both at par and a couple of other smaller community organizations and the work is good and she is a diligent member of the community and i know that she will be an asset to that cac. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak. seeing none, public comment is closed. so mr. dental post, we have two seats, one is at large and one is at district one seat. and colleagues, are there any comments that i did want to speak strongly in favor of margy brown as well and the long time work of the planning association for the richmond, but also margie's work on behalf of the transit and on behalf of the whole neighborhood and also, i think that representing perspectives and as she mentioned, i think that she will bring a real valuable point of view to the cac and we have been looking for people that have a long

term understanding of the corridor and i think that with her many years in the richmond district and also along the whole corridor and accountable many members of the planning association for the richmond and others that participate in their very well atebded meetings every month. and i think that she will bring a strong voice on her own behalf and many from the richmond district. >> he has been taking transit daily as well and lives in the central richmond area. and he really tried to be here, but there was an emergency that he could not attend, and i know that as a san francisco state employee, and also taking the east and west routes like the 38 geary and other lines as well. but i think that he will bring

a tremendous point of view. and a neighborhood organizations as well as a district one rep and a transit rider and a neighborhood activist as well. and so i am going to recommend margie brown for the at large seat. and recommend jonathan forester for the 61 seat as well. >> comments? colleagues? >> commissioner breed? >> yes. thank you. i definitely respect and support your decision to support anyone for the richmond seat. since you are the supervisor that represents that seat. but, i did have some questions and what would be helpful for me in the future and i think that i mentioned this in the past. is understanding what the existing dem graphics are of the make-up of the committees who know what is actually missing. so for example, when i look at the candidates, i only see one

young professional on the list, which is jason whitney and he happened to show up. and he is also a district two resident. and i know for example, with the seats for the fillmore, i wanted to be sure that they were district five residents and the people who are associated with the district in some particular way in order to make sure that that as it relates to the bus rapid transit not just the folks that are most impacted but just really the diversity in terms of the city and riders and both the senior population and for the young generation and young population and i just wanted to put that out there and i am happy to support your

recommendations as well as just really wanting in the future, especially to make sure that we have information about the make-ups so that we are making because i think that it took me some time to fill one of my seats, and i did so with a lot of hesitation and i wish that i could have had some great candidates that could have actually and not only always recommend a district five resident and someone who is consistently taking the transit and someone who comes from a different demo graphic or something of that nature and i just wanted to let you all know that in the future, and it would be great for us to have a little bit more information beforehand. >> yeah, i think actually before commissioner campos, could we just ask that mr.

dentalpost could respond to the diversity of the committee. >> yeah, my comments to that effect, is that we provide all of the information that the applicants provide and so we ask them to self-identify, for race, and identity and gender and we do provide all of the information and not all candidates provide all of that information and not all of our past cac members have, but we can, you know, look at how to... >> well, they are here, but i guess that i don't have as much information as i guess that i would like, but, so your

comments are that, you can only use the information that they provide you with, right? >> right, so we have a section on the application that is self-identified, you know, personal information and what groups that the applicants feel they can represent including the application from the past. >> and you wish that some of them and many of them have not provided. >> okay. >> and the groups like for example the young professionals that is something that that particular candidate felt that that was a group that they represent. >> okay. >> commissioner campos? >> and i see commissioner breed's point though, and i think that maybe if there is a better way to at least summarize the information that we do have on the current make-up of the body i think that would be helpful for the purposes of insurancing that

every person or type of information that benefits is represented and i do want to associate myself with the comments of commissioner breed and i think that you want to make sure that there are folks from different demographics and not just senior and young professionals and i think that would be helpful and i am happy to support the recommendations that have been made but i do think that we need to and that what might be left out and the other thing that i would say to the applicants because i think that every one of you, and i think would do a great job. if appointed.

if you are not appointed today, that you will continue to be involved that many of people who end up being appointed have gone through the process just once and it is just the nature that we have so many great people who are applying and it is hard to make a choice and so i hope that you don't give up your interest. >> thank you, commissioner kim? >> thank you, and i just wanted to clarify, and it is marge, for the at large seat and jonathan forester for the richmond. >> okay. >> and something that would be helpful for me in the future too is not just the global make-up of the actual members that we have on the committee, but also, i am sure that we must have data on the dem graphics on the 38 gear y and i think that would be helpful. and i know that the ethic break up represents the rider ship and the background of folks and i am sure that a lot of kiaser

and ucsf employees ride it as well because that is a major stop for this line. and just making sure that we are not missing anyone and i know this goes through downtown and the tender loin and all the way down to the richmond and i certainly see a lot of immigrant families ride this bus as well and a lot of seniors, and it is great to see ma marge will be able to represent a lot of the senior and disable and chinese speakers, i think that is incredibly important for the cac. >> and i did want to say, mr. dentalpost that the information that you have given for the existing members of the cac is really helpful, but a little bit more of the information about con stit you entcy that they represent or the self-identification that they have given and i think that on the applicants they have good information about how they have

identified and what their con stit entcies that they interact with and whether they are a transit rider and a lot of information and i appreciate the packets that you have given to us and so colleagues, can we approve margie brown for the ad large seat and jonathan forester for the district one without objection? >> thank you. and thank you to all of the applicants. >> roll call? >> okay. >> for item number 4, appointing margie to the at large and forester to the rich manned. >> breed. >> aye. >> campos. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> mar. >> aye. >> commissioner yee? >> aye. >> this item passes. >> thank you everyone for coming. >> the next item, >> recommend approval of the 2014 prop aa, call for project and programming recommendation and amend of the prop aa

strategic plan action item. >> and we have courtney from the ta. >> good morning. and this morning, it is a ten dollar fee that was approved by the san francisco voters in 2010 and it reaches about 5 million annually and that are invested in the smaller, high impact projects that are either shoot repair or reconstruction, or pedestrian safety or transit reliability, throughout the city, and december 2012, and the board approved the plan which included programming for 26 million, starting in the physical year, 2012, 13, and through 16, 17, the first five years of the program.

they can fund them that are not actually advancing, the projects that we can reprogram, and the funds to we identified through the competitive calls for projects which we just recently did our first. and at the time that this called for project was issued in january, and the amount available, and it was still quite variable, it was between one and two million dollars coming up to two projects and in october of 2013, we received word from san francisco state, that it no longer needed prop aa funds for the street pedestrian and improvements project because it had been canceled and this left about $1 million for reprogramming for other projects and at the time of the call was issued there was a possibility that additional funds, a little less than a million could be available from the san francisco city colleges, and feeling like the pedestrian connector project, which was

struggling in the face of city colleges ongoing accreditation issues, and we have been working with the others in the city college, of course to see how this project could still be implemented at this point, it looks like mta may assume responsible for implementation of this project. and along with its adjacent pedestrian plaza project and the details are still being sorted out and we expect additional, we hope for resolution in the next fao months and we will keep the commissioners apprised of that project progress, but due to its future looking more often, and there was only a million dollars available to this call for projects. on the slide before you, you can see and also on the attachment three of your packet, you can view a summary of the applications that we received in response to the call for project and on attachment four you can see a listing of these projects and the corresponding scores and we received a total of 6 project commissioner and five

pedestrian and safety and response to the call and requesting about five million in the prop a funds, and the total available funding at this time which was 1.15 million, total, 5 sponsoring agency and so maybe these projects. >> on this slide, you can view that the project locations of these projects as they are spread, throughout the city. now this terms of our evaluation of these projects, we evaluated them based off of the information that was submitted in their applications. and also, by applying the adopted criteria and we first, degree the projects for the eligibility, and then we compared them against category specific, and program wide prioritization criteria and in addition to this existing prior station criteria, we wanted to ad mere to the prop a mandate to deliver benefits to the public, by prioritizing the projects that were able to initiate this work in this

current year and also the projects in light of the vision zero resolutions that were recently introduced by the board of supervisors earlier this year. >> we are recommended a million dollars to the mccal ter project and 360,000 for the signals project and for a total of $1.41 million which exceeds the total available funds of 1.15 million but we will talk about that later. the two top scoring projects distinguish themselves because each is located on a walk first corridor and address the documented needs. the only project that is able to initiate the work during the year and included more pedestrian safety treatment and it was also grounded in a strong community process that is the tender loin, member neighborhood transportation and

as well as. ucu plan. >> could i just ask, that the mccallister is where the law school is and the webster from about geary to maybe to mccallister? >> yes, true. >> for a total of six locations. >> and now, in order to free up the additional funds for that project, the second highest scoring project, we negotiated so that they will lower the total request of us so that they will cover the design cost for the second phase. we are recommending 365,000 to the signal projects to fully fund the design phase and fund construction, we are a little

more funding of this project than what is available, and 1.15 million and we dipped into the prop aa program and capitol reserve and that will again, partially fund the construction phase and we plan to work with mta to continue to identify funding for the construction phase which is the phase to start in july of 2015. >> do you have the slide that outlines the recommendations. >> no, but the project solutions and if you do want to look in the packet, you can view the evaluation of the project, on attachment, let me see. and it is i think, i actually have it, and it is attachment four. and if you look and then our recommendations i believe, are encompassed within attachment

five could you summarize what the recommendations are. >> so the recommendation is to fund about a million dollars 1.045 million to the mccallister street project. and that is within, the confines of woods and larkin in district six and then to fund, $365,000 and if we are precise, 364,000 to the webster street, and it is an sfmta project and the other is hastings and you may recall that we funded a earlier phase of the work, and the construction and design, but this would extend it, the project in additional block and cover additional costs foye with the first phase of the project. >> great, they seem like pretty,

>> i just want to congratulate the sponsor on working in the neighborhood and many meetings to figure out how we could map out of the space and implementation and of our really important pedestrian safety plan and the little saigon project and we are excited that it is going to come to fruition, whether we are talking about the scale lighting and the sidewalk widening or the corner, and this intersection is definitely a hairy intersection for those of you who have been there and it is a major corridor for bart and for the law school, but of course for many of the folks that are coming from mid market and south of market into the tender loin and vice versa and it is just very confusing for the drivers too. you will see when the cars are there, that they are not sure where to turn or where to go straight and i think that more visible redesign will make that

intersection much, much safer and i just did have one quick question and i was wondering what ocs was. >> overhead contact system, the system that can electrify the charlie buss that travel that route. >> congratulations, i would like to thank them, and so to be sure that they would fund the design cost so that we could spread out and leverage the double dollars even further and then, be able to fund additional projects that we see, that are before us today. >> and so i think that this is a really great example of a

private public partnership. >> and i just wanted to acknowledge from uc hastings david who is the chief financial officer with us and peter mcdonald who has been a consultant for the hastings, street scape project and i would agree that the webster street project can move forward and i wanted to say that the webster street, the street scraping is so important for the fillmore district, where rosa park, and wheel is, and that whole area around safeway, and at geary and webster, stretching all the way to japan town. i am glad that the sf state project did not go forward so these other ones other could. >> let's open this up for public comment. >> is there anyone from the public that would like to speak?

>> closed. >> breed. >> aye. >> campos. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> commissioner mar. >> aye >> commissioner yee. >> aye. >> item passes. >> thank you. >>recommend allocation of $950,000 in prop k funds, with conditions, for two requests, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules, and amendment of the bicycle circulation/safety 5-year prioritization program . and the transportation planner is going to present. >> good morning, commissioners this item is for two prop cases that will cost 459,000 in total and i want to give you the summaries and aattachments and the recommendations and for the

first project. (inaudible) >> and the reason for the urgency was due to a complication that happened in the processes and detailed in the memo and the sfmta is using the purposes and to the agencies can join and by transit at a cheaper price. (inaudible) to rush and put on the order and the first type is schedule for june this year, and all of them are expected to being in the service by january

2016. and then for the second project, the sfmta has requested. 250,000 for the communication bridge campaign, filling the cap in the current safety campaign and this project was (inaudible) at the vision zero committee meeting and implemented in the 20 programs for the drivers of large vehicles for both private and city owned vehicles. as well as developing legislating for the state contractor and also develop the bike safety related public service announcements to augment the pedestrian safety education which was separated by the transportation enhancement grant programmed by the transportation authority and this focuses on the considerations that can be implemented in the next ten months and we will benefit both the bicyclist and to fund the goal and with that, the project

managers and kept the manager out and to answer any questions that you may have. >> so, i see no questions. let's open this up for public comment, is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? >> miss hodge from the bicycle coalition? >> good morning, and i want to give our support for the safety program that is proposed we do express the concern that the comprehensive program meant to benefit all street users in general is being drawn from the bicycle category, and which is a very, very small component of prop k and we ask that the staff and the commission look forward for other ways to look at cross cut initiatives and making sure that they don't draw on the smaller portions which we are serving all members of the public for the safety of all users. >> thank you. >> and is there anyone else in the public that would like to

speak? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner kim? >> thank you. and i do want to thank her for the five years of service at the sf bike coalition and i know that you are moving on and thank you for it across the city and i just want to say that i am happy to see that this aspect of vision zero move forward, and i know that there are longer pieces of conversations in terms of how to make sure that we are refilling funding for bike safety in the city and because this education campaign for our large vehicle drivers and our frequent city drivers, and i think that it is important that we do that today and we know that the four cyclists that were hit were done by the large vehicles and three of them that have the contracts with the city and so, moving forward with the education campaign is incredibly important to making this a safer city for all and especially as the economy is growing and the construction is

booming and this is really a critical time for us to educate our large vehicle drivers and so, thank you, on sfdta for helping us to move this forward and great to see that they are going to be replacing these 35 vans, and that is something that we hear so much about from the most senior residents who depend on the service. >> thank you, commissioner kim. i also wanted to thank miss kim, and also cavana from the construction project manager for the projects and jonathan from the mta as well. and i would like to see para transit fleet as a potential future, and agenda item. and i think i share miss hodges comment that my hope is that as we look at limited funds for bicycle improvements that we move forward on street safety,

but not have that cut into bicycle, the limited amount of money for bicycle programs and i was wondering if miss kim could just address what miss hodge just raised? >> sure. we do understand her concern, and that this program even though it does focus on (inaudible) and as well as the expenditure that was developed at the time and the bicycle advocacy was not as well developed as bicyclist and the come position is not visible to be done from the pedestrian safety categories and so, (inaudible) i just and this is a great segway to the next item. what they put together prop k

in 2003, the focus was a capitol program and there were a few programs, and we do not have a generic category to fund this mult tie model and that is something that will reauthorize the sales tax and in that term the november, 2014 ballot measures offer a real good source dedicated to education and endivorcement and we are also working with the mta and the department of public health on alternative transportation program application that will help to provide a more comprehensive city wide education and out reach, campaign related to vision zero and you can probably answer any questions from the mta. >> thank you. >> are there any other questions colleagues? >> have we opened this up for public comment yet? >> so let's open this up for public comment. >> we did. okay. >> then, let's have a roll call,. >> number 6, commissioner breed

in >> aye. >> campos. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> mar >> aye. >> yee. >> aye. >> this item passes. >> thank you. >> please call item 7. >> 7, major capital projects update, and muni radio replacement project, this is an information item. >> good morning, commissioners my name is lous. and i am the project management oversight consultant and i am joined today here with mr. frank lou who is sfmta project manager for the radio project. the project will replace and modernize all of muni communication systems and some that are 40 years old and additional imp itus to the project