proposed" and inserting the affirmed parking policy for approving for parking management. >> deal with the amendment first. does a member of the board. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> so we have that. on the item itself, members want to discuss. we have a written report. >> we had this at policy and governance and we had a discussion about it. and i believe we were all pretty much on the same page in improving it. >> i was surprised, did i read this correctly, no other city in the country has done this. putting these together, as far as we know? >> as far as we know, these are policies and practices that have been in place for years that reflect the engineering judgment

of our transportation professionals. they have not for us been documented and codified in one place. and the clarifying amendment to the resolution was to clear up confusion among the public. whether we were implementing something new than documenting the existing practices. and any changes that we make in traffic will always come to you. we are starting practices, and anything that we contemplate there, we will take through an exhaustive public process. this item is articulating and documenting existing policy. >> we have not done that and this is fine. members of the public didn't understand this. there were a number of things. >> i wanted to commend the staff for putting together such a great report.

i thought it was fascinating. learned a lot. the parking program was brilliant and helped me to inform this decision. >> okay, we have -- >> not specific to this item, but i expected this to be in the policy breakdown. we hear a lot from the public on the meters on holidays. and i realize that's a separate item, and one that i shouldn't bring up at this hour of day. but i would like to find out

more about that at another board meeting. and since we put that in place, and how it's been working out. and has it been effective and promote what we want, parking turn over and what is it costing us per what we are getting from it. that's separate but related. >> you are right, we get a lot of comments about fourth of july and labor day. >> part of that is selfish, i want to have an intelligent answer to respond. >> anything else? so the amendment first. we have a motion and second on the amendment, all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> ayes have it. and on the amended resolution. >> motion. >> second. >> all in favor? >> ayes. >> ayes have it. and no closed legal session.

>> no closed legal session. >> that's a shame. >> thank you, mrs. morley. thank you everyone. we are adjourning in memory of mr. baker. >> thank you. [gavel] >> good morning, and welcome to

the san francisco county transportation county transportation authority. i'm scott weiner and to my right is mar and to my left is david do, are there any announcements? >> no announcements. >> will you please call item number two. >> number two, approve the minutes of the july 10, 2012, meeting action item. >> colleagues, any discussion? is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we approve the motion to approve the minutes? >> can we do it with an objection? that will be the order. item three? >> item three, state and federal legislature update, information/action item. >> good morning, commissioners, we have presentation on both the state legislative agenda

and also on federal, we are going to give you an overview of the new map 21 surface transportation act. but talk about the state legislation, i have invited our legislative advocate mark watts. >> good morning, chair and members. mark watts on behalf of your agency. the legislature wrapped up its business for the year at the end of august. at this point in time, several hundred bills are on the governor's desk and has until the end of september to dispense with them and he has been making pretty steady progress with a couple dozen a day and so we will be able to see the out come of those. with respect to the matrix, there are four bills that i want to draw your attention to. one which is added and we hope to add it earlier and unable to have a meeting on the matrix, and then at the end of the session, that will be ab441.

its final version, it is not as powerful a tool as it has been intended to be by the author. it is sought originally to add a requirement to the ctc guidelines for developing, the state transportation improvement program consideration of health strategies, in its final version, it basically directs the ctc to attach reference documents to the guideline to help the county agencies develop health strategies. so it does not have quite the teeth of the original version. it is added to the matrix at this point in time as a watch. and we will see how the governor deals with the bill. one other major, or not major, but bill that a lot of folks are watching is sb878 this bill has gone through several it ter rations and different versions. it finally become a bill to

establish a new transportation inspector general position. and there is a lot of resistance from self-help counties. because the scope of the new office would allow the inspector general to do, would have allowed the inspector general to focus in on the local programs as well as state transportation programs. amendments taken towards the very end of the session narrowed down the scope that the inspector general can undertake in terms of looking at local agency programs. several self-help counties are still resisting and are seeking a veto of the measure. two bills that i also want to just finally highlight relate to infrastructure financing districts. now we have talked about these for several years. there have been a number of attempts to try to develop the legislation that is acceptable to the governor in the world of infrastructure districts which

is in a form of tax increment financing, in the wake of redevelopment agencies, more focus came to this tool, this year and two major bills are on the governor's desk at this point. ab2144 which is the speakers bill, generally provides a broader use of infrastructure financing districts. one thing the two bills and i will discuss the second bill in a second, have in common, and this was a fatal flaw i think in earlier versions of infrastructure financing district bills. it would have allowed entities to scoop up tax increments out of school districts share of local and both of these bills have prohibitions against that. the reason is the state is compelled to backfill any of those kind of redirections. so these bills have a higher degree of promise of being approved. the speakers bill is a broader-based bill it is more akin to a redevelopment agency

structure and the one unique feature of this bill different from the second bill i mentioned as second, is that it still requires a vote to establish the infrastructure district. 55 percent vote of the populous and the issue bonds. in contract, sb1156 by the protem much more narrowly tailored. it is tailored for sustain able communities, strategy implementations and focuses in on walkable communities rather than the broader scope of the speakers bill. however it does not require a vote of the people for implementing a... they is a new name for it. it is in essence the infrastructure financing district does not require a vote of the people. but it is also very limited. there are several provisions... >> commissioner? >> i was going to ask, what is

the funding for the stien berg sustainable? >> it will be tax increment. it has the bar on school-related property taxes from being included in the financing. and it does require obviously a collaborativive between the potential taxing agencis that would be forming this new district. >> there is a special provision in terms of the city and county of san francisco, in terms of the membership. if you were to decide to establish one or more in this community, requires the mayor to make appointments to the board. it is different than the other structures in place for other cities and counties. in addition, i would also highlight that for a major... under the stien berg bill, for a project related to the high-speed rail, transit station. it has very special provision

that allows within a half... the tax increments within a half mile of the transit of that station to be included in the district. and however, it does require that at least half of their funds raised in that new district, related to a high speed rail station to be dedicated to the high speed rail station development. so those are two unique circumstances that i found in the bill. one last interesting piece, it does also authorize the use of the general sales tax authority to be a revenue source for this particular district. under the stien berg bill. in addition to tax increment it allows a sales tax to be authorized in that district, which would be subject to the natural requirements for votes. so those are the four bills that i wanted to highlight for your attention flt as i said, only the one is being added. 8441, the other ones we have

already been tracking. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues any additional questions? >> is there any member of the public who would like to comment? >> was there additional report? i am sorry? >> you are looking around. >> oh, federal? i am sorry. >> good morning, commissioners. fort, deputy director for policy and programming with the authority. you should have a powerpoint presentation in front of you and we are also loading it up on the screen. and i am going to give you an introduction to map 21, which is the federal transportation bill that replaces safety will lieu. >> i am going to go over both and i am going to talk about the major reforms including the expansion of transportation alternatives and project delivery along with the impacts

of the transit systems in san francisco. >> so, map 21 is on the 600-page bill, folks are still combing through the pages to determine what is exactly in the bill. so there are some changes that we will see that we might not even recognize until the end of the 24-month life of the bill. the major reforms were primarily driven by the house transportation and infrastructure committee chair. representative john mika and the senate environment and the committee chair barbara boxer. michael was focused on delivery reforms and boxer, innovative financing and those are the key points that you will see in the bill itself. president obama signed it into law in july. and back in june, i don't think that anybody was expecting that we would actually see this bill

come to fruition. but within a couple of weeks following the bill was on the president's desk for signature. the primary issue to point out with map 21, is that it is a two-year bill and it does not fundamentally change federal transportation policy. you can see from the picture on the slide in the corner, that it is illustrative of the politics of the bill. this is president obama at the signing of the bill and you see representatives of teachers unions and the u.s. department of education is also in this picture and arny duncan because it included provisions on college loan interest rates and also representatives of the industry along with la mayor, since the tifia expansion and a $500 million boost to projects of natural significance with

something that la lobbied for heavily to boost the program that will implement 30 years of transit projects within ten years using low-cost federal loans which we will talk about in a few slides about the tivia program. >> the key themes, again, no fundamental changes in federal transportation policy. there is a shift to no ear marks. this is consistent with congress's opposition to ear marks that we have heard about for the last few years, there are no ear marks under map 21. there is a significant amount of program consolidation, the highway programs have gone from 30 programs from, i am sorry from 90 programs to 60 programs. so this will help folks navigate the transportation, financing and funding world. but it doesn't eliminate some of the specific key funding programs where innovative ideas

were allowed to come to fruition. for example, there is a value pricing pilot grant program which has funded the treasure island management study and the study in san francisco. the funding for this program is eliminated under map 21, the program itself is not eliminated but there is no funding set aside for the program. so that is something that we are paying attention to. and also there is a major shift from competitive discretionary grant programs to formula-based program. under map 2 1, 93 percent of the funding is formula distribution, compared to 80 percent under safety lieu. >> you just said that the programs have been consolidated. the funding is not there but the programs still exist, so where would we make-up the money for the treasure island

study? >> we actually just recently received a grant from 2012 for approximately $500,000 for the study. so that is not impacted. any programs that are in place up to september 30th of this year, will not be impacted. so the new program take shape and take effect on october one. so it does not impact our existing grants. >> on the tifia program, you will see in a couple of slides, the increase from $120 million a year to over or approximately $1 billion per year. this was a high priority for senator boxer. and i will outline some of the specific selection criteria to focus on credit worthiness, that is the determining factor for the loans and also meet the reform which was a primary concern of representative mika who wanted to remove any

impediments to expedited project delivery. he wanted to see it on a large scale complete the environmental review process within four years. >> the federal funding levels under map 21 you can see on the slide, the over all picture isn't very different under safety lieu and map 21 with some inflationary levels of increase on this fiscal year levels. with the exception of tifia, which has gone from $120 million to $1 billion in fiscal year 14. this is a over all, this is a very big victory for transportation as a whole. since there was talk early on in the life of the bills of cutting significantly

transportation funding across the country. but there are winners and losers as you will see. and some of the pedestrian oriented funding programs has been cut significantly on a federal level. and also to point out this does not... this bill does not offer any significant long term funding solutions that will help to solve the program of the highway trust fund going broke in fiscal year 2015. there are no increases to the highway... to the federal gas tax. >> it maintains existing structure. and it also maintains it beyond of life of safety-lu. so there is senator and we will not have to face a renewal of the gas tax on the expiration of map 21. >> as far as the implementation of safety-lu in the state of california. we are looking to see about the same level of funding over all as a state.

of approximately $3 and a half billion under the two programs. but, the key issue is that the funding programs are distributed. the funding is distributed differently, and there is a tug of war going on right now as we speak between the state and the regions about how that funding will be distributed. so, and i will get to that in a moment. but the issue will be discussed in detail at the ctc meeting on september 26 and 27th in burning game. over all the proposal maintains the current level. -safetea-lu-calls for a 50/50 split for the funding sources

which in the past had been funded two-thirds to the region and one-third to the state and this is primarily the surface transportation program which is the most flexible source of federal funding under the federal transportation bill. there is also a working group and maybe mark can speak to this if you have any other questions. but the working group that is working with ctc and cal tran staff and also local grups across the country. i am sorry across it is state. vta are local representatives working on this bill. working on this strategy, rather. which will likely result in bills being introduced either to deal with funding through december for... to fund half of the year's worth of a program with 50/50 to the state and regions or to fund a year to two-thirds to the region and one-third to the state or something in between. so stay tuned.

>> this conversation that is happening at the state level will also impact how the funds that you see on the screen in front of you get distributed to the metropolitan planning organizations including mtc. so you will see that the over all funding that is anticipated to the bay area under map 21, is down for the surface transportation program and also the congestion, mitigation and air quality program. this is made up for in part as... in part as you will see from what looks like to be an increase on the transportation alternatives program. but i will aaddress that program in a second. this is a two percent set aside of the over all map 21 map to fund what is taking the place of transportation enhancements programs. and it funds, and the ta program has consolidated

programs including the safe route to the schools program and recreational trails at the state level and also te eligible projects which i will get to but those can primarily fund and used to be able to fund street scape and safety and education campaigns and those two particular issues are no longer eligible under the ta program. and as i mentioned these amounts are subject to the resolution of issues between cal tran ctc and the mtos. one impact might likely be to the one bay area grant program since these are the funding programs that are assumed to be backing the program so that the region might need to adjust or augment some of the funds over the 4-year $48 million cycle for san francisco. >> for the chair, you just

mentioned that pedestrian safety and safe routes to schools program are no longer federally funded so we are going to have to look at mtc and other sources for funding that might be state level funding for those critical pedestrian an safety or school safety programs. they are no longer funded as stand alone programs. they are now funded under this larger umbrella that funded at a 30 percent reduced level when you look at the three programs combined. now they have to compete with each other, essentially, for a limited amount of funding. okay. and then on the transit formula side you will notice an anticipated increase to the transit formula funds to the transit operators in the bay area, this does not include the new starts program funds which essentially are the only discretionary transit funds remaining under map-21. >> on the highway program side,

the major consolidation, you can see here. and maybe if you have glasses on. you can see it on your screen. essentially, it is a consolidated program structure so going from again, 90 to 30 programs. and two highlights and the national performance programs and the transit alternatives program and also shifts from the discretionary funding to formula funding. >> the programs are essentially intact, however, they are just changed in to larger funding programs and fewer funding streams. >> on the transit side, the main take away is that we are for the most part holding steady on the transit side which is essentially a win

under map-21 and that we did not see huge cuts to the transit program. one of the benefits of having a formula-based formula is that the transit operators are able to function with more certainty on the funding that is coming in, only for two years, so it will remove big bumps in state of good repairs and other discretionary funds to budget for but they are still analyzing the impacts of this shift. but our general sense is that the shift of formula is a good thing for large, urban areas with old systems like san francisco. the fta is going to be focusing on transit safety, and also state of good repair funding programs. one of the programs that is actually decreased however is the new starts program.

they are... it just did not touch of level of the obama administration's presidential proposal a couple of... i think it was a year ago. but it does reform the program to encourage projects which expand the core capacity of a existing major transit corridors. push >> the transportation alternatives program, this is the program that we briefly discussed a few moments ago, basically three pots of funding streams are combined into one and there is a reduction of over 30 percent in the total funding available. bicycle and safety programs are no longer eligible, nor is landscaping as a stand alone project. so the landscaping is eligible, but it is not as a stand alone street scape project.

cal transplans to prioritize its share of the transportation alternatives program funds for projects that are already in the transportation improvement program. this includes an $850,000 project for san francisco for pedestrian safety campaign. there was some concern initially because this project is no longer elible under the