chairperson nolan: item 11, we have some speakers on that. >> megan weir, followed by eric brooks. and there is staff who wishes to present to you on the matter. >> good afternoon. i am meghan we're -- weir, here to speak on behalf of the department of public health. my colleague developed the transportation plan and could not be here today and sensor regrets. in 2006, the san francisco bicycle coalition and department of public health were awarded a grant from caltrans. the grant funded community- based transportation planning to create an accessible treasure island. there was meaningful of reach and community participation, focusing on sustainable transit improvements on the island. on 2009, we released a

community-based transportation plan for treasure island. i have brought copies for those who are interested. the plan outlined numerous recommendations for infrastructure and policies for treasure island residents, commuters, and visitors, with an emphasis on building active neighborhoods. many of the planned recommendations have been included in the design for development, including shared public way concepts, new pedestrian routes, and a safe walkway and bikeway on the bay bridge. dpw has become a regular attendee of meetings comprised of multiple city agencies, including the sf mta. dpw has also continued to work to identify implementation opportunities for the strategies

in the final report. these strategies include a street master plan to address intersection and mid-block crossing signs and other safe facilities. we know the creaking safe and functional places for people to walk and bicycle can have a profound impact on health. some details are still being resolved. we recognize the importance of health and transportation planning. chairperson nolan: who is the next speaker? >> eric brooks. chairperson nolan: ahead. this is public comment time now. >> it is standard practice in most commissions for the coming to come after so we can, to what the presentation says. -- so we can comment to what the presentation says. this item is something you should postpone. at this point, the groups a

represent -- green party, our city, san francisco tomorrow, and sierra club -- are all opposing this project. before the environmental impact report came out and during the environmental impact report, which raised serious questions about the claim that this is a transit-oriented development. it is not. it is above one to one parking. it is going to jam up the bay bridge. golden gate transit says it will create queuing on the bridge. it is already at maximum. there are many other problems with this project. but as far as transportation goes, these groups are opposing it because it is a transportation nightmare. the biggest and most important thing, and the reason you should postpone this, is that the financing of the project recently changed in a massive way. it was cut by 20%.

because they are afraid redevelopment funds will not remain because of what the governor is doing with redevelopment, they have switched the financing mechanism for this project to something called infrastructure financing districts. that means a 20% cut in the funding for this project. it is creating a situation where at every hearing staff comes up with a different way to save affordable housing, to do transit. they are running around with -- it around like chickens with their heads cut off. they are not prepared. these changes happened within the past four weeks. you could be putting the mta in serious liability to let this go forward without them figuring out the funding first. chairperson nolan: next speaker. good afternoon. >> point of clarification. our public comments going to be heard today? that is item 9. chairperson nolan: yes.

does anyone else care to address the board on this subject? today, we have an excellent written presentation. you have a question earlier, dr. bridges. do you want to talk about that? vice chairperson lee: we have -- executive director ford: we have staff here that can answer any question. director bridges: my question is the terms of agreement for this project and for mta, and what the jurisdiction was. executive director ford: i would like to ask peter albert from our staff to come up and address director bridges' question related to the term of the agreement and the m.t.a.'s role or authority as part of this project. >> peter albert, mta urban planning initiative. i am happy to answer the questions.

i also have rich hillis from the office of workforce development to can talk about the development agreement. would you mind repeating the question? director bridges: the question was, when i read through the various documents, what are the terms of this project in terms of mta involvement and commitment, if any. what is the commitment during that term? >> thank you. one of the actions being asked of the board today is, through the chair, to adopt the ceqa findings and authorize mta to enter the development agreement and the interagency cooperation agreement. those agreements establish a relationship for the implementation of the development project. it supplies the terms we would work together, the structure between mta services, the memorandums of understanding between treasure island

development authority and transportation management agency and the mta. the basic assumptions about the project, the transportation analysis, is based on projections that include our best effort to design a transportation service plan that could support the island. chairperson nolan: members of the board? do you care for a full presentation? executive director ford: it was presented to the committee. >> they were very thorough in their presentation and address any concerns we had. chairperson nolan: our role this afternoon is to adopt this resolution. is there a motion to do that? is there a second? the ayes have it. >> item 12, approving amendments to transportation code, a division to, by amending to increase parking citation fees,

boot removal fees, fare evasion penalties, equipment fines, disabled parking fines, parking permit fees, traffic permits, residential parking permits, st. closure permits, towing fees, and storage fees, the parking meter rate, and the monthly rate for parking on sf mta property, and amending another section to revise parking permit requirements and privileges. you do have a member of the public who wishes to address you. dawn stroe, followed by barry toronto. >> good afternoon. my name is donald stroh. my challenge is not about the

concept of parking. in the past, where i have been before you -- it is with the transparency of the operations, which continually rebuffed public inquiries. the permit process has been very tangled in my block at 21st street, with a mix of folks both for and against. i feel the sf mta is not revealing certain things. that is the reasoning for tilting some of this. sfmta isn't reminded that all known addresses were supplied to correct errors. by concealing so-called inside information that was expected, but not revealed, this is still

in question in one particular address where i see a conflict of who actually owns the property. thank you. chairperson nolan: thank you. next speaker. >> barry toronto. that is the last person who felt that a speaker card on this matter. >> good afternoon. as you know, the publicity on this item has been tremendous. it has been in the newspaper and on the radio. i don't know about tv. i have some concerns i want to address. first, the impact regarding the stable parking place. if a ramp taxi needs to use a spot to help a person briefly, or to help the person to their residents and back, or to help them with grocery bags because they have a walker, would that penalize the cab driver? this is been brought up in the

past. i am concerned with the increase in the fine, whether it might create more enthusiasm, so to speak, for lack of a better word, on behalf of the pco, to tag even a cabdriver helping a disabled person, whether the cap has a proper permit on the vehicle or not. if you are helping someone using a paratransit card, whether they are in a vehicle helped by such, they are still in a cab they have to take because they cannot get on the bus. i am concerned about that. i want to know if the color cirb urb paying zones would affect taxes, which are now under your agencies. why would you repaint them for an increased cost? you are basically shooting one

hand when the other hand is trying to help. i am a little concerned about whether that would include the taxi zone colors. i am hoping that would exclude that as well. in closing, i do not hear a lot of the public complaining about this. but some of those fees and fines will hit you where you do not want it to hit you. one hand will take from the other eventually. thank you. >> peter whitt, followed by david coppel. >> good afternoon again, board members. native san franciscan. i would like to comment on barry's comments. that would be stopping for a moment to drop off a handicapped person or someone with groceries, double parking. we do that if there is no parking and a heavy load. you want to go straight into a

doorway. he was talking about where that might happen for a cab driver. what about the credit card processing? that is another delay. groceries, handicapped people -- if you are nice, you get out of your cap and you help them in and out of your car. you have limited access to decide what if they are handicapped and in a wheelchair. my comments would be directed toward the parking permit. i got some parking permits the other day in the mail. somewhere down at the end, in big print, we have to move our cars. the residents of san francisco have to move their cars every 72 hours. are you going to really enforce that? seriously? you want to reduce pollution?

we are talking about people in china that breathe our air. this is a small world. it is getting smaller every day. people in new york have acid rain. we are going to contribute to pollution. we are not as bad as them. sonoma is a nice place to live. i think i might move there. but you have to move my car every three days -- are you kidding me? i can play that game. i can be you guys. i can work right around it. but i have to start my car up to do it. chairperson nolan: next speaker, please. david pillpell. >> good afternoon. nice to be back before the board. three comments on this. the ceqa determination is not included in your pockets. i was just provided a very small digital copy.

that was not available for public review, except by appointment, before him. i think that is important to see. this in my opinion is a different project than the approval of fees that was part of the budget. there are new fees included. it is a different scope of review. that item should have been before you, included in the packet, and available to the public. secondly, the analysis that justifies the cost recovery for those fees was also not before you. i think that is important for the public to be able to review that so as to understand the justification for those fees that are cost recovery. finally, on the last page, that refers to muni facilities for those fees the agency seeks to impose on its employees, which i think is unfair and inappropriate. it's still refers to geneva yard as geneva yard. i think that was just renamed in memory of cameron beach.

at minimum, it would be appropriate to amend that section. it might further be a good idea to modify the renaming so it is cameron beach geneva yard. i think that might make it more clear going forward. i would offer those three comments for your consideration. thank you very much. chairperson nolan: members, a motion? director heinicke: these will be pretty basic. first of all, to be clear, because we took it on to make sure that our friends in the building and trades community were notified -- this is not a fee schedule that has -- that had their interest piqued the last time there were before us, correct? we don't need to be concerned that we missed another a rich opportunity. i want to make that clear.

this is not standard parking citations. this is a specific list of things. on more standard parking citations, you and i, and i think all of us together, have moved to an indexed proposal going forward. aren't these specific penalties or citations also going to be subject to indexing going forward? just to clarify, the indexing proposal or indexing policy applies to the broad base of parking citations? no, it does not. >> thank you for the question. we have sort of two buckets of things we can charge the public for. one is indexed. the other is subject to the state vehicle code. the citation is limited to vehicle code language that

applies to all state citations. those we do not index. director heinicke: so for example, for the rpp, we can only do cost recovery. but the broader set of tickets -- an expired meter, that sort of thing -- that is subject to indexing. >> that is subject to the same vehicle code which provides the caps. we are not at the cap yet for some of the citations. we are at others. we could come back before you can recommend automatic indexing for those. but those are also subject to the cap. we can't go beyond the cap. director heinicke: what is the example of the broadest non-cap citation subject to indexing? >> anything to do with transit. the muni pop violation, for example, could be indexed.

that is one of the recommendations that are in here. i misspoke. there are actually three new things that the m.t.a. board did not consider during the budget deliberations. the first is to increase the pop violation on transit. it does not make sense to keep the violation a lower amount than the passes. it creates incentives to violate it. right now, the muni pass violation is at a lower amount than the muni pass. that was not noticed in the budget process. director heinicke: thank you for reminding me of all that. those penalties and fees, which are relatively small, that are not subject to state caps or regulations -- we will have a policy of indexing on that going forward. >> yes. director bridges: i want to be clear, going back to director

heinike's question -- you bet did that with the public? >> this is the public hearing. this was put in the paper and noticed that you had -- that if you have any issues you could come before the board today. that is the process we follow. if the public wanted to be here to speak against the three new fees, they could. i do not think we heard the back on those specific items. chairperson nolan: do we have a motion and a second? all in favor? all opposed? item 13. >> to document traffic on the project for the minna-natoma and silver terrace project. chairperson nolan: no public comment? all those in favor? all those opposed? thank you. >> item 14, regarding capital

programs including the central subway. now members of the public are interested in addressing you. executive director ford: this is a presentation related to our capital investment program. the board has shown some interest in our operating budget. we will bring to use some of these capital projects, because there are literally dozens of them. we have a quarterly meeting with the fta that lasts three or four hours. i will convince these presentations we do and bring them to you so you get updated in terms of our capital program. the people who will be presenting to you is our central subway project manager, followed by project manager for church and dubose. she will be followed by our project manager on islais creek.

>> good afternoon, and directors. i am the central subway program director. as mr. ford indicated, the major capital programs are presented to the federal transit administration region nine deputy administrator on a quarterly basis. the presentation i am about to deliver to you is an abbreviated version of last month's quarterly question patient -- presentation. central subway construction commenced in february 2010, which utility relocation for the station and portal area south of market. the first contract is nearing completion, with the removal of all utilities to accommodate the future station and portal structure. private utility tie-ins and cut overs are currently under way,

with completion projected within three weeks. that is the first contract to be completed. our second relocation contract was awarded on generic 12 -- on january 12 to accommodate for the future market street station. currently, southbound automotive transit on stockton street is limited to buses, taxis, and touring buses. the photographs on the left are the pedestrian walkway barriers on stockton street, designed in collaboration with the union square business improvement district that requires the safety separation between construction, vehicles, and pedestrians, while also providing access to adjacent stores. one of the unexpected surprises during construction is the merchants' positive reaction on how the shopping experience has been remote -- has been improved with the removal of automobile

traffic in spite of the significant construction in the area. the photograph on the right is the demolition of a sub-sidewalk basement vacated for the future contract. you may recall the difficulty we experienced in reclaiming sub- sub what basements in the public right of way. -- sub-sidewalk basements in the public right of way along stockton street. owners were asked to provide us with an abandon space, as indicated in the photograph. that vacated basement space will be converted into a public- private utility vault for the utilities. previously, utilities that existed under the pavement area will be relocated into that basement space. one of the added benefits for the city of san francisco is that the older 75-year-old utilities will be decommissioned and replaced with new, upgraded

100-year design life facilities. here are replaced sewer mains on geary boulevard. this board approved the cooperative agreement on april 5 of this year. the agreement has now been signed by both parties and transmitted to the fta. this third-party agreement satisfies the full funding grant agreement for fta third-party requirements. as most of the central subway alignment exists in the public right of way, acquisition was limited to three underground easements to accommodate underground track alignment, and two properties necessary to construct stations. the chinatown station property terms and conditions have been approved of by the owner and the fta. purchase rectification is expected by the end of this

month. the agency has also begun relocating existing residences and businesses from the existing building, located on the corner of washington and stockton. three residences have been relocated. the fourth residence is expected to be relocated in mid-may. one business has identified a relocation site and is scheduled to move by the end of june. the moscone station property acquisitions have been unsuccessful. if negotiations do not improve, we will be forced to initiate court action to remain on the project schedule. the central subway financial plan before you is comprised of federal, state, and local funding sources. the program has been successful in working with mtc and the transportation authority to provide funding availability with project needs. this board approved the central

subway budget and financial plan, completing another fta grant agreement requirement. central subway has also successfully mobilized its design and construction and management professional services agreements with a full staff working out of the howard project office and the 651 brandon street offices. in addition, a consultant has been brought on board. at the end of january, hill management is staffed and in operation. the program is also looking at acquiring insurance services through an owner-controlled insurance program, and anticipates the procurement decision will be made upon receipt of the tunnel construction bid, scheduled for the end of this month. our largest contract, the tunnel contract, is currently out to bid.

we have experienced significant interest in this contract from around the world and anticipate receiving competitive pricing at the end of this month. we will come to this body in early july, requesting approval to award the contract. our three station design contracts are at the 70% completion level, with 100% completion at the end of this year. the moscone station design has received design approval and union station and chinatown designs will be presented to the commission on may 16. the central subway system design has advanced beyond 65% completion, and has been leading the effort in developing the safety certifiable checklist, working in collaboration with the safety and security department. all program staffing needs have

been met and we satisfy the technical capacity and capability requirements of the fta. this is a program drawdown graph that monitors contingency usage, shown here in purple, and minimum contingency requirements based upon the level of completion, shown in red. like the previous contingency graffph, this monitor is scheduled flow contingency usage, shown in black, and minimum contingency float requirements based upon the program's level of completion, shown in red. thank you. that concludes my presentation. chairperson nolan: very comprehensive. when questioned about the moscone site, you said you were having difficulty coming to an agreement with the owners