supervisor mar: good morning, everyone. welcome to the regular meeting of the transportation authority finance committee. my name is eric mar, the chair of the connecticut i am joined

by sean elsbernd, commissioner malia cohen, and mark farrell, as well. erika cheng is our clerk. we have done the roll call. first, i would like to take a moment to thank charles and jennifer sfgtv for providing access to this meeting. madam clerk, would you please read the first item. >> item number two, approved the minutes of the september 20, 2011 meeting. this is an action item. supervisor mar: is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we move this without objection? thank you. >> item 3, recommend authorizing the executive director to execute a memorandum of agreement with the city and county of san francisco, through the mta, the planning department, and the department of the environment for a three-

year time span, the amount of $434,746 for the san francisco integrated travel demand management public-private partnership project and authorizing the executive director to negotiate terms and conditions. >> i am with the sre. the memo begins on page 9 on your packet. we're seeking authorization for the agreement with the sfmta, department of environment, and planning department for the implementation of the san francisco travel demand management partnership project. this committee in the full board had considered this project and associated items multiple times over the past few months, but i will be happy to answer any questions. the partnership project is a collaboration of the authority and multiple city agencies. it is to assess and coronate policies across the city agencies and demonstrate new approaches for management, program, designed, and delivery through multiple pilot projects.

the authority is the overall project feed for this process, we are administering all the contracts from the regional grants administered to caltrans as well as the prop k funding. the planning department's key roles include policy analysis and assistance with the development of a flexible transportation management association. the sfmta is leading the muni partners pilot component of the project. the department of environment is participating, as they administer tdm activities, and they will play a key role in developing the management program which will lead to the foundation of a local ordinance building upon the state cash out laws as well as local commuter benefit ordinances. it will provide overall project management for the projects, consultants, and coordinate with early studies at the agencies.

we have, since the board last acted, we have been working with partner agencies to clarify the process for project management and reimbursement among the agencies. they will report directly to the authority, and we will be monitoring the budget very closely over the next two and half years. we're now ready to move forward with the memorandum of agreement to formalize all of those issues of the scope and budget and get started with the project. i would be happy to answer any questions. supervisor mar: any questions, colleagues? public comment. would anyone like to speak on this item? mr. da costa. >> supervisors, as the director of environmental justice advocacy, i would like you all to look into the role of the

department of the environment. do a little history. when the power plants were closed and we got $7.3 million, that is when we created the department of environment. they generate their own monies. now if we bring in the department of environment in this type of mutual agreement, working with other agencies, we would like to know exactly what the other agencies do to better transportation and the effects on the environment, not just by making general statements but by having empirical data. we have a tendency to say, you know, we're going to address the carbon footprint. we're going to improve transportation. we are going to improve

congestion traffic, and so on and so forth. in reality, if you look in 19th avenue, if you look at llo ombard street, third street, and market street, the congestion has not improved. and you do not need to be a rocket scientist about that. it is not just about parking, this, that, and the other thing. we're trying to compare san francisco to london and some other places. i travel around and see what happens. but as far as san francisco is concerned, the traffic congestion has not improved. and general statements can be made in any of the presentations, but we need to have timelines, a short time lines, long timelines, where people are made accountable.

and my main thing is this, let's not bring in the department of environment so they can get some funding. that is for the sake of the monies. we want to see practical results. we want to see that it does not impact adversely the environment. [bell ring] some of you are on the quality management district, and some of you are on the mtc, and on other boards. we wanted to get an idea what is happening. but in reality, we need some good stuff to happen at ground zero. thank you very much. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else? seeing none, public comment is closed. we're joined by commissioner jane kim as well. i did have a question of the role of various regional bodies, like the bay area air quality

management district. i understand these are federal moneys coming in from the congestion and air quality improvement funds, but what is the goal of the regional agencies? >> thank you for the question. the regional agencies are very interested. the funds you mentioned are actually program that the regional level by the mtc, and these four programs through the bay area climate initiative, which is looking a pilot projects in a variety of jurisdictions, whether it is school, travel demand management, or electric vehicle networks, or by a share, or in our case, working among the city agencies and with major employers and institutional factors to deliver more flexible tdm approaches and partnerships. we are coordinating with the regional agencies, and i am in touch with mtc on a regular basis. they will watch it as a

demonstration of how they might replicate similar approaches. supervisor mar: thank you. any other questions, colleagues? can we move this forward without objection? thank you. please call the next item. parkside in karcher, recommend seeking that the treasure island development authority board and the san francisco board of supervisors to designate the authority as the treasure island mobility management agency to implement the treasure island transportation program, authorizing the executive director to execute a memorandum of agreement between the authority and tida, and authorizing the executive director to negotiate initial operating contracts and avella timma formation documents with tida for consideration by the authority board by march 31, 2012. >> as you know, the treasure island project was approved by the board of supervisors earlier

this year, in july, and that fantastic milestone now means the project is moving toward the implementation planning phase. earlier this year, around that time, the tida staff, including kelly who is here, did approach us, in coordination with treasure island community development, ticd, and another representative from ticd is also here, alex. the three of us had a meeting regarding the possibility that the transportation authority can play a role in helping to employment a key feature of the project, the implementation of the transportation improvement program. back in 2008 as the overall project was being planned, there was state legislation that authorized the project to implement an innovative travel

demand management project in connection with the supporting treasure island development goals. it was ab 981, and this begins on page 25 in your packet. the features of ab 981 are described on page 26, which allows for the board of supervisors, on the tida recommendation of the board, to designate an agency to serve as a transportation agency for treasure island to allow for sustainable transportation programs, including travel demand management programs, to be implemented in support of their world development goals. these programs would include such things as enhanced transit, bicycling shuttles, alternatives to driving, but also a road pricing component that allows a repeat period tolls to be charged as well as parking pricing to support the overall implementation of the project. the purpose of this item is to

seek your recommendation for approval of a memorandum of agreement that we have outlined starting on page 30 of your packet. we feel that the moa speaks to the potential role of the timma and the role of the transportation and the management association for treasure island, as well as the role of tida, the ticd as partners in this overall effort. we do view this as a very attractive way to build on the partnership that the authority board already has for the treasure island project. it recognizes the work that the authority has done in terms of policy along the lines of the larger congestion area wide study we brought last december. it builds on our role for the region. through the other roles of the authority, including the

transportation sales tax administrator, we can help implement an leverage into various funding streams that could potentially help support the project to build out. primarily, the transportation program is meant to rely on user fees. the user fees and a subsidy that would be available through ticd, starting around 2015, which would be meant to be a pilot to see how those fees could sustain and enhance transit levels, including ferry services as well as muni services that would be funded by those threes. a revenue stream, in addition to the roadside user fees, and the subsidy from ticd through the tida board would be transit pass revenues to offset the costs of ferry and bus services. the cac did pass this unanimously in september.

the tida subsequently considered the item at its october 12 meeting. they passed a resolution improving -- approving the moa with a couple of modifications. these are described on page 28 of your packet and identified -- i believe they are in italicized language in the moa in your attachment. one is to let a new section on the general responsibilities, whereby the staff would make regular presentations to community advisory entity, such as the cab that exists presently, the community advisory board. the second provision would have the ti board making recommendations to the ti mma board during the budget and work program approvals annually. the idea would be for the transportation authority board acting in the capacity of the treasure island mobility

management agency to govern it basically this project and to be able to work with tida board caliber tivoli throughout the implementation phase. in terms of next steps commission this item has said the board of directors, to come back to you with recommendations regarding the formation of this new entity, this new role for the authority, as well as the first-year operating agreements that we would be negotiating an authorized to negotiate through this action by march of next year. with that, i am happy to answer any questions. there are representatives from tida and ticd here as well. supervisor mar: thank you. i did want to say that i think this is a critical entity. timma will have to manage significant increases of people. i think it says that it is 8000 new units of the development. i know supervisor campos

district -- i think i was there three times over the last five days -- i know supervisor kim's district, i have been there three times over the last five days, and knowing how to recall the on and off ramps are and how isolated they are from the bus system, i hope it can be improved for residents and newcomers to the island. i think it is good that the mt tida included transparency. there are frequent breaks as well. i know that hopefully this timma management agency can really be working with the residents as well to make sure it is improving the lives of people that live there. let's open this up for public comment. would anyone from the public like to speak? >> supervisors, as you know, i

am deeply connected with treasure island. early on, when i worked for the presidio, one of the things that we did, we did a general evaluation of treasure island. at that time, one of the key positions of the person that managed treasure island was an engineer, jack swanson, whose fte was paid by the san francisco public utilities commission. some might links with treasure island at every level, this goes way back when. what i find here is mixed signals. right now, there is a site 21, one of the most contaminated sites on treasure island that is undergoing some cleanup. why am i talking about that? i am talking about that because, in general, we know that the san

francisco redevelopment agency has phased out, and we're talking about funding and monies. and with the infrastructure financing district or development, it is something new which brings in less money. we need, we, meaning the constituents, need to get a good idea about how moneys are going to be available to address quality of life issues. we do have a significant number of poor people or, you know, i do not want to use the word -- like indigent, they try to use that in the report, but i say poor people living on treasure island. and we need to have safeguards

that that situation is addressed. because right now, a lot of the people are pushed away from the bayview and go to the tenderloin, and then at some of them should go to treasure island also. anyway, when we are addressing transportation, transportation fits into housing. housing fits into child care. child care fits into groceries and so on and so forth. [bell ring] it is all connected. and we need to get some records, not only on the general level of transportation, but we need to get some reports on some of the factors that i have mentioned. thank you very much. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else? seeing none, public comment is closed. the director -- >> good morning, commissioners. senior director -- just a quick

note to highlight the importance of this item and of the pioneering nature of the effort, and to thank the title folks for their very collaborative approach to reaching what i think it's a very good mou on this. supervisor mar: thank you. supervisor kim. supervisor kim: i am glad to see this moving forward, and i am glad to see the recommendations in spite tida. -- the recommendations by tida. on page 31 under 17, we did negotiate higher than 25%. it says ed least 25%. i believe it is at least 26.5%. thank you. >> we will note that for the final package. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you.

supervisor mar: it has been moved without objection, colleagues. thank you. please call the next item. >> item 5, recommend authorizing the executive director to enter into funding agreements for phase two of the presidio parkway project with the california department of transportation and the golden gate bridge, highway and transportation district and to negotiate agreement terms and conditions. >> good morning. i am the deputy director for capital projects. i will be beginning on page 55 of your packet. the transportation authority is the lead agency in cooperation with the california department of transportation, with the replacement of doyle drive, since the mid-1990s. the project to replace doyle drive was never referred to as presidio parkway and is being delivered in two phases.

phase one is under construction and fully funded. phase two is to be delivered as a public-private partnership. as i will indicate shortly, the request today is to authorize the exhibit a director to enter into our to execute two agreements for funding that implement requirements of the 2008 memorandum of understanding approved by the authority. but the agreements are required to meet some of the documentation requirements of the financial process. the total commitment of funding that the transportation authority for the entire project is in both phase one and phase two is just under $17 million2. the bulk being provided by regional improvement program funds. and the prop k amount is just

under $56 million. i think i have inadvertently gone to the end. just a moment. this chart shows the funding status of phase one, as indicated by the large number of funding sources here. it reflects something i heard a colleague to say at a recent meeting of the california transportation commission, and that is, these days it takes a village to build a project. we seem to need so many friends to provide some funding. a couple of key points here, the federal amount, including a

variety of acronyms that i will not try to remember all of, the public land site way is the first one. the public priority program. there is the upp, the urban planning program. these were all grants that were obtained by the transportation authority. even though these are federal funding, the ta was the lead in obtaining all of the funding. the american recovery reinvestment act provided a substantial amount of funding through the state. the state highway operations and preservation program. again, prop k provided a substantial amount, a little over $32 million for phase one. as i mentioned, the funding agreement we're asking for approval today is needed as part of