good morning, everyone, and welcome to the regular meeting of the transportation authority committee. to my left we have commissioner chiu, norman yee and chu. and i would like to thank you eric for being the clerk of the board and also like to thanks charles and jesse e for the sfgtv broadcasting of this meeting. are there any announcements? noe. no announcements. >> item number two, approvele minutes of the january 15th, meeting this is an action item. >> are there any changes to the minutes? >> okay.

there is a motion to approve. is there a second? >> without objection? >> excuse me. let's open it up for public comment on the minutes. all right, seeing no public comment on the meeting there is a motion to move and accept the minutes. without objection. >> so moved. >> so. madam clerk, number three. >> recommend authority sizing the executive director to execute memo of agreement with the san francisco department of public works for the preliminary engineering services for the 19th avenue transit streets bulb outs projects in total amount not-to-exceed $120,000 and authority the executive director to negotiate the non-material terms and conditions. >> good morning, and i am in for chester fung who is on vacation, i am here to discuss the bulk out. i want to give you history because it has been a while

since we have been in front of you. it has been the subject of significant improvements, for example, in may of 2008, the transportation plan was adopted and since then, signal up grades, and curve grants and striking have been implemented over the last few years and curve bulbs are the last recommendation to help improve safety. there are 22 intersections along 19th avenue. and the plan is to install curb bulb at far side locations as you drive through the intersection, the far side. both in the north and southbound directions and this will facilitate better transit boarding and shorten pedestrian crossing distance and also important to recognize that 19th avenue falls under cal tran state route one and so all approvals must go through cal trans and their approval process, in april of 2009, the

board aappropriated 17,017 for the project and in june they executed $246,000 memo of agreement for preliminary engineering to include arial survey and utility map and cost estimates. since then we have gone ahead and completed 160,000 worth of work, sur rays and mapping and limited utility identification services. but the project was put on hold back in 2010, because of uncertaintied relate $to bus stop location and specific cal transdesign standards that needed to be worked out. over the last years, we have reached the consensus of cal transalong the corridor. just very quickly, the highway design manual was recently updated to recognize the curve bulb in this type of a

corridor, we are also coordinating them with the transit effectiveness project and we have an agreement to handle the environmental community out reach and legislative process and the authority will lead the curve ball design as well as the efforts. we are looking at two alternatives really one that really keeps the remaining of the existing bus stops at the current locations, the other is to work hand in hand with sfnta with proposed stop locations. mta has started its environmental efforts for the transit effectiveness project and so we are finally ready to move forward to go ahead and complete the preliminary engineering and the documentation for the curve ball project. and what we have recognized that the moa, the existing has expired and so we are going to go ahead now and in front of you is a recommendation to authorize the executive director to execute a new moa

with dpw for preliminary engineering not-to-exceed 120,000 and to execute the conditions this was brought forth to the cac on january 23rd and adopted with a motion of support. >> i see one question for you, commissioner weiner. >> thank you. >> this is a really good project. which agency is the project manager? >> transportation authority. >> the ta? >> yes, for the project, yes. >> so similar, although on a smaller scale on the city of parkway, the ta is actually delivering the projector just managing it? >> i am sorry. we are managing it and we are going to go ahead and obtain a cal transapprovals for the project and mta is working on the bus stop relocations through the city process. >> good morning, planning, we are managing this phase of the

project development process which is the planning environmental and clearance and through the preliminary design, eventually we suspect that it will transfer to the city either through dpw or mta and i believe that it will be dpw. >> similar to where you will deliver it. >> correct, pending over final design and construction. >> thank you. >> sure. >> great. calling any other questions? >> are there any other members of the public would like to speak on this item in please come up. >> good morning, commissioners, my name is jackie sacks i am a member of the citizen's advisory committee for the transportation authority, one *fr this item at one of our previous meetings and i voiced many concerns. first of all, they want to change, they want to move the bus stops. there is no reason to move the

bus stops. the bus stops were put where they are for a reason. number one. number two, regarding the bus bulbs, you have to remember whoever is doing this project will have starting this project will have to remember the 19th avenue, is not only a commercial, has commercial zoning but also has a residences and houses on 19th avenue that have driveways that come out to the bus stops. if you put a bus bulb at every bus stop, people in the homes will not be able to get out of their homes for one thing, and if there is an emergency, people, the emergency crews will not be able to respond efficiently. you have to remember that. i am totally against these bus bulbs like the gentleman said,

it is a state highway and leave the bus stops where they are, there is no reason to change, and change it in midstream because there is a long distance between streets and when it is cold and raining in the wintertime when you have a stroller and or you are someone like myself in the wheelchair. it is hard to walk from this long distance between the streets to get on a bus. not only that, but you have the right turn on red all over the city and you have a bus bulw and a bus stops and on the other side of the bus, oh, i have to turn right on it and people cannot cross the street safely. you got to think about that. >> thank you. >> are there any members of the public that would like to speak

on this item? >> all right, i would like to bring up staff to address some of the questions that miss jackie raised, particularly are you moving bus stops? >> the plan is to work with mta in terms of evaluating the existing bus stops, there is a potential that some of them will be located. >> when you say there say potential, have you identified which ones. >> yes, and in the packet there is a list of the potential changes of the bus stops. >> will there be bus bulb at every stop? >> there will be a bulb out where there is a bus stop and if there is not one, there will be what is considered a pedal bulb out and first off i recognize all of the comments that have been made and it is important to know that the design accommodates and does not prohibit access to driveways, in particular the

first driveway. and it is important that the bulb out to do and decrease the crossing distance which is a safety issue right now and one that we feel is important to express. it decreases the 19th avenue. >> thank you very much. >> if you like more information? >> sure. >> this is dustin white with the transportation planner with mta. >> good morning, commissioners, did yous tonight white, working on the gep effort. if we could bring up this map just a little bit to. give you a sense of the scope of the bus stop changes, we are proposing through the project. >> thank you. >> the map on the left shows the existing stops along the corridor. apparently there are bus stops at every intersection along the corridor and we are proposing to remove eight stops in each direction and so that is a total of 16 of the 44 stops along the corridor.

in order to approve travel time. >> thank you. >> on the driveway issue, i should mention also that dpw does have experience now designing bulbs that cross the driveways and things that we have implemented in other areas of the city. >> are there any members of the public that like to comment on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed colleagues, an action, item. commissioner weiner. i move for this positive, and i think that this is a terrific project and fits in nicely with the tep evaluating the consolidation or moving of the bus stops is critical part throughout the city. if we really want to get muni moving faster and get people where they are going faster, we have to take a hard look at where our bus stops are located, what they are located in the right position and whether, making some changes will speed up muni, it is

really a critical part of the transit effectiveness part of the project, and bulb outs are important particularly when i am seeing the senior disabled people and people who are moving slowly, shortening the crossing distance has a disproportionately at the people that are moving at a smaller speeds and i recommend that we move it with a positive recommendation. >> there is a motion to move it forward with a positive recommendation. commissioner chiu, with a positive recommendation, madam clear, could you call item number four? >> item number four, recommend approval of the 2013 state afederal legive program. good morning, this item begins on page 17 of your packets every year, and either january or february we bring forward a draft of our state and federal

legislative program that will guide our advocacy efforts throughout the upcoming year, this is in the form of principles, rather than specific positions on bills. as it will allow for us to carry out common positions that reflect either our own growth and objectives with protecting and increasing transportation revenue and allow us to work with other authorities across the state and ntc. and other partners. we have also conducted with the mayor's office on these principles and we are going to work forward to hopefully establish some of these to become real. over the last year, we have actually recognized some successes from the legislative program, and the subway has reached its full funding grant

agreement and advocating for significant appropriations for high speed rail at the state level and map 21, the federal bill guide and appropriations have been authorized through 2014 and significant expansion of tifia, for large projects in particular. we also have seen a parody with the tax benefit for transit at $240 a month which will carry through for the end of 2013. this is parody with the parking pretext benefits. so with this in hand, we make recommendations for a 2013 program, which will begin on page 19 of your packet. on the state side, we will continue to work to protect state transportation funds that are still subject to diversion from the state highway account to the general fund.

working to make sure that the implementation of the new transportation alternative program which is one of the more significant program changes in map 21 continues to provide funding for the school and bike and pedestrian an projects this used to be stand alone and now they are combined as to one larger program. and we will continue to advocate as we have done for years, at the distribution formulas for transportation funds across the tait and reward san francisco in more appropriate ways than just merely a population share and these include daytime population or road transit usage that better reflect on the swelling population in san francisco at certain times of day and also advocating for the highest possible amount of state bond funds to be appropriated to important project priorities including the central subway which still

needs to be approximately $80 million in state bond funds appropriated and also the high speed rail and early investment projects which are also need to see approximately 70 million appropriate ated to the project and then of course the funds are subject to future bond sales. continuing kaf and trade revenues we are working with the mayor's office and other folks in the city family to come up with priorities for san francisco, transportation is the single largest contributor to ghd and greenhouse gases in the state of california and so it seems most logical that the transportation sector would be given the highest priority and high speed rail and cleaner fleets at the local level and the latest estimates are approximately $200 million in the current fiscal year and $400 million next year.

but those revenues will swell in 2013, when this is applied to the gas allowance on the fuels that will take mrails in 2015. the authority board took a position, on the amendment four at last month's finance committee and this will lower the voter flesh hold. >> and 55 percent to transportation, and sales up for transportation, for special taxes for transportation, so we will continue to advocate across the state for that to be pursued at the state level. also pursuing new federal and state transportation revenues on the high speed rail front, san francisco is committed to 60 million as our member's share for the mou, contribution to the early investment projects for high speed rail.

7, we have some funding 7 million approximately, that needs to be identified this spring. at to fulfill our contribution to the early investments positive train, control project. and so we will continue to work with the mayor's office and these funds and also the funding for the project in general and bringing it to the terminal which is north of the terminal in the state. on the federal appropriation side, central subway has received the funding grant agreement but they are still subject to annual appropriations by congress and so we will be working to insure that an appropriate level of funding is appropriate d every year and advocating for small starts including vanes and brt. >> new, federal transportation funding. the federal gasoline tax at 18.4 cents has not been increased since 1993 and has

lost a significant amount of its value over the last 20 years, the highway trust fund can no longer support the programs that are authorized under the federal transportation bill. so, we will be working with folks at the federal and at the state level to come up with ideas for what we will up port the highway trust fund in the upcoming years and offer to carry out the project priorities under the local sales tax program including the sbit projects downtown extension and better market street. federal transportation the reauthorization and what will the success or to map 21 look like? the current zone map 21 just basically continued at appropriate levels as seen underpass federal appropriation bills. if we are going to be supporting the expansion and

state of good repair programs that their local transit agency and departments need, we will be need to be seeing additional revenues, of course and we will be continuing to monitor and advocate on that behalf and also continuation of the transit pretext benefit. map 21, proposed and inincludes rather an increase in the tifia loan program. and by about ten found and increase from 100 million a year to 1 billion dollars a year and allows for programs of projects as opposed to stand alone projects. in the state of declining revenue and highway trust fund moneys, exploring alternative ways of delivering projects is a must for the locals and so public private partnership and design options for another alternative finance approaches are things that we will monitor and bring to the board for

recommendation, and also, tracking environmental policies to ideally stream line. >> and if you answer any questions that you might have. this is an action item. the next item before you is the positions on specific bills that we take every month. >> thank you very much. >> are there any questions that you have on this item? >> are there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? >> no. okay, seeing none, this is an action item. could somebody make a motion? >> so moved. >> thank you very much. >> okay. yes, there was no public comment. without objection, this item passes. >> item number five. >> state and federal legislative update, information and action item. >> good morning, chair and members, i have six bills to update you that have been introduced that we have taken a close look at since the last time that i was here.

just for the over all perspective we are up to 500, maybe close to 600 bills now and by the end of next week, i think that the remainder, well the remainder of the bills to be introduced this year will be in place, so we will have a more full count or probably next month. on page 2, of the matrix, we have added or recommended a watch position, 8160 and it relates to provisions that effect the transit union members under federal law and a long tail of history. they were guaranteed have been guaranteed under the fair law that the changes to their retirement programs would have to be negotiated. so they found reformat this summer enacted by the state of california to violate that and they have used that to hold up hundreds of millions of dollars of transit grants across the state and i believe that san francisco muni is affected by

this, so consequently, this bill will go in and exempt them from the reform act from last year. we recommended a watch, and i am not sure how this thing from fair early on and we want to to be monitoring it as we move forward and coordinate with sf muni. and also on the matrix, 8164, initially we recommended watch and we are going to switch our recommendation to you today to oppose this measure, it is the law that this bill effects is a little used local private partnership legislation that has been on the books since 1996. i am aware of only two enstances of its application, the bill heightens the requirements which makes the projects cost more and makes it more difficult, should there be a project to materialize. our concern is the same concept, proposed by the surty bond companies could see its

way into sbx 2, 4, which is the standard state p3 o law under which it was pursued. and so we would like to propose this as adding cost to p3 project and be in a position to rapidly amend, sbx 24 provisions similarly to this bill. and finally on page 2, ab 229 by the speaker is a new bill recommended watch and this is the speaker's approach to the replacement rda elimination and it does allow for the formation of infrastructure and revitalization districts and a little bit different than the ifd bills that we have seen, it relies on the property tax and trust funds as a financing source and it does allow bonds to be sold against that source in the future by these new entities with a two-thirds vote required for the issue ans of

the bonds. so, we have suggested a recommended a watch position. on page 4 of the matrix, there is a reintroduction by senator stain burg of a measure from last year and in this form it is sb 110, we are recommended watching this as well and it calls for a new approach for the california transportation commission to develop guidelines. there is a long history of the use of guidelines, the guidelines have finally been not to akin to regulations but some sort of hybrid with lesser transparency requirements so the senator is trying to impose more transparency and i think that the language that he is using this year will find acceptance with the ctc and i think that this measure would probably move forward and we want to be in a position to monitor it and watch and move to a different position, should the circumstances change.

senators, desonya introduced 142 and related to transit districts they have not provided any information as to who the sponsor with the ultimate goal is to this. at this point it would not be prudent to assume that it is negative or possibly positive. so we have recommended a watch and another measure introduced sca 11 that deals with voter thresholds we recommended a watch does does apply indirectly to transportation but also across the board to all government taxes it will reduce the voter thresholds from two-thirds to 55 percent. as i indicated it would apply not only to transportation but other kinds of special taxes as well and that is my report. >> thank you, very much. colleagues do you have any questions on this report? >> thank you. are there any members of the public that would like to comment on this report?

>> okay, seeing that there is no members of the public, public comment is closed. >> this is an action item. is there a motion to provide it? >> so moved. >> thank you very much. >> without objection? >> this motion passes. clerk, please call item number five. >> and i did five and i will call six. >> internal accounting report and investment report for the six months ending december 31, 2012 and this is an information item. >> good morning, commissioners, fong and this is the internal and accounting report and investment report for the six months ending 31. 33 you have the balance sthaoet and 34 you have the statement of expenditures with the changes in budget. these are presented for your information. as of december 31st, 2012, with

have the total assets of $223.3 million. >> and 150 million in outstanding commercial paper. also have $51.5 million in revenues and spent $9.7 million in expenditure -spends. >> also we have 123.3 million of cash sit ng various accounts. of this amount, 87.3 percent sitting in the city and county's investment pool and all of the investments are within the california government code and adopted investment policy. all of the... we also have enough liquidty in the accounts to provide payment for expenditures over the next six months. with that, this is an action

item. >> any members of the public that would like to comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> please call 7. >> introduction and this is an information item. introduction of new items. >> are there any items? colleagues? >> seeing none. and no public comment. >> public comment is closed. >> and could you please call item number 8? >> public comment. >> come on up. >> good morning, my name is gilbert chris hall and i live right across from the gay center and i would like to ask commissioner weiner to see if we could get better money for signage at market and gruero. >> the crosses are real dangerous for the people at