the coming years. that level of transit operating systems assistance from the state is less than called for probably close to double what we ever reached in any particular year, so it is a very welcome sign that sacramental listens to the transit operating needs across the state. still, it is adequate. the bill is on the governor's desk. we are waiting for him to sign it. the focus this week is on trying to get the last couple of pieces of the budget resolution, including the tax extension, task shift on national corporate, and last, but not least, the redevelopment agency proposal, which is stuck at -

one vote. it will be a very entertaining week. we do not expect anything to happen until closer to friday at this point in time. turning to the matrix, since i was here last, several hundreds of bills were introduced. i worked diligently with your staff, and they were great in combing through the bills, looking at the ones that needed to rise to your attention or at least to the level of watching and monitoring in case there are any changes coming through the year. one we have elected to propose -- support is ab 650, which is found on page four of the matrix. it is intended to set the stage for the future of transportation funding in california. it would create a task force with very specific types of folks on it. it would be funded in the bill. therefore, if it is approved by the governor, it has a real

chance of producing a valuable product. there are a number of high-speed rail bills. we have elected not to recommend supporting yet until we see how they shake out. 953 on page 7 is probably the most damaging of the bills we have seen. it would freeze proposition 1a bond expenditures until there is a new ridership study. i do not see the legislature adopting that bill, but it reflects the republican perspective on the high-speed rail bond now that it has been approved by voters and is going through the implementation stage. there are a couple of bills that deal with a similar topic. senate approval of high-speed rail authority board members. the high speed rail authority is one of the most uniquely powerful boards.

senator steinberg, the pro tem, has sb 439. notably, senator lowenthal is carrying sb 517, found on page 14. it requires authority board members to be subject to senate approval. it also places the high-speed rail authority under the cabinet position of transportation. last, i want to highlight a couple of bills i think will be emerged as something you will want to recommend supporting in the future as these become more refined. sb 733 and 735 -- dated two

different things. they are on page 50 and 60. they require on the one hand that small business element be included in the high-speed rail authority business plan. secondarily, sb 735 requires a local work force initiatives and would establish a preference in contracts of 2.5%. those would be the bills i would like to highlight right now. the one we are calling for action on is ab 650, which is the blue-ribbon task force. i would be glad to answer questions. i think i understand most of the bills right now.

bigger picture, are we going to get the revenues on the ballot? i think we will. just from the dynamic, a lot of public posturing says no way. we are not going to go there. that is not going to happen. uniquely, the republican convention did not come out with any censure approaches for anybody or threaten anybody who did go on -- i think it was implied that folks will have a difficult time in the future, but there is a gang, i think in both caucuses that may be able to get there. >> what are the deadlines? >> it is 80 days l 488 days out, so i think june 7 is in jeopardy if they do not act soon -- it is 80 days out or 88

days out. >> if they wanted to do june 14, they would have to do it by the end of this week? >> that is what i am led to believe. i have not counted it up, but i'm told. >> but they could push it to june 21? >> correct. i have not thought through what would happen on the 21st. i do not think there is anything uniquely different. >> maybe the idea of the seventh is because you got that congressional election. >> that was the end of this purpose. also, it gives them three weeks to get to july. >> ok. thank you. >> the closer you get to july, the harder it will be. >> when was the last time we got the budget in on time? thank you. supervisor mar: your action item is recommending support for ab 650. let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public

that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. director, did you have a point? >> i just wanted to report that the other bill where you took a position last month, which is the one that was changed to what the government has been moving through the legislature and that it was heard yesterday at the transportation committee and passed on a 13-0 vote, and the only opposition was from this agency. i do not know if mark wants to report on that. >> it was interesting. mtc is being crafted in how they are setting this up. the transportation authority had taken a support position, for example, but mtc arranged to have them appear in support of the bill.

that brought to coauthors who were on the committee on board and that, i think, led the way. we were the only entity there to express opposition. the principal make up of that committee was for southern california with the exception of the two members from contra costa, so that was the bellwether for that. that bill was the assembly -- the next stage of the bill was the assembly appropriations committee. we will have to take a close look at that. there was a series of discussions with assembly member ammiano about what we're going to do -- >> did he not introduce a competing bill? >> he did not get.

i do not know if that is his strategy. supervisor mar: we open this up for public comment and close. can we support the recommendation without objection? ok, so move. please call the next item. >> 5, introduction of new items. this is an introduction item. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> 6, public comment. supervisor mar: anyone that would like to speak? public comment is closed. is there any other item before us? meeting adjourned. thank you, everyone.

>> good morning and welcome to the 2011 meeting of the san francisco county plans and programs committee. i am david campos. we are joined by carmen chu, david chu and scott weiner. the clerk of the committee is

erica cheng. covering for sfgtv are eric bunch and don gardener. avalos is on a transportation trip. a -- bicycling trip. can we get a motion to excuse him by commissioner chiu, seconded by carmen chu? mada -- madam clerk -- 9 >> collegues, you have the minutes of the february meeting before you. public comment is closed. can we get a motion by carmen chu, seconded by david chiu, to take this without objection.

item three. >> the advisory committee report, an information item. >> good morning. maria lombardo. there was no cac meeting last month. they will be briefed tomorrow at 6:00 pm. >> thank you very much. is there any member of the public wishing to speak? public comment is closed. item four? >> one number to the citizen's advisory committee. an action item. >> ben siefka of the transportation authority. we have one appointment by way of background. the 11-member citizen's advisory, each member with a

two-year term. we have wanted to have this be a priority at the committee. we have one vacancy from district six, a result of the resignation of julianne parsons. and we have an applicant to speak and join the committee. >> we should open this to the applicants for the seat. if you can come forward, you will be able to make a brief statement with up to three minutes. i don't know if it is one or more. but we would begin with mr. flanagan.

>> my name is joseph flanagan. i am a member of the department of developmental services. advisory committee, representing san francisco. and also, i am a member of the arc of san francisco. my experience is working with those who come out of developmental center and seniors. my interest in the cac is to help support disabled and help them with the problems that they

have getting on and off the bus. and other transportation problems the city has. my experience happened at sonoma developmental center in 1963. i was a patient's rights advocate there. and then i formed a group for cac for the arc of san francisco. i feel i have a lot of experience. i would be willing to work with the cac on this committee.

thank you very much. >> thank you very much. any questions? are there any others? begin by stating yoru name. >> i am the president of district six. the coordinating council for three terms. i have served there three years. i represent seniors, disabled, youth, marginalized populations. i would like to continue that work with the cac. i have been a small business owner in san francisco for 25

years. i am 70 years old and am disabled. i was enjoyed -- i was part of luxor cab company. i think there are a lot of transportation needs beyond the marginalized populations. i would like to be used in the further transit needs. >> any questions to mr. smith? thank you, again, for your interest in serving the city of san francisco. mr. haughtman? >> i am delighted to be here before you. i have been active in political groups since 1973 and lived in district six since 1995. i am an active participant in

the good neighbor coalition in the tenderloin. i am the president of the north mission neighbors. by way of a short background, i have a degree in city planning and urban studies. i have been active in the issues around planning and transportation. it would be a great fit for my interests. i look forward to working with you on the county transportation authority. >> is there another applicant? we will post that presentation. we will open it to the public. if anyone would like to speak, come forward. public comment is closed.

if there is a -- there are more applicants than vacancies, it is hard to decide whom to select. from my perspective, each of them would be able to serve district six well. i also believe that as a body, we have to give difference to the city supervisor. i am sure supervisor kim had a good idea. the support is for mr. flanagan and based on that i will support him. can we get a motion? >> motion by commissioner chu. >> we have excellent applicants. i wish we had space for all of them.

i wish there were places for them. i understand our colleague suggested mr. flanagan be the person we consider and we continue to have representation on this body that understands the challenge. i would like to support that motion. >> a motion by david chu. seconded by carmen chiu. can we take this without o bjection? congratulations mr. flanagan. >> city-wide safety effort,s, an action item. >> david chiu wanted an update

on this item. i didn't know if you wanted to add anything. >> if i could preface this. many of us here at the board have been concerned about pedestrian safety. i requested the t.a. do a preliminary analysis related to this. two or more san franciscans are injured every day. -- $280 million were given for pedestrian fatalities. it is difficult to understand who should be responsible. and where can we ensure there is funding? for me, this past week, the

situation is more acute. there were three fatalities in the last week. this is a problem we can't wait to deal with. i want to look forward to a good conversation. >> thank you. tilly chang from planning. this item is on page 23. i will co-present with maria lombardo and timothy poppinger will speak after me. people from dph and other people from mta are here. i will begin. thank you for framing that sovering -- sobering news. the presentation begins with an outline of the pedestrian safety

transit. the overview of the agencies that are active in particular, outline of funding issues. the key needs going forward and the sfmta's presentation. injury collisions, the trend is this is decreasing. the proportion of trips that are not motorized is rising percentage. the city is doing better in terms of reducing the amounts of injuries but the overall traffic safety, we need to focus more on the pedestrians and bicycling communities, involving those travelers. the number has actually risen and this is more troubling,

despite the downward overall trend. we believe that this is actually a result. we believe that this could be the result of more people bicycling. this is really not able to keep up with a new demand, the rising demand for bicycling. and other barriers. implementing the measures to make certain of these conditions. 60% of the fatal collisions -- >> what is the difference between pedestrians and bicycles? >> the difference between bicycles? >> one line says, all of the users, and the others as pedestrians and bicyclists. >> this gumballs motorized transportation. people are on the buses and light trucks.

we can zoom in on the injury collisions involving pedestrians, and people on bicycles. the downward trend to the right, for the bicyclist and pedestrians is very troubling. to understand these trends, in terms of the fatal collisions, the numbers are fairly low. we do have a downward trend, as the number jumps up and down. this is a declining trend, although every fatality is a large tragedy and we do need to redouble their efforts to avoid all fatalities. we will focus on the injury statistics, because the low

number of fatalities is a little bit less indicative of the overall sector. in terms of the injuries and the fatalities, the mayor issued an executive order for new gold to be set. 25% reduction in severe and fatal injuries. and a 50% reduction by 200021. >> massi were these numbers come from? looking at 25% of the injury collision, this is based in terms of what is reported to the police. the reason i ask this, in some parts of the city there are issues involving pedestrians that are not recorded by the pedestrians. >> thank you very much. this is absolutely true. we do not have good integration

from all the sources. this is from the data base of the traffic, that captures the police records. those that are reported and are documented. we have not coordinated all the data from hospitals and health services. and they're also the people who are -- to do not have the information, of what happened. >> we were talking earlier about what happens in the mission, and all those things going forward. >> absolutely. there is a desire to see how we rank compared to the other cities. if there is any measure to make comparisons between the cities,

if we get into how we think that we are doing, there is a variation of the quality and the links of the trips, and a set of characteristics that may vary from city to city, and this affects the interactions between the cities. we do not have a lot of kuwait. ha ha others have how -- or -- our daytime population is different from the daytime population. this population has the international standard of traffic safety. traffic safety. this is higher than london,