have to reduce service because of the lack of operators and lack of equipment. let's be honest. while i like sean, he does a lot of work at the tep program. the truth of matter is tep is based on reducing service. if we are doing everything to do with transit first, we have a lot of work to do. now, recent with john hailey, he knows what he's up against in terms of providing economic service that these citizens of san francisco defer. -- deserve. we know what we are up against. tep, it's not going to work. of course you have to put aside a project because we know it's too many holes within the tep goal -- going on right now. we

have to complete the project. everybody is chasing the tail. nothing is getting done. i just ask once again, scrutinize the tep for what it is. honestly, it looks fine for the future. but if you look at what's going on now with the projects coming forthwith tep, it's not going to work. you are taking that a tunnel. >> thank you. next speaker, miss sacs? >> turning to tep, i have spoken about this many times at the full board meeting and citizens advisory committee and i also went to the workshops

and they are trying to figure out handout you to include service. what they are actually doing is reducing service like the gentleman before me said. what they did is they took, they are making so that reducing service where there were booklets that i still have. they took the one california for example commissioner kim, they took one and they had it going to howard during the day. they took that off. they reduced services to the point that people with disabilities, people that work swing and grave yards cannot get to and from their jobs in the effect

ive way. they reduce service at 11:00 at night. people that work and restaurants and hotels and bars cannot get home. people with swing and graveyard can't get home from their jobs. that is totally wrong. you have to analyze tep before you do anything. >> thank you, miss sacs. next speaker. >> steve wu from chinatown cdc. we want to talk about our position on the theep. we have some significant concerns about it demand terms of the reduction in service it's proposing particularly in chinatown. the tep will be reducing the route of the a decks part of the way through

chinatown and eliminating folsom. in the area of talking about reducing revenue, we don't understand why there are cuts to service. for the items that will be reducing the service, we are not sure why that's there. the system going through environmental revenue -- review. in planning, you need to make sure with the cuts you have not been able to evaluate fully. thank you. >> commissioner kim? >> actually if i can ask you a question. sorry. thank you. of the 10 projects, actually maybe i can ask the mta staff about the preliminary design of the projects and the additional 5 projects. are you aware whether

the 8 axis is included in this list and/or would you like to hold off the approval of the funding for this design until we get more questions and answers? >> we have not moved in that direction yet. i'm not sure what is proposed in the project. we haven't taken that position yet. >> okay. i will ask mta staff but i will wait after public comment. or not. i think we should let public comment through. >> yes. we should keep going. >> hi, good morning. my name is jane martin and from people organized employment rights and we organize low income bus riders. while there are parts of the tep wr excited about but there are impacts that are a

reduction for our communities and we know that the title 6 analysis actually hasn't been done jet and the mta is embarking on a lot of community outreach. we want to see the results of that and want to make sure as the board goes to make more decision about tep, the needs of our community is taken into account. there is planning before the larger questions of been answered. we are not here to oppose the planning money, just making sure we are paying attention to it movg forward. >> thank you. is there anyone else from the p be that would like to speak, seeing none, public comment is closed. >> if you want to respond to comments? >> sure, just to clarify questions, a decks is in

included in this. i will turn it to -- who will have a more thorough response. >> also what team projects are beyond the a decks. >> sure. shawn kennedy mta. in the first group 14 mission, the middle part of mission we cut into three groups because it's three different proposals. the 30, 5, a decks is in the first group. the second group is the rest of the 14 with 28 the j and l. and i want to point out that these are not service, there is really two components to the tep, service increasing which is proposing the increase by 10 percent and these capital projects. the detail design

money that we are requesting for today goes for the capital projects and for the outreach on those capital projects and cdc and jane martin and other groups to figure out what of the capital projects to move forward and the design of those capital projects so we are shovel ready to take advantage of those funds. the service projector service improvement of those changes talk about are really in a separate process and that outreach will be going in the same time, but it's not part of this kind of preliminary engineering detailed design task that we are requesting for funds today. >> commissioner, i did want to jump in to say the 5 limited a part of this has been a major improvement of efficiency and service to not only to district one and also district 5 stretching through the tenderloin and part of market as well. i this i -- think

that might be one example of that improvement along that corridor. >> commissioner breed? >> yes, i was too concerned that tep was coming to make request for additional funds when they have not completed the environmental review especially when we have other significant current needs. i'm not necessarily comfortable with moving forward with supporting this level of funding for the tep until we have a clearer understanding of the environmental impacts over all before we are making decision about something like this. that's where i'm at. i just wanted to make that clear. >> actually, what would be the impact if we continued this part of the proposal too? >> this money is to do the

outreach. so environmental process with theeir process lays out the impact disclosure document. starting in 2006 we have had a hundred community meetings that developers at the planning level are now being reviewed at the environmental process, the draft eir is out after 2 months. and we are now working on our final eir as was mentioned we are hoping to have out and certified in the early spring of this year. that does nothing for implementation. there is a lot of outreach that still needs to happen. we have to decide talking with specific people on not only residents but business owners and advocacy groups and

what kind of bar the e ir propose and will help us to consider the proposed location and these are the trade offs and we need to figure out how to move forward on that proposal and to take that to do design work on that so we have design drawings. right now the current plan is to use in our cip, the mta cip we have $150 million set aside to fund these first 10 corridors with capital money. $150 million. so we want this money to go for not only going to do the outreach but to finalize the design and take advantage of that money and pursue this.

>> i think wr continuing this item and also want to know what the negative impacts are for short-term so more discussion happens. i proposed this question and director chang as well. if you want to address that. >> good morning, director chang, this process is very important, a high priority process for the city and it's working it's way around public comment and we are going to support the mta in having those meetings and conversations to address community concerns that are still outstanding. i would say to move this project forward through the design phase, i would be comfortable we do that with asking the mta come to these meetings to see how they are making progress on their equity analysis and to

have more details presentations on specific lines and specific parts of the network, for example the 8 segment, the valley second degree -- segment and not necessarily the china segment. i would like to see this continue. >> i don't have a lot of confidence in the public outreach process of the mta because of passed experience. i'm trying to i guess understand how where doing design work and outreach simultaneously because the money is being asked for. so you are talking about doing design work while the outreach process is happening as well from what i guess i'm hearing from you and mta. i don't know, what's the point of public outreach if

that's the case? >> can i just add to that. with what outreach you've had we are getting negative food back in terms of, the presentations are done in the community, now we are getting negative food back on what the plans are looking like. yet there have been no modifications to this process. one of my big issues is that i think sf mta does a great job of organizing meetings in the community but you never see modifications to the plans afterwards. this is also with parking meters. there is so much of the process that we go through with sf mta. i don't want an outreach where it's just a listening session. i would like to continue this until we get lots more information. >> john, with the mta. i will try to address a couple concerns that were brought up.

as the executive director, this is one of the top priority projects. the request today, the prop k allocation request has to do with what we call a travel time reduction process. those are physical capital improvement, things like transit authority and things like better accessibility and bicycle improvement that help people get to transit easier. so the physical component of the transit project. the reason we are moving forward to try to address some of the conditions that were stated is we do the public outreach and do the planning and get feedback but we don't have physical engineering projects to show the public. i think you might have seen some of that with the van ness project. we do want to do some preliminary engineering and design so we have feedback

for the public. instead of saying this will what you will need as a 5-minute time. we want to show them what it's like to actually experience riding the system. which is why we want to do it currently. the environment talks about the environmental impact and what we are talking about is the service impact. this is our engineers and staff at the mta to prepare real physical plans and drawings to get reactions from the public. which is like concurrently we also did that outreach from the contract that we funned the mta to do at one time so we get comments and feedback on the physical improvement we are talking about making to the environment. that's why this component is coming to you now based on the timeline of the eir and the public outreach having this work done so we can make real changes. what we don't want is go through a public process, do a design and go back and to have design again because that's when you start losing your coordination

opportunities and start to have cost increases on the project. we are trying to do the best we can at coordination and trying to do the best with outreach and this does reflect what i high priority this is for us. >> so is anyone talking to the transit drivers? >> yes. actually two things: i will answer that first. yes, we have, with the 5 l, we started the driver outreach and classes and talked with them about how to 50 would be working and now following up with this many on a monthly basis on how to performance is going and how we can tweak it from their perspective an that is going to be a model as we move forward and that's what the outreach consultant is helping us on and reaching out to our 1200 operators and figuring out how to best share these proposals

with them again because it's been since 2009 and 2006 and dropped off in 2009 and kind of silent then. we need refresh what the proposals are now and see any alternative dwladz -- ideas that we can proceed with. i would like to go back to john's point and supervisor kim's point, our view has been a level of environmental process. it sets a bar. we can't construct anything higher than that bar but we don't have to construct anything up to that bar. meaning this is the point, now is the time in the next 6-8 months where we'll be making specific decisions on what gets built and what

doesn't and we'll be making changes to the proposal as we go forward based on the community feedback and this preliminary engineering level. detailed design won't be overlapping what it's called permanent engineering but it's outreach looking at how long will the bus bulb beand the drive way and what kind of utilities we need to move and that gets played out in the engineering phase and that can be moved into design once we get the questions answers. >> last points? >> i realize we have several more items. i think we should continue this. i think we need more detailed presentation at the next committee meeting. i read your report and it does answer a lot of questions, but i think the public deserves more of an explanation. i get that you are primarily looking

at physical design to speed up tep. i understand tht mta's priority, i'm just not sure it's my priority. we need to be clear on that. if we are going to allocate dollars, i need to understand better why this is important and what we are going to do to speed up these lines. they are all important. i get it. i would just like to ask a lot more questions about what you are considering and what portions of the lines you think are going to help in speeding up. >> we have preliminary project descriptions for all of those and i think we can work with the authorities come back with a more detailed presentation. >> and the urgency from the mta and mta's recommendation. let's bring this forward to the next committee meeting and the

outreach is going to be meaningful and deeper. i do think there is a perception that the tep is about cuts and it's about expanding more services as well. there is a motion to continue not only the escalators but also to continue the tep part of this. i don't think i need to clarify that anymore. can we take the continueing the escalators without objection to the next meeting? we'll do that without objection. thank you. on the item before us, can we take this with a positive recommendation without objection? >> so moved. >> thank you. >> miss chang, please call the next item. item no. 6. item 6: the budget and legislative analyst's office report on equitable uses for the vehicle license fee information at the request of plans and programs committee chair mar,

the budget and legislative analyst's office has prepared a report on equitable uses for the vehicle license fee vlff. the budget and legislative analyst's office will present the finding of the reports at the committee meeting. this is an item no. 6. sf 612341234 this is an information item. >> it's 11:41. i know supervisor avalos should be on his way here. i asked the budget analyst office to review from the city and san francisco county to the schwarzenegger level and we want to ensure the san franciscans get the most bang for their bucks. we want to make sure the transportation system needs to be improved but with limited resources i thought it would be better to have both analysis together which is really helpful for us. i know the mayor's transportation task force presented at our last board

meeting has done a lot of work where this funded is needed. i think it's consistent in many ways with the mayor's task force is concerned about as well. also the need to expand the service and keep affordable so equity is a strong voice from the communities. the report from the budget legislative analyst office is really complimentary to the mayor's task force goals. with that fred bruce oh is from the budget legislative analyst office and he's going to give the presentation. >> ken mar, members. >> from the budget analyst office. dan will walk you through the report. for this report request we identified funding options to achieve various transportation public policy objectives assuming the

vehicle license fee is restored to 2 percent with the current level of 65 percent. it requires voter approval before that can be done and be before san francisco. we worked with the department of motor vehicles from the san francisco license fee and that enabled us to provide projection and we'll walk you through what will be included. we also worked with the sf mta to identify funding alternatives that will allow for service improvements to achieve the transportation public policy objectives that you can outline in the request.

with that i'm turn it over to gacher. >> thank you, mr. bruce oh and mr. gacher for the work. i would like to satisfy -- say the budget analyst office has provided these reports in great detail. i know we throw a lot of request at you and we really appreciate it. >> good morning, commissioners. as fred mentioned i will be presenting highlights on the policy on the expansion of the vehicle license fee. so, supervisor mar's office asked us to make a projection of the revenues that the city would realize if it raised and vlf level to 2 percent and how it

would impact income levels and asked to allocation of the impact of levels including the expansion of munis service providing more runs, investment in the maintenance of the munis fleet, street repaving, bicycle improvements, and pedestrian safety improvements. these five funding areas were analyzed based on 5 policy objectives including changing transportation mode chair from private vehicle use, improvement to munis on time performance and reduction in carbon emissions and impact on the safety and traffic of the public and capital cost. on slide 3 you will see our projections on the amount of

revenue if the vlf is increased to 5.to 2 percent. it's important to note that these projections don't include certain factors that will likely affect it and these include one time administrative cost that sb 1492 requires that the city and county pay to the dmv to set up this fee in their system. in discussions with dmv. they said it would be in the neighborhood of a half million dollars but they don't have a full analysis of what that would cost and the impact on revenue with the expected increase on the value of the private vehicle fleet due to inflation. we did look at historical rates of inflation that the cost of rising

vehicles raises about -- per year. this is not including inflation from 2013. as well we assumed that the number of vehicles in the private vehicle fleet in the city would remain constant and we don't know whether the number of vehicles would actually stay constant or decrease or increase. finally, we do not have a solid estimate of the potential for what some term leakage which is that some individuals and businesses may choose to or attempt to let reregister their vehicles in other counties because they may have a second home or other address or business address that's in a location outside of the county. and, san francisco county is the only county in

state law that is able to raise the vof. there might be an impact on the number of vehicles purchased maybe slightly based on the increased cost. below the table with the projections you will see our analysis of the impact of residents on the different income levels. on two 2 percent of the annual average fee of the average vehicle which we estimated 11$11 million or $150 more than the current $72 fee of the average very value. what residents at all income levels would be affected by the increase. the extent of the impact will depend on the number of vehicles and value owned by the residents. those

making $23,000 a year would share a larger income for an average valued vehicle. we should note that only 35 percent in the households own one or more vehicle. houses own vehicles that are valued than the value. although higher income would pay a smaller percentage on the average vehicle. they maybe likely to pay moreover all as they are likely to own more vehicles and they are valued higher than the average vehicle. i should add there has been some research that indicates higher income households are able to pay less vlf by claim of deduction from their taxable income which lower income households are less likely to