>> thank you mr. paulson. public comment is closed. we have a motion to continue to the call of the chair, until applicants complete their applications. we have that motions. we will second that, i can do that without objection.

(gavel) before we enter a emotion to convene in closed sessions, is there any member that wants to make a comment? seeing none. at this time we asked members of the public to please exit the room >> during the close session the committee voted to forward item 6-11 the full board with recommendations. >> thank you cannot entertain the motion to close to close session. we can do that without opposition. anything else on the agenda?

>> no madam chair. >> seeing none, meeting is adjourned.

>> good morning and welcome to the san francisco this petition authority. >> i want to welcome commissioner london bree for the first commission meeting. welcome and congratulations on being here. our clerk is erica chang is sfgt are charles and mark. i believe that satisfies our first item roll call. second item? >> to approve the minutes of the december 4, 2012 meeting. it is an action item.

>> any comments? public comment? any member of the public would like to comment on item 2? will close of the comment. colleagues can we have a motion to approve the minutes? >> so moved. second by supervisor cohen. next item. >> item 3 citizens advisory committee report. an information item. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> i have a report. i have a quick report from the december 5 meeting of the cac.

at this time we have reviewed and passed action items 5 through 9 from the december 4 plans and programs agenda. the first cac meeting of 2013 will be on wednesday, jan. 23rd. at this meeting we will vote for the chair and vice chair. for the up coming year. thank you. >> thank you very much for your presentation. if there are no comments or questions we can go on the public comment. public comment is now open. no one comes forward. we will close public comment. our next item. >> number four recommend allocation -- prop k funds, to the seven san francisco

transportation committee (reading from agenda) an action item. >> i wanted to take the opportunity to welcome our new commissioner breed to the authority board and congratulations and we look forward to working with you. i will also introduce ben supka and courtney aguirre our staff to give a report on this item a group allocation memo of prop k sales tax funds as well as prop aa the vehicle

registration funds. >> i will present the first item and courtney will present the last three items. this item begins on page 19 of your packet. we have five prop k requests and prop aa request is link to one of the prop k requests. we adopted a five-year plan. this project are in compliance with the five-year plan except with the -- funding. we have to find funding for the conceptual engineering part for that. prop aa program we adopted strategic planning for those funds. expected leveraging, page 25 and 28 go through brief descriptions of the requests in our recommendations.

the first two requests are part for the one ba area grant. we are not entering the project development phase, increasing project readiness. all the project are addressing cost issues, engineering issues, immediate support, environmental issues to make sure we have the strongest project to go through the federal funding cycle. we are the january to april time frame. in february, cac march plans and programs committee will come back with a more robust update as to where we are with the all of the one bay area projects. in june the board will be adapting its final recommendations. that final recommendation goes

onto the metropolitan transportation commission at the end of june. as i said we are right at the beginning of the project development phases. one of the two projects are requested, prop k funds to help support the one bay area program, balboa park. it will be added to the previous request of 300,000 dollars to complete an engineering report for what are called fast-track -- 3.7 million dollar program that includes things like widening the northside sidewalk, installing transit arrival signs, accessibility improvements, and most salient to the request, new shelter

canopies at the north and south side. the picture shows this. to give you some site context of. we want to push along the fast-track projects. looking at more engineering analysis, walkways, the poles to see if they can be moved out of the walkway. another piece is really doing design coordination between the -- project recently funded and the widening of the sidewalk in the shelter canopies. the design elements, will be discussed with all of the agency partners in february. the initial design of the canopies has already been brought to balboa park.

the next meeting is in march or april. the canopy design will also go to the city design review committee to get approval in march. i want to leave you with the project stands, the schedule, for the shelter canopies portion construction is september 2015, complete construction in june 2016. next item is similar. prop k support conceptual engineering and planning for the -- corridor improvement project, a complete project that involves sidewalks, bike lanes, paving, landscaping. it is a multiagency, multidistrict project. both the san francisco recreation department,

the municipal transportation agency, and department public works are working together. also a multidistrict project. a second districts 9, 10, 11. the scope of work included is to do the planning work that needs to do to find the preferred alternative for the corridor in the conception legendary that would follow along with that. but will include two community meetings in february and march in the selection of the preferred alternative in the presentation of that alternative to the arts commission for approval. both this requesting the previous request will result in conceptual engineering reports and the application in april. let me give you the project schedule for the -- project. it will be designed in april, 2014, construction in 2015, and complete construction in july of 2016.

courtney will complete the presentation. >> the sfmta has requested 216,000 dollars in prop k funds. the detail request starts on page 59. cigna locations can be viewed of the map on page 71. the project will also include the installation of new pedestrian signals, signal controllers, conduit wiring, poles, new ramps. based on accident history, traffic volume, progression and benefits to users. the authority previously approved the scope of this project when it allocated prop k funds for the design phase for this project in 2010. the prop k funds will leverage -- federal highway fund and.

sfmta dissipates this entire project will be completed in december 2013. sfmta has requested 720,000 in prop k funds to install signals and control boxes, and single pedestrian signals that 22 intersections along franklin street and divisadero street. on page 26 of your packet you can view the specific locations. 19 locations along franklin, 3 along divisadero. the conduit is going to be installed in coordination with the department up other works repaving projects on both of these corridors.

-- already program to install the pedestrian countdown signals occurring after the conduit installation at these locations. that work is anticipated to begin in june 20 fourteenth after the paving work is completed. >> we had approved that earlier this year? >> that is correct, july, 2012. >> last year. >> yeah. the final request is from bart, for the 24sth st. pedestrian improvements. bart requested 200,000 in funds and -- as part of the larger 24 street pedestrian proven project. this project specifically will focus on sopwith plaza and

includes installation of two cub ramps, public artwork, landscape improvements such as artistic fencing. bart's 24th street north -- project is a continuation. this project was from eight community-based plan -- prop k will be leveraging 2.1 million, bart anticipates construction of this project will begin in february 2013 and concluded the end of this calendar year. this request as required financially neutral amendment to the prop aa strategic improvement, five-year prioritization program to -- from fiscal year 2013-14 to 14-15. to enable bart to award and

begin construction again. this is a financially neutral amendment to the strategic plan. that concludes the request. >> okay very good. thank you for your presentations. if there are no comments or questions from the committee will go onto public comment. any member from the public would like to comment on these items come forward. seeing none will close public comment. can we have a motion to forward this recommendation? okay will do that without objection. >> item number five, update of the transportation plan, information item. >> good morning commissioners. rachel -- principal transportation

planner. what i would like to share with you as an update or summary of the outreach results from our fall 2012, the last time it came to you and updated you on the san francisco transportation plan, we were about to kick off a major round of outreach. the purpose of that was to get feedback from the public and to educate the public and stakeholders about transportation needs, available revenues and also to get feedback on what the public's interest would be in transportation investment under a so-called mission scenario. if there were more revenues in the future than we expected to have. one of the key tools that we used during this outreach was a budget tzar game, where

participants could create their own long-range plan. got a great response. these are the mechanisms that we used to get the word out about the budget game and about the transportation plan update in general. we had discussions about priorities, investment priorities, trade-offs, revenues, and where we have shortfalls in other venues besides the online budget games. we went to community events in every district. we went to over 18 community groups and boards and commissions and had this conversation. it wasn't just the budget game. that we used to get this input. the budget game turned out to

be very popular though; we had over 800 submittals. also submittals in spanish and chinese as well. the premise of this game was a participant would go to the site and would have a gauge a counter that would show the amount of transportation revenue that we expect to have through 2040. the participant would make choices about how to invest that revenue in operations and maintenance, street maintenance, walking, biking, signals, capital expansion projects. the participant could choose whether or not they wanted to add additional revenue, raise taxes or fees in some way, have additional revenue to their budget and they could see what additional investment could be afforded if they made that choice.

this is a summary other groups that we reached. i would note that we did ask for volunteer information about participants' zip codes, and incoming demographic information. only about 55 percent of the participants actually gave us that. what you are seeing here is a map of the 55 percent of the participants who did give their zip code noting about 15 percent of the respondents were not san francisco residents or indicated they were not san francisco residents. these were some of the findings. this chart shows the choices that participants made when they created their budgets. the choices they made about investing in operations and maintenance.

the dark blue bars show the choices about investments in transit operations and maintenance. the height of the bar is a percentage of respondents made the choice. 80 percent chose to increase the amount of investment in transit operations and maintenance. that was a clear direction. >> where they weighed the same? operations and maintenance? >> they were the same. street operations and maintenance. i operate this that perhaps the recent passage of street bonds, in prop aa, there was more satisfaction in

the level of investment in street maintenance. >> do we have a sense of who were actual transit riders? >> we did not ask the question. i don't know. the map certainly, we did have somewhat more respondents from the central part of san francisco them from the outer part. just by the choices that folks made, for instance looking at this chart, this shows the choices that participants made about investments in programs. so each of these horizontal bars is a different program of investment. the blue segments of the bar is the share of respondents who wanted to increase investments in that program.

you see that over -- actually 50 percent or two thirds wanted to increase investment in bicycling, walking, muni enhancements. those are the sorts of modes that these respondents wanted to use. would allow participants to elect the decrease investment in the program as they wanted to. finally, we asked the disciplines about investment preferences, capital expansion projects.

there were a number of participants the chose that project is part of their investment plan. at least half of the respondents chose his first four listed projects, transit effectiveness project, transit performance, -- the transit performance initiative, to explain what that is, is a placeholder for a type of project that would be a major construction project in our transit network designed to address key system bottlenecks related to reliability or travel times. examples are the embarcadero - muni turnoaround, bottlenecks like that. the color of the bar represents the cost-effectiveness of the project. we provided the disciplines

with information that we develop as part of the cost effectiveness evaluation of these projects and as part of this exercise we group group projects into three tiers. >> question for you. i should have said this to you as you are flipping through the slides. this is great. i'm also at who we reached chart. my district and supervisor avalos's district is pretty paltry. it's not reflective of the district i represent. i am curious at how we should look at this and balance it out. >> first of all, only about half of the folks indicated

that residential zip code. for about half the people, they chose to not indicate where they live. keep in mind that this map reflects the zip code of people who submitted a budget. we did a lot more outreach besides just offering the budget game. for instance, we went to in district 2, we went to fleet week, and fisherman's wharf cbd and other groups that include > fisherman's wharf cbd is in district 3. i am disappointed that -- i don't want to speak for commissioner avalos, that you would have at least obtain an

equal number of respondents from each district. as i look at these results, the people who responded it should be a priority to have equal numbers from every district or something coming close to equal numbers. >> thank you for the feedback. this is one of the reasons we come to you and wanted to get that kind of input. we will do our best to get more respondents from each district and all the other ones that did not get as many as the average. will come back to you with more results. >> great. >> please continue. >> the last thing i wanted to summarize is a qualitative feedback that we got. not just from the budget game which had a comments section that people could use but also from the conversations that we have a community events

through e-mails on the website and the phone line. this is what i would summarize, as some of the key themes that we heard outside of the budget game, and the other conversations. a couple of things to emphasize. one of the recurring themes that we heard from nearly everywhere group that we visited was number two, getting back to the basics. the core system, the maintenance and operation of the muni system, and the street network. also something to highlight the but perhaps not evidence of the budget game itself was number seven. a real interest in cost savings in project delivery in other i guess institutional issues in addition to interest in more investments,