thank you. commissioner campos: is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, is there any member of the commission that would like to add anything else? if i may, i simply want to echo the comments from commissioner kim. i think commissioner wiener has demonstrated, in his short tenure on the board, his commitment to public transportation. i think his leadership on that issue is one that has clearly been noticed, at a leadership that recognizes the importance of focusing on individual districts and looking at the whole city. i am very proud of the fact that he and i have a very good working relationship, and i think he will serve this agency and city well. i am very proud to support him. unless there are any other comments, madame clerk, please take a roll-call. >> on the motion to elect

commissioner wiener to vice chair. [roll call] the item passes. commissioner campos: congratulations. mr. vice chair, would you like to add any words? commisioner wiener: thank you for your confidence. i look forward to working with all of you. we have so many challenges in our transportation system, making sure we have adequate funding for muni, implementing the transit affected this project, that we are working with local communities on pedestrian safety improvements, safe routes to school, and other important projects that we take on, and we also have to keep on

working regionally to make sure high-speed rail to the transbay terminal it becomes a reality. i am very excited to take on this additional responsibility and i look forward to working together. thank you. commissioner campos: please, item six. >> item 6. allocate $14,869,901 in prop k funds, with conditions, to the san francisco municipal transportation agency for the central control and communications integrated systems replacement phase 1 project, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule, and amend the guideways 5-year prioritization program. this is an action item. commissioner campos: this is an item that comes from the plans and programs committee. if i could not turn it over to the staff -- now turn it over to the staff. no presentation. before we take action on this, is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? please come forward.

>> commissioners, this is $15 million that you are going to spend on a technology that is supposed to improve our light rail and other systems work. i was surprised, even though this was discussed at the plans and programs, nothing much was said. i suppose everything is in place and that san francisco, in the year 2012, and the mta, have a state-of-the-art communications -- that you are all looking forward to a broadband width that helps

facilitate and eliminate a lot of the accidents that have taken place in the past. you commissioners should know, part of the system has some sound communications. part of the system is still manually operated in the year 2012. the maintenance facility came on board some three years ago. if you commissioners know about it. three years later, this $15 million that was supposed to address the technology, to bring everything on power. i just want to wish mta -- because i know one thing that is good about the mta today is we have a good director in ed reiskin.

i hope that he takes us to a better place with this $15 million. thank you very much. commissioner campos: is there any other member of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam clerk. roll-call. >> [roll call] the item passes. commissioner campos: thank you. unless there is an objection, i would like to call item eight, out of order. >> item 8. reprogram $4.846 million in 2010 congestion management agency block grant funds from the department of public works' second street streetscape project to the cesar chavez streetscape project, the second street sfgo signal upgrades

project and the market/haight street transit and pedestrian improvements project. this is an action item. commissioner campos: colleagues, this is an unusual item coming before the commission without having gone to committee. normally, i do not believe in making that practice, but as i understand it, we have a very short deadline that has to be taken into consideration. unless that deadline is met, there is a possibility of losing that funding. nevertheless, i do have comes -- some concerns. we are talking about an action that involve millions of dollars being taken. i know, at some point, we will hear from commissioner jane kim, because this is happening in her district. before we do that, i want to turn it over to mr. milosevic to briefly -- milosevic --

moscovich to briefly tell us by the item did not go through the committee process and what community involvement there has been around this item. >> thank you, commissioners. jose moscovich. in june 2010, the authority board approved the recommended programming of $4.8 million in federal surface transportation funds to the department of public works for the project on second street, which was under the second street streetscape project. this was included as part of the management agency block grant program, a new program created by mtc in the last year and half. the scope of the project involves improvements to second

street from market all the way to king street. this includes street resurfacing, bike lanes, traffic infrastructure improvements, trees, and pedestrian safety improvements that are very much being asked for, particularly between bryant street and king streets. i should clarify, the bike lane portion of the project was something that raised a level of community controversy. in fact, when the mta board approved the environmental report, this was the only project that was not approved by the board.

we fully expected the project was moving forward, but recently, we were approached by the department of public works with a piece of additional intermission, that due to community opposition, the project would not proceed in its current form. the glitch is these federal funds have a timely use requirement that needs to be met, or we may jeopardize the use of the funds in san francisco, essentially losing them. the bind we are in right now, the department of public works, in partnership with the mta, have come to us with suggestions for three projects for which this money could be reprogrammed. of course, when we are talking about reprogramming money to

safeguard it, we are talking about projects that are designed, environmentally cleared, and can absorb the money in some fashion. the project's proposed to receive the money include the cesar job as streetscape project. the second street sfgo signal project and the market/haight district improvement process. essentially, we have assurances from both the parliament that those departments can observe the money within the time like we have. the time lines are a bit extreme right now. the main report we have is that these federal funds need to be certified for obligation -- the technical term for the funds -- by caltrans. the deadline for having the fall

design packet is february 1. in other words, tomorrow. believe me, this is not the kind of the item that i enjoyed bringing to the board. this should have been an item that was caught many months ago and brought to them normal committee process so we are not putting you in a position to essentially take action on this under these circumstances. caltrans, however, needs to ensure funds are obligated by april 30. to get from april -- february 1 to april 30 is already a stretch. if the departments will have a chance to save the money, the need to make their sub metals tomorrow. understand there is justified concern by the board, by the commissioners representing the district in particular. my main concern, in addition to

the process issue -- when you realize this amount of money is reprogrammed, you are the policy body that decides where that money goes to. you should have choices, which you do not have today, but for the sake of saving the money, i will suggest the following. the money could be reprogrammed to the projects mentioned in the subnittal, presented by the two departments involved, and we need to have a discussion about how the second street project can be made ready, incorporating community concerns, and how we are going to make sure the funding for the project is found. some of the funds, about half of what we need to complete the second street project, could come from funds out of the cesar job as project, which would be a door but this federal money and

freeing up an equivalent amount. i would further suggest there is money that can be programmed to this project subject to discussion from this board by the new vehicle registration fee fund collected in san francisco since last april, which generates about $5 million a year. i repeat, this is not an ideal situation. my main concern right now is to have clarity, in terms of what the process needs to be, but also to save the funds being lost to san francisco. i know there are representatives from the sfmta and dpw. they can represent the concerns of the community. we are ready to answer any questions you have for us. commissioner campos: monday that was not clear was -- one thing that was not clear was by what date does this body to act to protect these funds?

>> in theory, we should have action today in order to allow the other departments to make a submittal tomorrow of design documents necessary for the obligation of funds. however, i am fairly certain the department can make a sunbelt contingent based on future board action that could take place at a future meeting. i also want to warn you, because this is federal money, the funds need to go into an amendment of the transportation improvement program at mtc. that amendment would be considered by the mtc at its committee level on february 8, and that the full commission on february 22. we can probably put the wheels in motion in terms of submittals pending a detailed

review and action by the sport at a later date. however, because of the mtc action on february 8, we consider a special meeting next tuesday, the seventh, to have action ready to report to the mtc. commissioner campos: it would be helpful to hear from the department of public works. is there ever presented a from the department of public works here? >> good morning, commissioners. i did not catch your question. commissioner campos: how is it that we got to this point that we are talking about the potential to lose millions of dollars and are asking for approval from this commission at the very last minute? i know that commissioner kim has

specific questions >> of want to echo the director's comments. this is not an item that we are happy to bring to the commission today. we spent six months tried to overcome an environmental her role on the project before we initiative conversations about design. there have been some issues with this project from the beginning, not just the community -- the lack of community support. while we are sad to see we will not be able to continue, at least the implementation of the project now, we want to let you know we have a plan to move forward in the planning process with the community, and hopefully, supervisor kim's office to initiate process to implement second street. we need to repave that street. that was the primary element of the project that brought together the bike component,

the streets kit components. it was on the table schedule. the mta and the dpw have both created a plan. the mta have prop k allocation requests that will be heard, i believe, at next month's cac to continue the bike planning. we are creating a plan to move second straight forward. commissioner campos: commissioner jim? commissioner kim: i did not catch your name. >> simone jacque. commissioner kim: i just want to say, i am extraordinarily upset about how this is coming to us. i have a number of questions. who owns the community of reach for the project? who owns that portion of this work? >> dpw and mta should be doing

that together, in terms of the bike components. to our knowledge, -- commissioner kim: why was the last meeting in 2009? why has there been a hold on two years on community outreach, and for this item to say there is community opposition, how do we know, if we have not had a meeting for two years? >> i cannot speak to the bike planning -- commissioner kim: when this comes to us today, why months ago, nobody said we need to read gauges the community in this process? we knew we had to meet the deadline on february 1. where did things fall apart? our office has never been informed we were about to lose $4.8 million for this project. had we have known, we would have held these committee meetings. second street is one of our top

priorities in the district. how often does this happen? how often do the projects fall apart because multiple agencies to oversee it and then nobody takes responsibility until the week before we lose funding? >> this is the first time coming to the commission with a request like this. i will let mta address the bike planning. >> commissioners, jonathan with the mta. to your questions, all of you are wondering, how did the project get to this point? this grand opportunity, the source of funds allow the mta and dpw to work together to complete a number of streetscape projects, which is in the interest of the city. what happened was, to get directly to your question, this project was built on a number of different planning process cheese. one was the bike plan. there was an injunction, so we

did not move forward. there were concerned with the left turn associated with the striping of the project. after the injunction ended, we try to move it forward to an environmental phase, and this grant came up. that is where we tried to put a package of improvements together. since then, the concerns have arisen again and we have tied it to paving, signal improvements along the corridor and streetscape improvements. the second street project will not die, by any means. the signal component, the sfgo -- commissioner kim: i understand the challenges of second street, whether there are community concerns around bike parking, the loss of parking lanes, spots, but for two years, nobody held a community meeting. how does that happen? >> i think part of it was the injunction. commissioner kim: when was that

listed? >> good morning. christina. i am an engineer with the mta. the injection was listed in 2010 -- injunction was listed in 2010. i think it was one year after the last committee meeting. we proceeded with the bicycle plant project that had already been legislated. there was a package of 45 products that went through legislation, approved by the board, and the focus and our office was implementing those. second street had not been legislated along with those other projects, so it was not implemented. because staff was focused on implementing those, we did not have a chance to have a community meeting. commissioner kim: how do you prioritize federal projects that are lent to grants? >> we began the process in 2010,

received the funds in the fall of 2010. we wanted to hold a community meeting. the issue was our hands were tied by the grant requirements, and that the grant was for design and construction and did not provide money for planning. we did start looking for money to do planning, it took us longer than expected. that is how we got to where we are today. commissioner kim: how did we apply for a grant for a project we did not have planning funding for? how is second street the only product of this has happened to, with all the money tied up in the block grants? they had planning funding but this was the only one we did not make plans for? >> there were numerous projects as part of the block program funded. this was one of them. i will be honest. pre-development funding, the money your talking about to do community outreach, does not

have long-term construction funds, always a challenge for the dpw and mta. we lined up the construction funds, used a portion of it to try to do that community outreach, but there are limitations on those funds as to how far we can go, especially with major concerns. commissioner kim: if we got the funding in late 2010, the cma block grant, realized we did not have funding for planning and community outreach, why was not that -- why wasn't that flag to anyone? how long is the community -- out ridge time line? what is the proper time when to get an outline drawing? community outreach to final product design drawing, which should be submitted by february 1. if we go backwards, when should that have begun? >> one year before the deadline.

commissioner kim: why weren't we informed that this was an issue -- i just do not understand what i'm finding about this today. in september, when caltrans requested an historical project survey, we should have known even then that there would be no final project drawing. or they should have been working on them at the same time simultaneously with the hopes that by december we would get environment clearance, which is what happened. now a month later we do not have any drawings to submit. >> you are absolutely correct. lessons learned. it is all of our responsibility to notify each of you when we see there is a potential risk to the project. as simone said, there were some risks with the trenching, historic preservation issues. we should have fled the that to your office, and you are correct. in the future, -- this is a very unfortunate situation and we are

trying to preserve the funds to the best of our ability and trying to proceed with second street. we should have informed your office, you are correct, when we knew there were issues. commissioner kim: i am upset because of second street, this corridor, which is a huge part for us. when the call the hearing of pedestrian safety in april, this is one area that we talked about. at that point, we could have been notified of this may not move forward. we could also the community outreach, which i have not heard about this corridor. over all, i have larger questions. if this happened to this project, it can happen to other projects in other districts as well. what kind of process will we have in place when we have multiple agencies overseeing projects, to make sure that this does not happen again? >> in the near term, what we can do is, we are going to come

forward with an allocation request from prop k to foley request that planning phase. we should come to your office to brief you on that for what the steps and someone will be. we are trying to time it for near-term funds, the one bay area grant coming up in one year, and recently, the proposition be straight -- b street project. we can talk to you about the planning phase, mature office is involved in that, scheduled meetings to make sure we are talking with the right people, and working with your office to fully fund the project. commissioner kim: i apologize for taking up so much time on this item, but i would like to see a plan for funding, timeline of when this will get done. also, i want to have a better understanding of processes like this so that this does not happen to another major project. to me, there is a huge gap in

communication. this morning, everyone was blaming someone else for not being notified. months ago, we should have flagged ths. this should not happen to any other project again and there should be a way to set up a structure that this does not happen. whether we have a master document and all agencies can see -- this is the deadline for the millions of dollars we have tied to this project, and a backboard calendar step of how we will get there. how do not understand why every project does not have that timeline, to meet funding deadlines. commissioner campos: commissioner olague? commissioner olague: this was just brought to my attention a week ago. i was happy to support it for fear that we would lose the funding.

disappointed to hear that supervisor kim was just informed about this this morning. in the past, i have worked with the residents in the ring, hallett area. one of the issues that keeps coming up -- rincon hill area. one of the issues that keeps coming up is a lack of infrastructure in that part of the city. these funds will be reallocated to cesar chavez, haight and market. i am wondering, how were these prioritized? who made the decision to reallocate those funds to these two projects? commissioner campos: mr. moskowitz. -- moscovich.

>> if you vote on this today, you will be making the decision. that is the problem i have with this. you are given only one chance to vote. the reality is, when an item is displayed and urgent, it is often times are defined projects ready to absorb the money. that is the issue. at least the cesar chavez project could absorber parts of these funds and release other funds. that was a product that was already fully funded. it essentially creates a bit of movement of different kinds of money, and that becomes available to go back into the second street project, but does not account for the full cost of the project, which is also but i mentioned earlier on. if i may, to commissioner kim's concern about making sure this concern about making sure this does not happen again, how we