to beautiful delores park. this is a long time coming. back in 2008, voters approved a clean and safe neighborhood parks bond which allocated about $14 million to improve this incredible park. our goal together we are going to build the new dolores park that is going to be built to last. it is going to retain all of it's important features, all of it's historic qualities, all of it's essential beauty. but yet be built with the idea that this is whenever people come. >> we are going to be renovating all six tennis court's, replacing the basketball court with operations underneath so the staff has the ability to maintain the park. we are completely renovating the

irrigation system and in addition to the operations we are building two new restroom buildings. this fund was part of the park renovation fund. we knew community was very supportive of a renovation fund. we engaged in a community process which we began with the park to do a detailed assessment of the condition of the park and very details conversation about what we can do in the park and utilize what we can. >> parks are where people can gather and where to relax and a lot of people in the city don't have back yards and this is where we come to be with our community. >> 1, 2, 3. [ applause ] [ cheers and applause ] >> the work begins.

>> finance committee i'm commissioner cohen the chair of the committee. to high left is tang and to my right, wiener and farrell. i would like to think charles and jesse for their help in presenting this committee hearing. the clerk of the committee is steve staymous. and mr. clerk, call item number 2. >> item 1 roll call. [ calling roll ]>> item a. >> we have a quorum. >> okay. thank you, could you please call item number 2? >> consent calendar. items 2 through 4 comprise the consent calendar.

the items are considered routine. staff is prepared to present it desired. >> thank you any members of the public would like to speak to item number 2. okay. public comment is closed after a motion to approve? motion made by mr. commissioner tang and seconded by two. this motion passes. or roll call? >> roll call. >> okay. let's do a roll call vote? [ calling roll ] >> consent calendar passes. >> okay. that's good. approval of the minutes. could you please call item number 3? >> i think it was 2 through 4. >> okay. could you please call the next item. >> item 5. state and federal legislative

adape.legislative. this is an informationadape./action item. >> good morning members. i'm happy to be here. we have action items today. the legislature convened monday the first and swore in the new members of the legislature. it was surprised to see 105 members to be introduced. there was a little bit more than what we were used to. and in the succeeding week both houses are moving towards their formation, the assembly -- ah, speaker announced chairs for the committee and for the relevant committees effecting transportation jim fraizer from contra costa will be the transportation committee chairman. and richard bloom from santa monica will continue in his role as chair of the assembly budget

committee. so we have a face there. full committee memberships in the assembly in the next week or so. we expect the senate by the end of the month or early january to announce their chairs and memberships as well. so things are moving on pace. they will be back on january sixth to start doing their work. in terms of major big picture items in the legislature. i think the budget, why not as content us because the members are on the positive side of the ledger this time. it is a lot less available because of the passage of the rainy day fund that requires moneys to be paid to dent service and be placed into the reverse. a little less than folks were expecting. i think we can see some pressures from different consistencies throughout the budget year. nothing like the past, but an issue this year. utilities and commerce will be taking long, strong look at

electricity prices in the state. i'm not sure, i can't predict how that will turnout. that's probably a secondary major issue and one of the ones carrying over from the fall and higher ed and associated fees. those would probably be three of the top, top issues coming our way. transportation funding, there is a recognition, with the new chair, there's a funding shortfalll for even maintenance and prepare in the state. i'm not sure that we'll see major activity, although the speaks offense is working diligently on a concept and -- they hope to get their leadership off to move forward on something. i'll be back to report on that at a point and time. it is entirely focused on state and local report repair and constructivism it will be interesting to see how that turns out. in terms of legislation i'll just describe generally, six bills i want to place before you

for consideration of positions on them. there were several measures introduced to try to stop cap and trade being extended to the fumes regime which goes into effect january 1st. and it, if they were successful they would shutdown quite a significant source of revenues to fund the cap and trade program that was settled last summer with a number of categories with percentages dedicated to them, but i think -- it would be difficult to see how these bills fair. last year two measures were introduced late in the session and placed in the rules committee and never heard. i'm not sure how leadership will deal with the measures this year. there's also a measure or -- several measures to address or to try to shutdown the high-speed rail program. i think they're probably in for a similar pathway.

they'll go to committee and i think they will probably try to stop them there. >> could you -- a little -- >> yeah. i'm going to go through. i'm sorry to interrupt. >> i was wondering. >> the approach? >> yeah. >> yeah. well, 86, which is on page 1 of your matrix is probably the most interesting approach. it basically says no more sales of bonds and any bonds that have been sold but now expanded would be dedicated back to paying debt service associated with the existing high-speed rail bonds. but it goes on to say that the capacity of unsold bonds could then be used and sold to supplement k-12 education construction funding through the state. so that's probably the most interesting of them. staff is recommending an oppose on this measure. the other key measure would be

sb, i'm sorry. hmm. i guess that's, that's really the major one that's out there. >> i have a question about 86. >> yes. >> is the purpose of the spirit to kill high-speed rail, has it changed or still remain largely largely the same? from from -- group of republicans that -- >> yeah. central valley republicans largely and southern california republicans are opposed. they don't form a block big enough to pass legislation on the floor. and they certainly would not have anywhere near the means to, in my view, be successful in committee, unless they are able to bring a few of the democratic comrades over, i don't see that happening at this point and time. the program is up and running. as you know from your discussions with -- on on the cal trans -- and the high-speed rail authority is moving full speed ahead on their first contract and they have several

other construction packages out for procurement. so i don't see the administration nor the legislature turning it back now on high speed rail. i think the major threat from high-speed rail is going to come from congress with the new strengthened -- >> the republican -- >> in the houses. yeah. so i think the state will stand by what we have done. the dedication of cap and trade 25% per year going forward. will provide a foundation for some of the major contracts and other activities. >> all right. thank you. >> um, we recommended oppose to ab23, which out-of-state together -- which deals with the cap and trade fuels. that's on page 2. sb1 would do the same thing. that's on page 3. and sb5 from the senate is on page 5 of your matrix.

all of which would seek to defer or exempt fuels from the cap and trade regime. i think they are all headed for a difficult time in both houses. probably the interesting measure for, that we've recommended support on is ab8, by mr. gato. he has been working diligently the last several years but no success dealing with hit-and-run accidents for meds and bikers and motorcyclists and tried to raise the fine last year and it bill was vetoed. this year he came back with a measure that would split-off from the amber alert cyst amnew yellow alert that would be localized, yellow alert rather than statewide obviously. to be on the look out for a vehicle involved in great bahally harmed or a death in a hit-and-run incident. >> do you remember the discussion last year around the

hit-and-run incidences? >> well, because there is a strong bent against increasing fines. and because when you do the fines, as you know the penalties and fees that pile on top of them, he thinks they are astronaut regressive. this is mr. gato's attempt to come back with a different workable approach. >> hmm. >> we've seen seven years worth of fines vehicle finds vetoed by the governor. i think we pretty much know where he is standing these days on his view and the regressative they of fines. >> how does this bill differ from last year? >> sorry. >> how does this version differ from last year. >> it was vetoed. a fine increase for hit-and-run. >> he pulled that part out. >> yeah, that part is out. there is simply a brand new approach to call on local entities to coordinate with the chp on flashing yellow alerts in the locality of where there has

been a hit-and-run. and allows the chp to exercise the judgment if they think something that will prodos a result depending on the locality and the terrain and all of that. so -- we're recommending support to improve the safety of the operations and the safety for the meds and bikers. >> okay. thank you. >> that would -- complete my report. >> oh, can you talk about ab40. >> 40? i have to take a quick look at that. >> sorry. golden gate bridge sidewalk fees. >> pardon me. oh. yeah. this is basically just directs or prohibits the district from imposing that sort of a toll or fee. it's prettily broadly written, i think it would prohibit them from taking any action to allow

them to make a charge for pedestrians or bikers on the sidewalks. it is pretty hard-hitting directive. >> commissioner? >> if you -- um, so regarding ab40 i said, this is director golden gate bridge eight out of the nine sea direct -- san francisco directors voted against charging bikes and pedestrians across the bridge. it is a waste of money. but we were outvoted by one vote on bridgeport, as you know, and i -- you know, i don't, i don't think there's any realistic chance, i think the study will show that it is not feasible. other if it is, it is not worth it, even those who might be inclined. i tend to doubt it will move

through the bridge port and the -- colleagues who voted for the studies, made fairly clear they were about likely to vote for actual implementing a toll. so the question to you, do you see this as -- actually this bill is actually moving forward or is this more, i don't want to say -- more of a, of a threat or do you think they might actually want to move it forward to foreclose this for all-time. >> i think it depends on the timing. i think what they have done is stake ground, the earliest possible point and time that they could, which is december 1st. the timing on this is we won't see chillies really getting active in terms of considering measures until february, but probably more like march. so i'm not aware of the timing if the study has been completed or the timing would be complete before then. i think they would make a judgment call at that point and time depending on where it

stands. i think they would probably want to have least have it pass out of the first committee and available for the next year just in case. if i was were there and advising them, take it to the first hearing and then put it on hold for the rest of the year. >> okay. thank you. >> can you talk about senate bill 8 introduced, it taxation measure. >> yeah, this -- >> we have it at a watch. >> because it is not formed yet. >> oh. >> it is really a legislative intent, but a number of pages long. he is really calling on the state of california to say hey we need to move into a service economy. we know we are a service economy. our taxation base needs to move off of the dependence of personal income tax and sales tax. personal income tax is volatile, as we know that's why the rainy day fund was captured. he is trying to march ahead into the future. but he didn't put it in straight

statutory form. this is a legislature's intend to work on this and put, he put a framework in the bill. he even estimates revenues of $12 billion net gain from the services taxed and other changes that he proposes and then he proposes a series offalications, some for which is for k-12 and some infrastructure. >> you couldn't know which one of his staff members is working on this, would you? >> in this office? i have not talked to his office, but i would be glad to follow-up. >> i would appreciate that information. i have another question -- senate bill 16 on department of transportation specifically dealing with cal trans. they are seeking them to adopt more program efficiencies and then directing the resulting the road repair and litter control. i was wondering if you thought that -- so that effects us in

san francisco, particularly along the southeast corridor district 10 is bisected by 280 and 101. one of the challenges that we have with cal trans being our partner is homeless encampments that pop on their property. they have not done a good of job to secure their property. so this bill specifically talks about road repair and litter control. which i definitely have a need for come when i think about the ingress and egress of 101 around candlestick, need road repair there. but is there a way to -- secure or include more language in the piece of legislation about securing the property or addressing the homeless issue. >> i would be happy to engage with his staff. this, too, another unformed bill they want to generate savings and put it on road repair. that's all that it does.

if they are going to move the bill forward you want to have this organization have that language place in the bill, that deals with securing the property. that's very understandable. >> yeah. >> there are other areas in the state where it is kind of on a district by district they do a better job than others. it will be an interesting conversation to start. i will be happy to get on that when i get back to sacramento. >> i would appreciate that. one last bill it goes back to ab like on the first page, ab2. commute revitalization authority. this is a spot bill, the ultimate intent is for the bill that would permit the establishment of local community authorities to establish products through tax income revenues. can you give me more information on that one? >> i'm a little bit surprised that it has been introduced.

i haven't spoken to their office about this either. in the wake of the super ifds, which would occupy the same sort of tax increment, this is basically saying use your old rda structure and we will authorize you to do tax increment without the blight and the other requirements is i believe it is going to end up having to be similar to the ifd approach, a voluntary tax agency agreeing to contribute their resources. >> you know -- how is governor feel about that? considering, he gets, he made it very clear how he felt about the development agency. ( laughter ) an interesting way to leverage debt but -- >> yes. i think the governor will say this -- because there was a lot of work that went into that ifd bill. >> uh-huh. >> he eventually signed and it

was all directed by the department of financial in a replacement for rda. i think he will say we have taken care of this once or twice, because of rdas now we have ifds. it is up to you guys to work collaborative using the ifd structure rather than reengaging the rdas and using the same fund source. >> thank you, i'm interested. >> i will be tracking this all year long and talk to his office. >> perfect. thank you. all right. anything else to your presentation? >> excuse me. no, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> well, we're going to go ahead, colleagues do you have questions for item number 5. okay. seeing none. let's open up public comment. no public comment. it is closed on item number 5. now, really quickly i want to go back to consent calendar and resend the vote, because i would like to server item number 4.

>> motion to be pulled by the consent calendar. [ calling roll ] that item has been rescinded. >> thank you very much colleagues i would like to discover items number 4. okay. so approve item number 2 and 3. >> items 2 and 3. [ calling roll ] >> public comment on that? we do? okay. public comment on the new minute consent calendar. okay. seeing none, public comment is closed.

>> item 4. [listing item]. this is an action item. >> thank you very much, thank you for allowing me the opportunity. i'm interested in workforce development, it is also an important city bill, and important structure in our local government. i would love to he how we can expand that program. >> good morning. cynthia fong. just to make mention the representative were just here moments ago to prevent this item when they heard it was passed in consent they headed along to their next appointment. >> sure. is there a way we can get them back in here. we can skip them and move on with the rest of the presentation? >> let me see what i can do to get someone here to answer your specific questions. >> okay. thank you. appreciate that. we will table this item.

>> item 6. an action item. >> good morning, commissioners. assistant deputy director here. this is what we see every year adopting the principles for advocacy for 2015. this is to guide adoption of addition from the state legislature and legislation, we just heard from mark, and also to allow us to respond in between -- um, the hearings if there is an urgent need to approve opposition or testify at hearings. this is increasing the revenue. this is not just in general for transportation, but looking at ways to make it easier for local jurisdictions to help them out. this is includes a better threshold for transportation measures.

it is also advocates for ways to distribute the setting in san francisco, so in particular we will be watching the cap and trade discussions as they move forward next year and the active transportation program discussions. and another thing to support san francisco priority projects. this is -- advancing high-speed rail, including the cal train and the city vision zero effort. so many bills last year, as mark referenced that were aimed at dealing with motorcyclists and infarctions against bikers and pedestrians. we will be following those and any other transportation. and we will be supporting mta's effort as we indicated moo move forward with other legislation related to vision zero. and then also -- another level

of planning -- [ no audio ] so we plan to engage as much as possible in the state's new pilot program. they are funding and piloting a vehicle miles traveled fee to

supplement or replace the state gas tax. and finally there is an item to support the federal market place fairness act that applies tax to internet purposes. not just in the state. this is good for the local economy and raises the sales tax revenue. we are seeking approval of the 2015 program. and i would be happy to answer questions that you have. >> no questions from colleagues. public comments and then call the votes for item number 5 and 6 together. it isoten for item 5. it is closed. >> could you call items 5 and 6 for a vote. [ calling roll ] >> the items pass. >> great. thank you. >> would you please call the next item. >> item 7 recommend authorizing

the executive director to execute a memorandum of agreement for the rapid transit san francisco planning product environmental review phase. department for the geary bus san francisco planning

department rapid transit (brt) project for the geary bus environmental review phase, in an amount not to exceed $139,276, and to negotiate agreement payment terms and non-material agreement terms and conditions; and assigning the professional services contract with jacobs engineering group to circlepoint, increasing the amount of the contract by $225,000, to a hmf"w)tjá t not to exceed $4,409,489, for environmental analysis services for the geary brt project environmental impact report/statement, and authorizing the executive rapid transit (brt) project environmental review phase, in an amount not to exceed $139,276, and to negotiate agreement payment terms and non-material agreement terms and conditions; and assigning the professional services contract with jacobs engineering group to circlepoint, increasing the amount of the contract by $225,000, to a total amount not to exceed $4,409,489, for environmental analysis services for the geary brt project environmental impact report/statement director to modify non-material contract terms and conditions _ tatement (eir/s) that is being submitted for local and federal agency review before circulating to the public. in response to transportation authority board and other input seeking faster delivery of benefits to the corridor, sfmta staff is conducting conceptual planning for a potential initial construction phase set of near-term improvements to be implemented before the full support the eir/s. this new allocation would free up $389,927 for increased consultant and transportation authority staff costs resulting from inclusion of the near-term improvements in the eir/s and an extended schedule. relatedly, in order to more efficiently and cost effectively deliver the and conditions _ action* attachment in close collaboration with the and federal agency review before circulating to the public. in response to transportation authority board and other input seeking faster delivery of benefits to+'.'z j átu(h @&c @&c% staff is conducting conceptual planning for a potential initial construction phase set of near-term improvements to be implemented before the full project will seek federal funds for construction. this month, the plans and prog 38 and the 38 limited, today the buses are slower and less reliable then we would like them to be. and it leads the crowding on the line. our proposal is a set of bus improvements, a dedicated bus lines and improvements to the stations and stops, and the

vehicles services, the corridor, and pedestrian and streetscape enhancements. the update here, after an extensive community planning process, we have alternatives with side running and center running bus lanes in various sections of the corridor. official action select this as alternative for the project. it will not happen until the end of the environmental process. we have signaling to the community, this is the direction that we're heading in. as i mentioned we are in the environmental process, we are developing environmental documentation for public review. we're at the stain where we produced the administrative draft document. this has been through the process of local agency review and we have made changes incorporating local agency comments this week we will be sending the document to the federal transit administration for their review. and then make changes