make very sometimes subjective determinations about -- make this taller, shorter, set this back or make this change or that change because the commissioners set or points of view, they think something should change. and, so, we heard about a lot of issues today that are very, very, very legitimate issues and disputes, but in my view are more appropriate for a discretionary review or an appeal to the board of appeals that is happening and are not relevant to c-e-q-a. so, in applying c-e-q-a here, it's my view that this categorical exemption was correctly granted and that additional environmental review is not required here. i won't repeat the arguments i heard from the planning department, but i do agree with them.

i want to stress that i talked before about ms. brandt holley setting a precedent. there are times when you need to set a precedent. if there is a c-e-q-a issue and you need to set a precedent, that is appropriate. i believe overturning this cat ex here would be setting a precedent that would be outside of c-e-q-a and would, in effect, turn this body into some sort of review body of the planning commission's discretionary review determinations around views, around shadows, around a number of the things that we discussed. ~ today. so, with that, i do move that we affirm the categorical exemption, specifically the motion is to move item 14 and to table items 15 and 16, and that is the motion. >> thank you, supervisor wiener

has made a motion from the categorical exemption. that is seconded by supervisor campos. colleagues, any additional questions? before we vote, i just want to note, supervisor mar unfortunately was not feeling well and had to go home so i'd like to entertain a motion that we excuse him for the rest of the afternoon. motion by supervisor farrell seconded by supervisor campos, without objection, he will be excused. [gavel] >> with that, if unless there is discussion, let's take a roll call vote on supervisor wiener's motion. >> supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. there are 10 aye. >> the motion is approved and the categorical exemption is affirmed. [gavel] >> thank you to the members of

the public. and with that, let us go to the adoption calendar, madam clerk. >> items 19 through 21 are being considered for immediate adoption without committee reference. a single roll call today [speaker not understood] unless a member objects, a matter can then be removed and considered separately. >> colleagues, would any member like to sever these item? supervisor cohen. >> thank you, mr. chair. i'd like to sever item 21. >> tie at thev 21 is severed. members of the public, if you could please leave quietly, we still have a little bit of business to do in front of the board. madam clerk, can you call the roll on items 19 and tae? >> supervisor yee? aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. bravoed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor co-en? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. there are 10 ayes.

>> those resolutions are adopted. [gavel] >> item 21, madam clerk. >> item 21 is a resolution declaring april 9, 2013 as equal pay day in the city and county of san francisco. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. colleagues, i'd just like to thank you for allowing me a chance to speak on this item today. i'll be very brief. my throat is hurting. i want to acknowledge my colleagues david chiu, john avalos, eric mar, jane kim, david campos and london breed joining me in the co-sponsorship of this resolution. and let me tell you about the purpose of this resolution. it's really to bring attention to the fact that even in 2013, 40 years after this kung tali has passed the equal pay act, women still earn an average of only 77% of what their male counterparts earn. additionally, according to the u.s. department of labor and statistics, women earn less in

every job classification that has been analyzed for wage disparity. over an average working lifetime, let me tell you what this disparity would actually cost women. it will actually cost american women and her family somewhere between 700 and $2 million in lost wages. so, ail though we're making great strides in this country for aloual rights for women, we're not quite there yet. that's why we have to continue to work together to brick bring attention to this issue. this continues to recognize disparity between pay in men and women. as the employers in our city to voluntarily take a look at their wage policies to ensure that women are being paid fairly. i'd like to take a moment to thank ~ my co-sponsors for the resolution as well as the ones that joined me earlier today on the steps of city hall. i especially want to take a moment to recognize the leadership of our partners in labor seiu, did a phenomenal job in organizing the rallies and along with the department

on the commission -- of the department and the commission on the status of women as well as sfwpc. thank you, colleagues. i would urge your support as well. >> thank you, supervisor cohen. colleagues, unless there is any additional discussion, can we take this item same house same call? without objection, this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> madam clerk, could you read the in memoriams. >> yes, mr. president. today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following individuals. on behalf of supervisor breed for the late dominic [speaker not understood] crawford. on behalf of supervisor cohen, for the late ms. catherine campbell. and ms. levine stuben. on behalf of supervisor chiu, supervisor cohen and supervisor wiener for the late ms. mabel sue. >> madam clerk, is there any more business in front of the board? >> that concludes our business for today, mr. president. >> ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned. [gavel]

the meeting will now come to order. welcome to the regular meeting of the transportation authority finances committee. i'm chair of this committee. to my left is tang and chiu and to my right is commissioner wiener and and the clerk of the committee is erica chang as well as jessie lars son for broadcasting this meeting. madam clerk please call item 2. >> an action item. >> thank you. are there any members of the public that would like to speak on the item, if so please come forward. seeing there is no one

interested on speaking on public comment. is there a motion to approve item 2? thank you. this we go. $2? thank you. this we go. madam clerk please read item 3. i'm here to report on how things are going with the legislature. i have a couple things that i want to alert you to the edition of the matrix and i want to cover those first. also it's appropriate to take stock on what's happened to the legislation. i will quickly cover that. first the changes to the matrix on page 4 we've added ab 41 from san mateo, a

new taxing authority to fund opportunities, authorizes sales tax to be voted upon within that mpo region. we are recommending a watch and we'll know better how it looks like it's going to go. this bill has bounced from natural resources to rules committee to local government. so it's been a bouncing bauchl -- ball. it's on a matrix and we'll be watching it and if it comes back stronger at a later day. we recommending deletion ab 680 had been a spot measure and amended recently to apply a state route which has no applicability to san francisco bay area for your policy so we are recommending taking it off

the matrix. a recent amended measure is being recommend today add ab 738 on page 7 of the matrix. it tends to provide a liability shield for employees of agencies that are developing bike plans. it sounds like a much needed simplification. we need to take a look at the bill at more depth to see how it fares in its first committee and finally as a watch position we are recommending the addition of sb 792 by senator son ya. this provides a new region natural plan by the joint counsel it in the san francisco region trying to drive consolidation of planning functions amongst m t

c. for your information, mtc has recommended a watch at this point and prefer to work with the author. this is several years running and he's tried to force more collaboration between the entities in this region. that bill is set for hearing next week and we are recommending a watch. that's it for the additions and changes to the matrix. to give you an update on the carl moir program has some funding for your high speed rail program and there are 2 measures that are identical that is to extend the fees of the carl moir program as well as other fuel filter programs. the first measure ab 8, it passed out of the public transportation committee last night. it's companions or look alike sb 11, did pass last week

and it set for a hearing this afternoon. it's been a tough push in the senate. there is a lot of concerns raised by the senate analysis but i think it will pass today based on the vote count that we've been putting together. several bills to note. a b 164 adds performance bonds for local private partnership. you will impose that because it will increase the cost unnecessarily. it has not been set yet and it is a referred to the assembly local government committee. they are sort of running out of time for action this year but we'll be monitoring that in case it does get set. mr. blooming field on page four of your matrix extends hov access for green

and white sticker plug in hybrids and electric vehicles to 2025. that's viewed as an over reach and as well by doing so, it allows or extends the ability of these same vehicles to have toll free access and certain quarters in the state. that bill is set for hearing next week. i'm not sure how that's going to fair, but we are working on that ab 749 by mr. guerrero is on page 7. in the p 3 framework that the doil drive project went through, it had to go through public service venture entity that belongs to the transportation secretary and this bill does a lot of things to modernize the p 3 loft, it also provides pie

yack this new entity with more members and the ability to kill a project rather than waiting for transportation commission. that was the basis for opposing it. they have run into troubles in our opposition and are not accepting amendments yet so we'll see how they fair next week. we have a limit high rail bonds to those already been sold basically killing off the high rail project. that bill passed last night in assembly transportation committee. i think it may have gotten one courtesy vote and another measure that you took opposed poings on page 8 of the matrix. this will take the map 1 authority that was approved last summer to allow delegation to be extend today -- to cal

trans for transit projects. it seems like a misfit to have cal trans doing local agency transit project, meet the clearance. therefore you opposed. when i checked with the office yesterday, they indicated they will put the bill over until next year. they just run into too much opposition. one area of interest where the three measures where you took a support position that reduced the threshold, these will be constitutional amendments and go straight to the ballot. sca 11, the first 2 deal with transportation and includes sales taxes, the 3rd one only applies to special taxes which allows special tax for transportation to be included but it's a broader net in terms

of it's authority to do a threshold. all of those are scheduled to be heard with several other measures to deal with other policy areas for senate government and finances committee on may 5th. i had a conversation with the protem's office and we may see these bills move to keep them alive and in position from a deadline perspective, but he does not expect any of these voter threshold bills to be adopted year and anticipates if any due it will be in 2014. that's my report. >> are there any questions, colleagues? any member of the public who would like to speak on this matter? all right. seeing there is no one from the public and seeing there is none from colleagues, we close this. are there any questions? all

right. we have a motion? thank you very much. motion made by commissioner chiu without objection. madam clerk please read item no. 4. >> reading no. 4. an action item. >> very much. good morning commissioners. this item is to recommend a planning services a board to parsons in terms of the treasure island mobility study. this st you had is per our agreement with the treasure island authority. we have an agreement with tita to support the treasure island transportation plan. the treasure island of

transportation plan includes a very innovative program for making transportation sustainable as the island develops and focused on parking pricing and congestion and to mitigate any impact on the bridge and provides a program for transit and other management techniques to help improve non-automobility to the island. this time what is needed is planning work to complete the preimplementation, activities in support of the pricing program. so analyzing alternative pricing amounts, relationship between parking pricing and the toll between different transit service levels are needed to support the pricing program and the initial system's design on the technology side for how the

pricing program would be compatible with that and with sf park and etc vment there is a planning dimension and design engineering dimension to the contract. the contract is funded by a grant that we run from mtc, metropolitan transportation commission. it's very highly rated, this project was very highly rated in the program so planning will be fully funded by that as well as a match from tita. it's about 18 months duration of the planning study, a total contract value is $300,000 and we are meeting actually exceeding the db equals for this contract for this team. i'm happy to answer any

questions. the competitive process we did receive 4 bids and interviewed 3 and recommended the strongest. thank you. thank you. any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? please come up. >> i'm sorry, i just wanted to quickly acknowledge that we have jim from pb here if you have any questions for pb. >> good morning, commissioners, my name is jackie sacs, i'm from the citizens advisory committee and i have also been on the advisory committee for the doil drive project. this firm and very familiar with

this firm because they are the ones that got the pressidio parkway done. i strongly support that you approve this contract and i hope do you this same. thank you very much. >> thank you. are there any other members that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is close. colleagues, any thoughts or ideas on this item? seeing none. we have a motion? thank you very much. motion by commissioner ferrel. madam clerk please call item no. 5. >> reading item no. 5. this is

an action item. >> thank you very much. >> good morning commissioners, deputy doctor director for finances administration. this is the annual budget since we adopted the budget in march. what i have for you is on page 47. it's attachment a. a high level view of the budget adopted for fiscal year 2013 and the changes we are proposed and what we are looking at if this item were to be adopted. on page 45 i have a more detailed version of the budget amendment where we go line byline with different types of grants. i would like to point out the items we will be

increasing and decreasing on a budget. the first item is our prop k sales tax revenue. this amount was budgeted at 77.5 million, but as of january 14, we collected $2 million in sales tax revenue. we recommend we increase it by $7 million. then we have the corridor investment study. since the last budget we were able to obtain $81,000 and san francisco state university and general properties of the galleria. we anticipate spending about $63661 for the grant activity. in august of 2012 we were able to obtain a

grant for $1.5 million. we will increase federal revenues and decrease other revenues by $251, 892 dollars. next we have the project, we are experiencing a total amount of $91,000 for next year. during the year we were able to obtain $434, 531. the treasure island mobility mansion, the item you just heard before, this item, we received a $500,000 federal grant from mtc. we will be

spending approximately $64, 101 this year. this is the largest budget announcement. we are recognized $34.1 million revenues we'll be receiving from mtc. what happened is we anticipated this in the last fiscal year but do -- due to a lack of full completed analysis, we were not able to pay cal trans and not able to recognize that revenue. this year we anticipate we'll receive most of the invoices and anticipate receiving full complete invoices to recognize the full $34 million. in addition to the project, there has been a switch of responsibility. more like a shift. cal trans has asked authority to take on more responsibility with the p 3 contractor and with this there would be additional $3.3

million of expenditures but no overall budget adjustment. the budget will remain the same for that project. for the better market street, this was an item heard before the board. an additional $305,000 and we anticipated spending $327,000 of that in the next fiscal year to. highlight, i would like to say $61,000 was received in grand by the harney way transportation plan. we were able to contract a couple more items through the travel demand model service bureau. we also will be taking off the caesar chavez redesign services because we were able to finish that project during the last

fiscal year. in terms of our capital project for the prop k program initiatives, we are increasing our capital projects by $20 million. this is for 59, 40 foot motor coaches procurement project they were able to procure this item in advance of what the original schedule so we plan on adding $20 million to this budget. last item, as you may recall during july of last year, we were able to obtain a new line of credit. with that line of credit we were able to reduce our interest fees by approximately 1.2 million. in relation to that, we'll not need the $295 million debt that is originally put on the adopted budget for the fiscal year. we are in process to determine whether well need that for the next year budget.

in terms of the cac, this item went before the cac and there was a unanimous muss -- vote for this item and we are seeking a recommendation to approve the amended budget for 2013. i'm happy to go over more details or answer any questions you have. >> thank you, very much. >> see if there is any public comment on this item. i see one person. >> good morning, commissioners, my name is jackie sacs. i'm a member of the cac. i was one of the individuals that asked for approval of this