supervisor wiener: welcome, everyone. i will call this meeting to order. this is the san francisco transportation finance committee. i'm the chairman and to my left is commissioner carmen chu, to my right is vice chair erik mar, and i expect the others will be here shortly. why don't we call item no. 2? >> approved of the march 13, 2012 meeting. >> is there any public comment on item number two? can we take that without objection?

we will defer item #3 until the appropriate person is here. could you call item no. 4? >> recommend authorizing the executive director to execute a memorandum of agreement with the san francisco municipal transportation agency and planning department in the amount not to exceed $81,000 for the 19th avenue transit quarter investment study. >>supervisor wiener: commissionr david chiu has joined us. >> this is a request to enter into a memorandum of agreement with other agencies for the 19th avenue transit quarter. this will focus on the ocean view line and shifting it from the median to the west side of the street.

this study will look at related pedestrian and bicycle improvements and also look at potential transit connections from the 19th avenue area. the studies total budget is about $480,000 to be funded by a $300,000 grant from the california department of transportation that we won earlier last year. there will be a local match. the transportation authority has private partners that will be contributing to this study for a total amount of $90,000. san francisco state university and these downtown gallery a mall have pledged to contribute money as part of the local match. that leaves about $100,000 for the remainder of the local match. this study is in its startup phase and staff has been bringing needed action items to the board for approval that

includes the appropriation i just talked about that was approved in november of 2011 by a resolution and also, in february of this year, we brought a contract award that was later approved. this request is for a memorandum of agreement to transfer funds to the transportation agency and planning department 4 their participation in this study. we will be looking to them providing about $60,000 to help review the light rail design alternatives that we would be generating in the study and look at light rail and bus operational aspects of the study. we will be looking to the planning department to

coordinate with the steady and we understand these downtown galleria mall is interested in doing improvements to its site and we will be asking the planning department to coordinate that work. >> i used to take union and i could see how moving it to the center lane would be a big improvement. but i had a big improvement of the private institutional partners. how much are they contributing? how much? >> they are contributing about $90,000 in total. >> there was a briefing on the item and it was supported nine- one.

outreach will be a part of this study. it is not in this scope of work to provide the scope planning to participate. we do plan to provide outreach the study. we have indicated we will provide the outreach scope at a later date. just to conclude, we are seeking a recommendation to enter into themoa. supervisor chu: what are the boundaries on 19th avenue? is it the entire corridor or only around parker said? >> it extends north to about eucalyptus drive and down south to the county line. we are looking at the portion that carries an ocean view to the light rail line.

supervisor chu: in terms of the area is bounded by where ocean view would change, are you going to be doing impact on the key intersections? it may not be the entire corridor but something that is transferrable going north? >> we would be looking at a steady of the intersection where there may be a potential impact from doing anything to the intersections along 19th ave. >>supervisor chu: so that could extend for the north? >> yes. supervisor wiener: is there any public comment on item number four? please approach. >> this agenda item is very important to many students who live and work around the state

university. what we need it decides what the cac member has stated is qualify input from senior citizens and those with disabilities. right now, when you take the light rail and it stops by the state university, the state university, because we fought for it for a long time has made arrangements for people that are challenged to be taken from one spot to the other. we need to see that similar arrangements are made when this track is moved to where it has to be moved. as the cac member, i am going to state let's not put this type of adjudication in the hands of the planning department.

whatever is stated here, the land use, i don't know who is in charge of the land use that knows about such things, we need to get the university students involved because that is going to impact them drastically. if it does not benefit them, they cannot afford to spend more money on transportation. they are already burdened with tuition. there is going to be a demolition of a large area in the park merced. we need the input from the commercial sector because they stand to benefit. basically, we need more input from the grassroots constituents who take public transportation. i take public transportation. when you take public transportation and want to take

public transportation, very few people will come here because they don't have their time and they don't want to waste time. we have to make every effort to take concrete matters, to have outreach to the university students. [tone] to the people who lived around park merced and other residents impacted who will be linked to 1970. this is very, very critical. the supervisor is not here, but maybe he is listening to it. he should conduct some community meetings to add to the impact. thank you very much. supervisor wiener: is there any further public comment?

seeing none, public comments is closed. without objection, that will be the order. we will now go back to item no. 3. >> item #3, state and federal legislative update. this is an action item. >> good morning, commissioners. and the deputy director for policy and programming at the authority. i'm going to quickly give you a status update on the federal legislative program and i will introduce juanita martinez to speak to the state legislative program. since the last finance committee meeting, the president signed a 90-day extension of the service transportation program. no changes from current law. it extends the bill through june 30, 2012. june 30 is likely the last date prior to the november elections

that congress can realistically complete a multi-year bill. , we bump up against the summer recess and follow -- following that, we bump up against the summer recess. then congress returns from recess which goes until april 16 and the senate has already passed maps 21 which with a two- year bill and now it's more like a 15-month bill to take the transportation program to the end of fiscal year 13 and the house has yet to pass a bill and will be in deliberations as soon as that returns from recess. with that, i will turn the podium over to juanita who can talk about the bills we are recommending support for in this current rocket which begins on page 13 on the legislative matrix. >> sorry for my tardiness.

traffic from sacramento is a bit much today. supervisor wiener: it's ok. there is a lot of party is going on today. >> i would like to direct your attention to the matrix which was recently amended to require the representative on the mpc to be a citizen of san francisco. this will grant san francisco 3 slots which will be on par with the alameda and santa clara counties. we are recommending support on ab57. onto the second bill on page 8 of your matrix, we are also recommending a watch on this bill. this bill authorizes this transfer of the inner-city rail service from caltrans to a new jpa which would be similar to

the capitol corridor trains. then ab1780 on page 9 of your matrix, we recommend a support position on this. this bill requires caltrans to fund project reports for local funding projects on state highway system, specifically the project initiation document. this is a self-help bill to maintain caltrans funding and we recommend support on this bill. the next bill is ab1950 on page 9 of your matrix. there also recommending a support on this bill which permits 10% of state grants to schools to be expended on hard infrastructure in addition to bus shelters. this would include grants for

sidewalks and pedestrian walkways and bikeways. the next bill is ab2147 on page 9 of your matrix and we recommend a support position. and this bill was recently amended to enhanced penalties for violations of our railroads and fixed guideway crossings and would allow a revenue increase to allow safety and other measures that are needed. the next bill is on page 12. we are recommending a watch position. this allows unfolding like carrot -- carriers and for the transit buses that would otherwise violate bus lane laws. this was introduced at the transit agency. we are recommending a watch position right now. we believe muni might want to get an amendment later on to add themselves into the bill but this would occur later in the process.

the next bill is sb1189 on page 16 of your matrix. we recommend a support built -- support position on this bill. this would appropriate $543 million in connectivity funds for allocation of project list. part of this strategy is to overturn prior administration opposition to using funds for projects like bart and vehicle replacement in the central subway. next is sb120, which is a runner bill on page 17. we recommend you drop this from the matrix. there was language taken that no longer makes this bill applicable to transportation matters. sb1721 on page 19, we are also recommending you drop from the matrix. this no longer deals with transportation matters affecting san francisco.

sb1380, we are recommending a watch position. this is the attempt by senator rubio foresee "reform. we're not sure how this is going to play out that this is one of the -- for ceqa reform. the next bill is on page 19 of your matrix and we are recommending a drop from your matrix on this bill. no longer deals with transportation matters affecting san francisco. the last bill we have is sb1545 which is on page 19 of your matrix. we are recommending a watch position on this bill. prohibits mtc from the pursuit of new building sites in san francisco until after an audit is submitted by the state

auditor general. after the completion of the audit, as the mark -- a report would be submitted. we are recommending to watch this bill as it may impact your position later on, depending how it moves forward. supervisor wiener: this is about the headquarters move? >> right. >supervisor wiener: why would we not take a position on this? >> we want to get a better idea of what they want to do with it. timing wise, we think they may be moving ford in purchasing the building prior to the legislation. supervisor wiener: the building has been purchased and it's about spending money and it would prohibit the expenditure of money to effectuate the actual move and improvements of the building. i don't understand why we would not oppose it. i think it would send an odd

message if san francisco were not in opposition to this bill. >> we do say mtc will be moving to the process and will probably be in the building before this bill gets through the process. supervisor wiener: the bill could be moot because the audit will be complete in the next few months, but it is still a very concerning bill. it is not a pro-san francisco bill. the senator -- we are working with him on a number of things and he's a terrific senator. but on this particular issue, i do not think san francisco is on the same page as the senator. >> we had it as watch because it is a policy called. we want to send a strong message to the senator or see if it just

fade away. supervisor wiener: my personal view is that we should switch it to oppose. supervisor mar: i support opposing it as well. supervisor wiener: i'm sorry i interrupted you. maybe we can do a motion to amend. what was the number of that bill? >> sb1545 on page 19. supervisor wiener: is there anything further from staff? is there any public comment on item number three? >> i was going through this agenda item and i went through

63 + agenda items. we're not taking a stand on all of them, but mentioned as part of the agenda, what i see here is the constituents of san francisco must have access to the detailed information. i don't know how many of you go to sacramento, but when they go to san francisco, they don't give an opportunity to the constituents to deliberate as they do here. what they do well over there is they have this booklet that gives you all the information, whatever you want to and then there are point of contacts. everyone has a point of contact where you can get added information. there was one item that i saw

called aca4 and it speaks to california law prohibits the ad velorum tax rates on real property from exceeding 1% of the cash value of the property. some people want to make changes that will add another 1%. this is just one of the mend the agenda items here. we have a -- one of the many agenda items we have here. we have a tendency to make some statements on one or two what favors us, mostly mtc and mta

agenda items, but we don't really favor the constituents of san francisco. this finance committee must do a better job. i want to come here every time because i don't want to waste my time. i only come here when i see there is some important thing to do. i did talk to the secretary and she told me i think she means something different but she means well by saying there is some summary. [tone] but that does not bode well for those who are really interested in any agenda item or any legislation that impact the constituents of san francisco. we do have astute constituents in san francisco, but they do not have the time to be provided the materials. we need to focus on providing the booklet that contain all the information. thank you very much. [tone] supervisor wiener: is there any

further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to amend item 32 taken opposing position to sb1545? can we do that without objection? is there an item -- a motion to move item 34 without objection? that will be the order. can we call item no. 5? >> recommend authorizing the executive director to execute a memorandum of agreement with the san francisco minutes will transportation agency in an amount not to exceed $65,000 for the ballpark station area circulation study. this is an action item. >> this item starts on page 45 of your packet. there is an attachment that describes the scope. this is a request to enter into a memorandum of agreement with the san francisco transportation agency for the balboa park

circulation study. the balboa park circulation study is a planning study that will be exploring changes and improvements to circulation around balboa park station, particularly the interchange at ocean avenue. the study will look at the feasibility of making changes to the ramps and rearranging the station function. the study will also provide for a new ballpark citizens community advisory committee that it was actually created by the board of supervisors in february of this year and i believe they're accepting applications at the moment. this study is -- the budget is $325,000, funded by grants from the california department of transportation, caltrans. there's a local match also involved in the study in the amount of $65,000. this study is also just at the

beginning stages and we have been bringing other action items to the board for approval in the past few months, including that appropriation in the amount of $65,000 in december of 2011 and a contract award brought before this committee in february of this year which was approved as resolution 12-35. this request is for it and moa to transfer funds. we will be looking to provide the stacking support for the balboa park cac, putting together the agenda is and putting together the amendments. we also expect potential changes to the interchange to a local street network and station functions as we described, as we

will be looking at in the study. the cac was briefed on this item and it supported the motion with a vote of 9-1. the dissenting member indicated a desire to address community input, including on the scope itself. we have noted to him that we cannot be given thecac until moa is approved. it is flexible in how the support is provided and how the public in foot is given. -- public input is given. we have noticed the grant received some letters of support from the community itself, including from the office of supervisor avalos. we will be providing that information. there will be out -- provided in

addition -- there will be out breach provided using consultants to plan and facilitate public meetings. the scope is just about what we will be providing sfmta for its recommendation. we're seeking a recommendation for authorization to enter into thismoa. supervisor wiener: colleagues, any questions? any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we move that the word without objection? item #6. >> recommended that award of the two-year consulting contract with option to extend for an additional one-year time frame to parsons printer off. this is an action item. >> and the deputy director for

technology services. this item starts on page 55 of your packet. this item 6 a recommendation to award a two-year contract to on called modeling technology services. i know you did see anyone from technology services often here at city hall so i thought i would provide some background on what we actually do. our work provides the background for a lot of the technical analysis as presented by authorities here irresponsible for figuring out the analysis that would help planners, a decision makers and the public answer questions. we evaluate specific programs such as finding answers to questions like how many vehicle trips will a ingestion improvement shift to other roads? how many people ride transit? how many more people will riot muni and the impact of the

transit sustainability feet. how various centers perform along a selection of performance metrics? one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gases in the transportation sector? we calculate key user metrics to evaluate all new starts and fresh start projects and we are involved in the subway projects and help the planning department evaluate various projects. the main analysis tool we use is the official transportation san francisco model. this has been developed with the help of our consultants. a pretty round by national and international experts. we of five published papers in peer review journals this year that describes or utilize the work we have done. i want to emphasize we are continuing to develop this model to take advantage of the latest data and computing pow a