>> please, present. >> good morning, commissioners, anaa lofport, i would like to welcome commissioner tang to the committee and to the board and we look forward to working with you. this item begins on page 9 of your packet and also give brief remarks on the federal program before welcoming mark watts, the advocate from sacramento to speak. as we all know, the sequestration cuts have gone into effect at this point. we are looking to the march 27th into the end of the current sixth month continuing resolution and looking to what will happen with another six months to fund it to the end of the federal fiscal year. the house has passed a 6 month

bill, which locks in the funding levels for the sequestration cuts for the end of this physical year. the senate, we expect them to be releasing their six-month continuing resolution within the next couple of days. we have yet to see how much discretion this will give to the various different agencies on how the cuts are implemented across the various programs. the house has given flexibility to the department of defense only, we expect the senate to be more proud in its discretion. the senate has also released the federal fiscal year, 14, budget proposal and we are likely to see these levels of funding with the sequestration cuts continuing through the next year, so we have to pay close attention to the impacts on transportation, again the highway trust funds accounts are protected from these cuts, but there is general fund

support of highway trust funds activities including the new starts program, we are monitoring to see any potential impacts to central subway, for example. and whether the federal government, will be looking to get the older, new starts projects off the books and putting funding on those projects first, or whether they will be doing across the board, cuts to all of the new starts programs. so we are looking forward to hearing what has come out of washington, from the legislative conference this week. and also, continuing to monitor the activities with mta and other partners. at this point, i will welcome mark watts to speak to the legislative matrix. >> thank you. >> and good morning, commissioners. i thought that i would cover quickly some of the additions to the matrix sense the last time that i appeared here the deadline has passed for the introduction of measures and they were close to 2,000 total

bills introduced in both houses, so we spent the last couple of weeks, weeding through the bills and coming up with several that we want to bring to your attention and ask for your approval of physicians that were recommending oppose or support for. so the matrix is substantive and most of the bills are the ones that we would choose at this bill that we watch. a lot of them have not matured into the final bill that they will be heard or the final form that will be heard in, but several bills are noteworthy. the first two that i want to notice are two bills that we already took positions on. i want to call your attention to the fact that they have been schedule and identical bills and one in each house, ab 8 and sb eleven in the senate and the karl moyer program which is important for the high speed rail here for the blended service, in the bay areas, so we are working actively to make sure that those bills keep moving forward. so those two are moving forward. the other bills i will call your attention to are the ones that we are recommending brand new positions on like your action on that at the

conclusion. ab266, is a measure, it is on page 3 of your matrix. and we are recommending oppose, it would extend the hov lane access to 2025, that is currently schedule to conclude they end of 2014. i can that the view of the reservation is that is a long time to provide an incentive program for a captive number of vehicles and that could lead to congestion on hov facility and that is the reason that, we recommend support and it is going to facilitate the movement of the high speed rail itself and allow it to go on a

basis that will be caught up about the statute. and another recommendation is another support is ab 4, 93, that say measure on page 5 of the matrix that deals with continuing operatebility of the toll collection device and recommending support because that has long been a goal and a fact in california and this continues that. the next measure is one that deals with the public private partnership and ab749 and that so page 7 of the matrix and we are recommended oppose. what this does in the p3 law that the transportation authority in conjunction with cal transfollowed for the drive project, there is in essence two state agencies that take a look at a public, private partnership application and one is the public investment, or the private investment, i forget, what it stands for, but

it is a function of the transportation secretary's office. and it was a committee that was supposed to review, proposals and make comments. secondarily, the state transportation commission is empowered to authorize a public private partnership in lease and contract. this bill, highens the ability to actually act as an initial hurtle and they have a binding, and the binding ability to reject the public, private partnership proposal before it goes to the transportation commission, we think that is not what the original framers of the particular p3 law intended and it does add an extra burden to the process and we are recommending oppose to that. ab 863 is another one that we are recommending oppose, it seems like it was a measure

that we would support but page 7 details that this bill would allow for the delegation of nepa, the national, environmental act to caltransto administer for projects but that sounds like a stream lining but we had it approved for state highway programs and local highway programs and we found that the implementation of that was very unworkable, particularly for local projects. the state seemed to spend more energy on accelerating their projects at the expense of local projects and so we recommended and oppose at this point in time, until we can see some improvement in what they plan to put in the legislation. and lastly, on the assembly side, ab842 is a measure that we have seen before, and it is on page 7 of the matrix and it would eliminate all further

bond funding for the high speed rail program which will have the effect of initially shutting down the initial construction segment as well as the funding for blended service and connectivity projects that we are dependent upon in the bay area and in san francisco. so we recommended opposed to that measure. the previous measures all failed and we think that this one is destined for the same failure but we will have to see and work on it. >> two measures on the senate side that we are recommended support, first is sb 219. and it deals with extending the double fine zones on state routes, 1 and 101 in san francisco, indefinitely. and there has been a long history of first initiating the double fine zones and then continuing them in law and this measure would permanently extend them. we recommend the support of page 12 on the matrix and we anticipate having some difficulty with the senate

transportation committee, but we will be working with the author's office on this. and finally, sb 557, which is found on page 15 of the matrix, we are recommending support. this would cotify the high speed rails for north and south for the mlu and we think that it beneficial and recommend your support for those measures. those would be the action items in the matrix and the rest are previously approved positions or positions where we justified identified the bill and want to see if there are changes before we come back to the committee with a firm recommendation. i have two other observations outside of legislation that i thought that i would just pass on at the suggestion of staff, one is you may have read about the action by the board of equalization to improve the increase in the state gas tax. and just to clarify what that

action was in 2009, 10. the state legislature adopted legislation that basically converted of what used to be proposition 42, which was funded from the sales tax on gas into a pure, based funding source. and to accomplish that, they had to develop language that directed the board of equalization, to maintain the same level of gross revenues, that the combined base excise tax and ropcysing 42 would have generated. s so the action to approve a 3.5 percent hike in the gas tax is consistent with what would have been the taxes that the motorists would have been paying without the tax swap and the board of equalization approval. in fact, in many ways, the board of equalization approval

is almost ministerial in effect and nobody knows what would happen if they had would rejected it. that has happened and the money generates 3.5 percent and the tax is an additional 3.5 cents per gallon which is 500 million a year and it is dedicated to local streets and roads and to the state, preservation program. additionally cap and trade continues to be a focus in the capitol. the cap and trade second round of options was conducted in february, and generated a goes total between the stationary source and utilities of about close to a quarter of a billion dollars and more than a quarter billion of dollars. the funds generated are returned to rate payers as rebates in the bills.

and the funds derived from the stationary sources are the subject to an ongoing car. we will have a duty to come back in april with a proposed investment plan. there is a bit of a disconnect, the governor had presumed a billion dollars annual from that resource from the stationary source options and it looks like we will be closer to a half a billion in the current budget year, we are in. one city, the resources board finishes the suggested plan, it will be submitted to the governor and the governor will adopt a final program or project to be released in the may revise. so we are close to the end game on seeing what kind of projects the governor to like to see, funded from this source. so that concludes my report and i would be glad to answer questions that you may have. >> thank you.

>> colleagues do you have any questions? >> i had a question about you mentioned a little bit the transportation bill, you said that you anticipated a little, i don't know how you, i can't remember how you described it, but, intense conversation, maybe. >> on the karl moyer legislation? >> yes. >> senate transportation committee, has been skeptical on last year's measure that almost passed that was similar to this bill. there is two levels of skepticism and two levels that are funded in this measure, one is ab118 which provides funding for a range of alternative duel transportation and the other is the karl moyer program, that is not the center of the interest of the senate transportation committee chair and staff, the other section, the ab118 there are constitutional questions have arisen about the source or

the use of registration fees for some of the things that the energy commission has later made allocations for. that is going to be on the going focus for that bill in the transportation. i believe that the karl moyer portion is in good standing, and but it is also tied into the same bills, so that is going to be the trick, if there is a fatal flaw with the ab 118 funding, issues. will that effect the ability to move karl moyer program forward? that is what i was alluding to and i should have been more clear. >> any other questions, seeing none, let's open for public comment. any public comment? >> what? no public comment? >> no. okay. all right, public comment is closed. >> and let's see, this is an informational action, item, so is there actions that anyone would like to take on this item?

>> hello? >> might to move for the recommendation? >> yes. >> i didn't hear you. >> i will move the recommendations. >> thank you, supervisor chiu. thank you so much commissioner. without, we will take the recommendation and madam clerk, could you call item number four? >> recommended increase of the amount of the professional services krt with perkins and will by $395,000 to a total amount not-to-exceed $1555000 for planning urban design, conceptual engineering and out reach and environmental analysis services for better market street planning and environmental studsy authoritying the executive director to modify no one material contract terms and conditions. >> good evening, deputy for planning, this item is a request to amend an existing consulting contract that the authority has with perk ins and will, on behalf of the team

leading and the department of public works which is leading the better market street project. lindy here is will be providing a brief overview and the main part of the item. i would like to give you background, began in october of 2010, after the authorities received planning grants from the state and the region. the initial contract was in the amount of $990,000, to do the design, conceptual design and out reach. we did come back in march in 2012 as an increase in lice of new work that needed to be done and that work did, we did make progress, the city team did out reach, developed some initial concept designs and did out reach on those and have identified since then, the need to or the desire to look at one more option which is an option on mission street to develop, complimentary facilities especially for the bicycle facility. this item begins on page 27 of

your packet. and behind the memo on page 34, is a letter from the three directors of the mta. and sfmta dpw and planning department providing an overview of the options that are under development and under consideration. and this amendment here would allow for the development of mission street option to compliment the market street designs as an alternative or as a near term pilot. following the letter from the directors is a study time line and budget snapshot so that you have a full update on the project. at this point, let me turn it over to mindy to provide the main presentation. >> thank you, kelley. >> could we please have the... okay. good morning, commissioner cohen and members of the committee, my name is mindy

linesky i am with the better market team. i also have kelley the assistant manager and neal who is the urban design lead and andrew lee who is the transportation lead, and patrick revera who is the deputy division manager we are all here to be able to answer any questions that you might have. >> i have a question. >> supervisor weiner has a question. >> all right? >> and we have not gotten it. >> i know that we are all, given the presentation, >> very quickly. >> the whole commission, authority meeting, i know that we are all very familiar with the status and as i know that you know this, a locality of frustration around the length of the process. and i think that also, we are being asked to allocate, funding for more study money and this is for analysis, is that right?

>> point of clarification, where the action item is just a contract amendment and the budget is already allocated is my understanding from general funding to dpw. >> it is not a funding request. >> but it is still... >> it is a contract amendment to increase the amount of the contract. >> for study. >> correct. >> for additional tasks related to the mission. >> we have not done any short term trials or any kind of short term improvements yet? >> i think that we have done some short term improvements over the last year and a half. we have specifically in november, the city constructed a west-bound left turn lane off of the bike bay cut off of market and velenicia and things that we are going for pedestrian improvement and we are doing 8 curbs. and 88 up and down the street.

>> which we are required to do. >> we have paved the bike lanes on market and also the livable streets program is designing and coordinating improvements to the wiggle which will be implemented this year, but all of those, we are currently coming up with what would be short term immediate improvements and trying to decide at this point, which of those improvements should we do right now and which should we save for part of the environmental review? >> i know that there are plenty of positive like improvements being made in various parts of the city including on the wiggle. i think that there is an understandable, frustration, that we are continuing to spend time and money on planning, which obviously we have to do the good planning no one is disputing that and not always taking some opportunities to do some short-term improvements, on market street, which i think would send the really positive signal about our collective

desire to really make positive changes on market. and i know that we obviously can't do the major changes on market until we have studied and environmentally cleared it. but you know, it is challenging when we have items come back for more planning money whether it is a contract amendment or whatever it is. when we have not seen the changes that i know that we all want and i know that you want as well. so i just wanted to put that out there in terms of additional plans for short term trials. >> right, point taken. >> okay. are there any other more? >> as i said we are putting together a list, and i am trying to figure out which can be specifically in short term and working with our materials under advisement under to which would be better set for environmental review and happy to share that with you at a later point. >> thank you. >> sure. >> madam chair? >> madam chair?

>> yes, >> hoping that i could follow up on commissioner weiner's comments? >> thank you. >> i have to echo what commissioner weiner just said from my perspective, this feels like ground hog day we have been in hearing after hearing and constantly asked for additional increases to consultants to tell us a bit of what we already know. but, we have not received any real sense of what near time projects and pilots might be available for this project and whatvy heard from you is we have been here which is they are coming. they are coming. i have to tell you that i have contemplated voting against this particular item but i understand that might appear arbitrary and i want to get a sense of when we will get this, and what are we actually spending our money on? >> i would say, within you see, i can commit to the next few

months. we will give you that if not sooner. just, why are we going to take so long, given that we have been asked this question for a number of months and by the way i am sorry that you are the messenger, you have a very large team. >> part of it i think that they have been putting more of our efforts into these two options and really trying to figure out the pros and cons of the three options. given no and how do those improvements fit in with those options. we have been having to answer your question that we have not been sitting around. we have been having numerous meetings with the environmental city attorneys, with the other departments, to try to figure that out. i guess that i can commit to even sooner. >> i think that would be helpful. >> okay. >> from my perspective, i think. i have considered voting against this, i might be

willing to support this without recommendation to the full ta so that hopefully over the next very short one or two team period we can get a handle on what this is. i know that you vai have a presentation for us if you could look at the slides that describe the city project team and the city project team and just put that up on the screen. >> this is a very significant team made up of representatives from dbw and the planning department and the mta and the cta and if you could go to the consultant team. colleagues, these are all of the teams that we have been funding for i think for the better part of how many years now? >> about two years. >> and from my perspective, we have received very little for the money that we have spent. additional increase, at this point, just feels challenging

to me. i think in polite terms this is referred to as a cluster. and i would like to suggest, that you get your act together and provide us with ideas on the near projects because i am not particularly excited to continue to spend more money at this point when we have not been receiving what we need. >> okay. >> okay. >> point taken. >> okay, commissioner tang? >> let's see. commissioner farrell. i would like to associate my comments with commissioner weiner and chiu is there a date that you can commit to come back to us, could we suggest one month from now? >> that would be fine. >> two weeks? >> two weeks.

>> better. >> we have a finance committee meeting in two weeks? >> may i interject? i do have a hearing schedule for later this month or earlier, i can't recall the date of the land use committee. we wanted to make it far enough away from the previous authority meetings that there would be updates that the project team could provide so we were not just repeating and so, that hearing is happening. i don't want to, i prefer not to have too many hearings, but if we could do whatever, but that hearing is happening at the land use committee. >> could you tell us, if you can't remember the date. >> i think that it it is early march or april and i can't recall. >> how about that? >> that would be fine. yeah. >> could you also, what i would like to see followed up by commissioner chiu's comments, it seems like we have been spending a lot of time on consultants without a lot of the on the groundwork and could you also provide a break down

of the consultants and how much we have paid them and so we can understand and because these things have come up and in the grand scheme of things, it is real money, i understand the needs one off but to have a comprehensive picture of what is being spent and what the deliverables have been? i think will be extremely helpful. >> and that is for the future meeting or for right now? >> if you can provide it in the meantime, that is great. not for today. but if you can follow up with us send it to our offices i think that will be very helpful. >> we have a detailed budget. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> madam clerk, could you tell me when is the next meeting? >> noon. >> 12. >> the next finance meeting? >> it is april 9th. >> the authority board meeting, at the end of the month on the 27th, i believe. >> the 26th. so we could see this item move

forward with or without recommendation and have the team come back and report at the 27th at the full board or the land use and i am not sure that there is a date for that yet. >> okay. >> okay, commissioner tang. >> i would want to acknowledge the comments that the commissioners made, but i want to make a point that it is important to take this opportunity to look at mission street options as well. while we have this opportunity. so, as long as we can address some of the issues that some of the commissioners have brought up, i do want to support that i am supportive of looking at other options. >> i do would like to echo the comments of commissioner tang. i am interested on the options on mission street.

now, i don't see anyone else in the cue, maybe we can continue with the presentation? >> so, i am just going to talk a little bit about the projects and some of the reasons why we are doing these particular options. as we have discussed before, the better market street project is trying to address many things in the corridor and we need improvements for all modes of transportation, pedestrian improvements bicycle improvements transit improvements and better or reducing auto conflicts, and other vehicle improvements. so to this end, as you have alluded, we have come up with three options, that we are moving forward and studying in great detail. so for all three of the options there are basic consistent points, one of them, they all contain bicycles... they