i am wondering if we do not schedule anything so we can keep our community meetings. the commander will let us know. i was looking to make sure about is ok. >> how about july 18? >> i am not available then, and i want to personally be there. the idea was to give us the time off, and i do not see why we would not meet rigorous -- we would not meet. >> i do not have anything to schedule, but i would like to request we also use this time to share with each other if there

is going to be an upcoming meeting. it is not that we can all go rushing into the chief's office to talk about certain ideas, but i also have a few ideas i would like to discuss, and i would be glad to pass my questions on to you, so maybe we can use that time to announce what is going to happen and we can all share information or questions we might houshave. >> the chief said he likes meeting with us. >> i actually do. >> he likes meeting with you, not me. >> we now have public comment on items 3a, b, c, and d. >> i am the director of san francisco open government.

i am going to be looking forward to the report you put out on general orders, because the last two times i noticed some of the general orders have been in revision for years, and sometimes several roll overs of the commission had occurred, and they are still being revised. that puts a lot of people in a bad position. you have people constantly changing. i think it puts the officers in an awkward position of having to figure out what the law is and what the regulations are, because even though this part of it has changed or that part, that is going to accumulate commo, and it becomes a rubric f trying to figure out what is the regulation now, and that puts

them in an awkward position. i will be honest. i find this report very unsatisfying, because they are simply numbers. we are dealing with people involved, and simply saying we opened x number of cases does not tell anything except what we process cases. four years ago i put in my complaint. i heard absolutely nothing until i got a letter saying not substantiated. goothat was the extent of it. i was asked if i wanted to partake in the arbitration. i said i have some questions

here again i said what happened if the arbitration does not go well. i said what is the officer does not show. i said this before, and it seems rather odd he would ask somebody to enter into an arbitration were one of the parties can refuse to come. i really think someone being asked to enter into mediation were the other party has the option of not even participate in, and if they enter into it, that is the end of the process for them, that is an unreasonable position to put a citizen in, and i wonder why anyone would want to enter into mediation under those

circumstances. but any further public comment? please call the next item. >> line item 5 vote on whether to hold item 6 in closed session. public comment? >> we are about to move into closed session for several disciplinary matters for the bill of rights and the supreme court case. any objections? any public comment? all in favor? >> aye. >> we now move into closed session. a question when this is all over. secretary: president mazzucco,

we have a quorum. president mazzucco: may we have a motion to not disclose? commissioner: i adjourn. -- i motion. president mazzucco: next item. secretary: adjournment. commissioner: i move that we adjourn. president mazzucco: we are adjourned. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

commissioner campos: good morning.

" to been meeting of the transportation authority. my name is david campos. i am the chairman of the transportation authority. >> [roll call] we have a quorum. commissioner campos: thank you. also want to thank the members of sfgtv staff. please call item 2. approval of the minutes of the april 24, 2012 meeting. >commissioner campos: is there

anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, this is an action item. actually, [roll call] -- roll call. >> [roll call] the item passes. commissioner campos: thank you. please call item 3. >> chair's report. this is an information item. commissioner campos: thank you. as i have indicated in prior meetings, we are working on a number of items, right now

focusing on what is happening at the federal government and in specific, in congress, on a number of bills that are pending before the house of representatives in the u.s. senate. one of the things we are trying to figure out is what will come out of the congress, and there is a great deal of uncertainty in terms of the federal funding of public transportation. that only underscores the importance of state and local funding of public transportation. as you know, in terms of what is happening in the region, the metropolitan transportation commission and commission of bay area governments recently approve the preferred land use and transportation investments in error for the regional transportation plan and sustainable community strategy. this was truly an historic moment which creates a, for the first time, the region's first

sustainable community strategy, as required by state law, senate bill 375. the person they're concentrates 70% of the region's four test jobs and population growth over the next three decades into development areas encouraging patterns of growth that make transit use, walking and cycling, more viable options for more people here in the bay area. we are very proud to have been a part of that process. a lot of work went into that effort, not only by san francisco, but also by the rest of the region. i am also proud to note, one of the good things that happened was, there was a commitment that discretionary funding be focused on high priority projects that san francisco has, including caltrain

electrification, van ness station, brt, among others. i want to thank my office and the office of supervisor wiener in what they have done for helping to make that happen. i know that it was important for san francisco to play an active role. i also want to thank the san francisco commissioners of abag that also made sure that our considerations were taken. i also want to thank the mayor's office who also played an important role in making sure that our concerns were taken into account. we also saw the introduction last week of an ordinance to put into place the transportation system of it -- sustainability program.

we are going to make sure that we continue to monitor that the first. -- that effort. with respect to the transportation authority, we are continuing to hear directly on the various types of projects and work being done on a district by district level. i think the presentation from staff and the various agencies working on projects in each one of the 11 districts is something that i have found useful. my hope is, beyond the individual discussions of what is happening at each one of the districts, that this can lead to a larger discussion about how we, as a city, can work together in a more efficient and collaborative way, and how we can maximize the coordination of the various city agencies to make sure that not only are these projects delivered on time, but in the most caught --

cost-effective way. i look forward to working with all of you. that concludes my report. is there any public comment? please come forward. >> chair, i have been listening to you very closely ever since you assumed the role of the chair. i know that you cannot address someone personally, but in this case, i think i should. talking about transparency and accountability. could i have the overhead please? we see as much as the transportation authority talks about what ever they talk about, san francisco is ranked third worst in the nation. this does not mean that we do

not have the ability to think outside the box and do better, but we have to stop painting a rosy picture. stop painting a rosy picture. to some of you that i trust, i sent you an e-mail regarding some agencies and entities that wanted to erase a five years worth of e-mails linked to the high speed of light rail. there again is about transparency and accountability. i have faith in you, mr. chair, as i have known you for a very long time, and i do keep in touch with you from time to time, and i admire what you do. i watched you at budget sessions, here in the chambers, at the committee meetings.

you bring your experience, having worked for the san francisco unified school district, and other places, and you represent district 9 well. so i am proud of you, and i hope that you cast a shadow, one that is bright enough, where there is documents, there may be light. commissioner campos: thank you. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam clerk, please call item for. >> executive director's report. this is an information item. >> good morning, commissioners, maria lombardo. i will be brief, highlighting primarily some upcoming community of reach. i do want to follow on a few remarks that the chair just made.

we are still in limbo about a federal surface transportation bill. unlike our committee, the conference committee that has been set up is having its proceedings in secret, so there is not much information available. senator boxer is chairman of the committee and said that they have until the first of june to come up with a compromise. we are keeping close tabs on that. when we get information, we will be able to see how it affects san francisco. the governor released some worsening news on the state budget deficits, which has grown significantly, primarily due to lower than anticipated revenues. on the transportation side, the news has not then as bad as it could have been. the loan proposal that could have affected transportation right now is to transfer some of the off-road diesel fuel revenues. this is permissible, according to the fuel tax swap.

it does impact transportation because it means less revenues are available, but we do not know much more than that. there are no details of the things that we care about, such as the state level of assistance. one piece of good news is a recommendation for $700,000 to caltrans to provide better coordination on the blended rail services and high speed rail in northern california. i will follow on the chair remarks in terms of the action that the mtc and abag just recently took on. it is true historically number of fronts and over all we did quite well. but i think seventh of the 12 -- seven of the 12 projects that we saw supported received funds. there was also more money directed to the one bay area

grant where we get more money for transit enhancement, and there were definitely some disappointments, like the proposal to set first priority for the $660 million reserve of new and small start funds, going primarily to the north and east bay. a few of coming out reach things to draw your attention to. on the geary corridor brt study, there is targeted outreach, plant community meetings in the various neighborhoods on june 24, 25, and 26. there is more information at our website. on the bridge replacement project, we have been working closely with commissioner cohen's office. this is a caltrans own the bridge that needs to be replaced due to its age. if we replace it, we do not want to preclude it pay feature of

pocono station. we are working to evaluate, and do our due diligence on the options available for cost and feasibility. we anticipate coming back to the pants and policy committee at the july meeting. caltrans is holding a public information meeting on thursday may 24 on changes they have done to slow boulevard. this has been a road diet, reducing traffic lanes, improving pedestrian and bicycle and safety. that is at the san francisco zoo, if anyone is interested in attending. commissioner campos: thank you. we have a question from commissioner olague. commissioner olague: i'm wondering what the seven projects you were referring to. >> i will give you some of them. the van ness brt project. you the effect of this project. -- van ness effectiveness

project. commissioner campos: we have a question for commissioner mar. commissioner mar: thank you. many of us were at the mtc/abag meeting. the positive things are really great, and i and whether you enologist them, but could i ask you about the impact of the decision to prioritize north bay and east bay for the new small starts funding and how that will impact the van ness brt or geary brt project? >> that i think the dust is still settle in on this, but for the benefit of the public, for those who may not have been watching, there are $660 million in the regional transportation

plan that was set aside for yet to be determined new or small start projects in the region. in the past, it has been important to get the seal of approval from the mtc, to say this is a regional party. it helps our delegation in washington. traditionally, this was a focus on the major rail extension. when the game changer is here, we have this new pot of money called small starts. we have projects like van ness brt and geary moving forward. it is a major disappointment for geary. the van ness has been named as a cart -- party for small start funds. what did not make the cut for us were geary brt, santa clara projects, under development, expecting to see money before the next rtp