september 8, 20 freen. welcome to san francisco transporeitation authority. our clerk today is steve stamos and todays meeting is brought to us by leo[inaudible] and charles crim nack. like to mention my other committee members who are here. commissioner kim and malia cohen and we'll be joined by compose and mar. any announcements >> there are no announcement. >>ite item 1, ovlose present.

compose absent. xhigdser cohen, present. commissioner kim, present. commissioner mar, absent we have a quorum >> great, let's go to our consent calendar. >> consent calendar item 2-3 are considered routine, staff isn't planning to present on these items. if a member objects any consent iletm may be removed and crrbed separately. >> we have minutes and report. any comments or questions or changes to the minutes? okay, see none we'll go to public comment on item 2 and 3. >> [inaudible] >> isn't on the item today. we need to stick to the items thatd are with us. we vuproval

oaf the minutes and item 3 can we have a motion tew prove the minutes? that is seconded by supervisor cohen and take that without objection. >> on the consent calendar, commissioner avalos, aye. campos, absent. commissioner cohen, aye. kim, aye. mar, absent. the consent calendar passes >> var good let's go to item number 4. >> item 4, state and federal legislative updatement this is a action item. >> we have mark watts here to give us a report. we is a special session happening in sacramento >> i apologize if i caused any delay here. thank you for having me here. mark watts your representative in

sacramento. there are several new items to add to the matrix mostly coming from introduction of bills in the special session. however, the first bill i would like to highlight, ab 779, dealwise elimination of level of service as a measure in the environmental process and elim namesinates agency responsible for [inaudible] no longer have to track the level of service. the bill was amended lailt in the process and has not been herds. it was set for commit a but the author pulled the bill. this will be a bill that is available in jan unless it pops up in a essential session but we wanted to get on record in support of this measure. it is consistent with long standing policy and believe it will be coming back in january and will make a strong push for it. the other measures i want to highlight

are bills that are extraordinary session measures and that is why they are coming so late. several were introduced in late july and in mid-august. there are 4 bills. they go by the gnomeing claicher x 1. [inaudible] 7. mr. chew, ab 8 and senator hills sb 8 and senator alan sbfore, those are 4 bills, 2 of which are identical to the other 2 in the other house. strong effort by the california transit association to put transit discussion into special session. these measures do it 2 different ways even though there are 4 bills. one instance the measures seek to increase thumount of green

house gas reduction finds, in other words cap and trade auction revenues into transit increasing current programs there and the other 2 bills also address transtd funding by trying to increase the level of the sales tax collected on diesel which is the foundational source for state transit assistance program. in my view the latter one is a tax increase and therefore more difficult to achieve but none the less, the administration has taken a queue from the introduction of these bill squz the press conferences conducted around the state by the office of had bills to actually feed into their transportation program increases in trazt which was unexpected. they were resistabout but now that the final package is out they have funding in them. we recommend support in those 4 measures and i would like to highlight 3 bills we recommend

opposing positions on. abx 16, the issue there is it requires more funding dedicated to rule counties and throughout this year as green house gas reduction fund bills have come through the process ones that tend to isolate or favor other programmatic wrairias or regions of the state, we recommended that you oppose that and keep it as wide open as possible so you can be competitive in these grants and recommend oppose on that measure >> how does it appear that has a lot of support? >> no, it does not at this point in time but you never know as we get close to the end of special session dish cushion discussions ensue >> [inaudible] >> abx 16. i don't have the page number, it is toward the very end

>> is this different from ab 6 which provides no further bonds- >> correct. it more of a isolation and dedication to rule communities of the arkz grants rather than sebd sepding to other programs it is locking out urban areas from having access to those funds >> this is for high speed? >> no, that is >> this is different. soree >> it is cap and trade action revenue >> got it >> the last abx 113 by assembly member [inaudible] would repurpose the cap and trade revenues that now go for affordable housing and other programs that have been successful into high ways it isn't running into success and would have problems even if approved meetic the nexus challenge in the view of many

folks in sacramento so it is a exercise >> that is doa as well? >> correct. abx 117 is a different way of approaching taking green house-this would take the green house gas reduction fund monies dedicated to the high speed rail project and instead transfer nem to state high way maintenance. very diligent folks in the republican caucuses. the last meser sb 16 does the same thing. takes green house gas reduction funds [inaudible] >> lot of success with the high way program back in theizeen how administration >> those represent changes for action. i have a few other things if you would like me to

update you on. >> i have 2 questions if that is okay. i just want to ask quickly since i asked about ab 6 and you brought up ab 6 , x. if you can give a update on that. i know our official position is opposing this measure. >> it is not a threat to move this year. it would car eover potentially as a 2 year bill next year because it did not pass-it didn't meet the deadline this year so could be available in january >> is this something we expect to gain grounds or movement in sacramento? >> no >> the second question because you brought up cap and trade is ab 23. which is on the

effective date of cap and trade >> this is the same issue in terms of where it stands. it failed to meet deadlines and could be taken up in january but not likely to move and don't think there is support for it. >> [inaudible] of the documented it provided to us. ab 2 is author is [inaudible] committee revisalization authority. the intents is provide for community revitalization authority [inaudible] we vaindication we are watching it. can you talk to me more about what is the temperature for this particular measure. >> it has been moving right through the process. there has been a strong interest in tax

increment financing, enhance the ifd's parallel to this and think it has a good chance to get to the governor. i don't know his attitude on further expanding ifd. >> that leads me to my next question. i think there is a item that is-i think it is tony atcons, ab 313 that also deals with addressing the elimination of the dwelling units. can you give me a-- >> pardon me for interrupting. it is advised that the enhanced ifd law need today have a separation between the entity that governs the plan and the entity that is in charge of

collecting voluntarily the revenues so what mrs. atcons bill does is it seeks that separation. it is thought by the original proponent of the program to be a enhancement and make it more workable. >> yet dollar is no indication on the governors feeling? >> no but i'm crft the speaker is confident. i talked to her and feels she has a fair chance. she snpt changing the dynamics it is making it more [inaudible] from post approval actions by folks who may want to challenge it. >> i want to go back too ab 35, assembly men chew legislation. increase tax credit for low income housing and allocation by additional 300 million. i [inaudible] support position. the senate second reading, what

does that mean? >> that means luck lael or forninately it passed out of propeation so think it has steam moving forward >> are there other folks that are helping move this forward? >> [inaudible] some transportation agencies, i caents tell you one >> is there opposition against this? >> if is it is modest. there detaurmtinant is the department of finance because it allows a higher level of debt to be available for this purpose and it seems to in my view seems to be meet wg success. >> you may or may not know how toanswer this nex queckz but how would we apply this? if

this passes how do we apply this additional 300 million dh dollars to san francisco? >> it allows the state wide amount available through housing programs to be increased and so it is through your normal grants programs at the state level so you just have more money available. >> okay. ab 61 deals with bill expanded authority that now is existing for local authorities to grant transit agencies the right to stop and pick up passengers to also apply to shuttle service vehicles. this reminds me of our long hearing with [inaudible] and addressing the shutting buses. one of the things i recall the most is mta acknowledged their hands were tied and it was a state law that superseded how much could bow charged for any entity that wants to use the loading zones.

is this legislation going to correct that or amend it? >> i am not following this one very closely. >> we have it as a watch position and then it says the status assembly 2 year, what does mean >> that means it missed all the deadlines and won't be available until you take it up in january. >> do you know the intent or anything behind why this looks like coming from southern california that is sponsoring this. >> he told me he read a story after he got elected and thought he would jump into thisue and try to put something into play. >> this is a new member is that why are l the deadlines? >> perhaps it could have brin resist toons the naich thorf bill >> is there support? >> there was support on record at the committee, but not enough to move the bill along

>> were our elected representatives of san francisco supportive of this bill? >> i don't know >> can you check for me and report back >> i will. >> thank you. i think my last question has to do with ab 744. proposed by chow. this bill would eliminate minimum parking requirements for developments near major transit stops on senior or special need housing. it is indicating our city planning staff is supportive of this legislation. i wonder if you can expand a little about -expand more on assembly bill 744. >> other than-no i can't. >> okay. we are-you made a

recommendation of support because of our planning departments recommendation? okay, i'll chick with the planning department. mr. chair i have no further questions. >> we doknow that ab 744 passed assembly sknr going through the senate, correct? >> correct, >> that is likely to pass? >> yes. >> given deliberation has happened on it. >> this measure did not bring significant opposition. i remember sitting through the hearing listening to it and it passed readily so expect it to move ahead. >> great. thank you. colleagues any other questions on the docket? let's go to

public comment. >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> thank you. >> would you like oo quick brofeing on the governors proposal? i received the language monday afternoon and gown through quickly. i can

give you a sketch of what it looks like. >> okay. >> generally it is going to raise about 3.6 billion dollars on a ongoing basis and 1.6 will go to cal transfor maintenance, [inaudible] bridge repair and shop program as well as 200 million dollars for high priority corridors. the local nob mob will receive a like amount but distributed different lay. in terms of local repair unds funds that is 1.15 billion split on normal al county and city roadway distribution formial oz. there is no low carbon program which is 100 million dollars dedicate today complete streets and done in conjunction with road repair or preservation projecs. there is a 250 million dollar local

partnership for self help counties that exist or come into being in the next couple election cycles and last, they provided 400 million for rail and transits grants through moving green house gas reduction funds auction revenues to the 2 programs that are funded here. the revenues roughly there is a fixed to the annual adjustment that we talked about from time to time of the [inaudible] tax that was a remnants from the old tax. that will result in about a 6 or 7 couldn't immediate increase in gas taxes. there is 11 cent per gallon in diesel tax, 6 fifen dollar per vehicle road user charge collected just like the registration fee is and there is a 1 time up front repayment of the last of othe

outstanding loans from the general fund back to transportation programs so that is pretty much the overview of -there are other elements. they proposed in their lajerage wn toolg provide for advanced mitigation praim to help clear projects with a more certainty path of get thg project through environmental process because they know what mitigation is required at the end in terms of provided fundings for land bank. there is expansion of existing program that provides a stafftory exemption from sequa for safety and minor road repair projects within the existing footprint of the existing right of way. in addition, the bill also includes extension of p 3 law that we supported from time to time. that is wrapped into one significant bill and that is going be the center piece of discussion for the rest of the

week. t thais it in a nut shell >> that could be approved in the session? >> crecktd, special session running concurrentsry to the regular session and it ends on foy day but can be extended. bills that raise taxes or have urnsh clauss become effective immediately otherwise any other bills attached in special session thise package become affective 90 days. >> including the governors proposal? >> the governors proposal because it has tax increases in it would be effective immediately. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you >> colleagues any other questions for mr. watts? we have public comment open and it is still open and haven't closed it yet.

>> i was listening to you quite intently. these are some of the bills being deliberated in sacramento and think as i listen to them on caps and on how our roads are going be repaired, we in san francisco need to look at our congestion and our increase of the carbon footprint we cannot take lightly. so, i understand it is good to have some questions and i understand that sometimes we can be a little bit cynical when certain type of legislation is put in by maybe small counties and we may be a city and county of san francisco with a 9 billion dollar budget and we do have supervisors who are supposed to represent certain districts and address quality of life issues but i

can tell you very clearly in the south east sector there is much to be done and right now whether we like it or not, our roads are being destroyed in the southeast sectors there are thousands and thousands of vehicles with contaminated dirt [inaudible] with the san francisco county transportation authority doesn't pay attention to because we have to think about cumulative pollution and how to repair the roads, when will the roads be repaired and keep bragging they will build 30 thousand units in that area but are we addressing quality of life issues when it come tooz the environment especially res putory diseases, cancer, heart problems and so on and so forth. thank you very much.

>> thank you. okay. >> good morning. chair avalos [inaudible] i just wanted to thank the governor for his leadership and recognize the delegation and hard work orphthe inlegislature in bringing the revenue proposal of transportation to this point. early in the session there was a clear indication this would be a yoor we would address the high way back log which is very sig cnts, about 60 bill wn dollars mptd san francisco was consist nlt working with like jurisdictions on alad voicateding for transit to be part of the conversation [inaudible] together with his colleagues with transit operators and cities to aed voicate for transit, bike, complete street and vision zeeree investments. i believe this is a great development and

comprehensive approach and have a few commentss here and there but hope this gets across the finish line with our l our support. thank you. >> thank you. okay, so we'll close public comment and this is just-there is a action item? colleagues we have a motion? >> so moved >> second. >> motion fraumg supervisor kim and seconded by commissioner cohen and take that without objection. >> item 4, commissioner avalos, aye. commissioner campos, aye. commissioner cohen, aye. commissioner kim, aye. commissioner mar, absent. the item passes. >> great, thank you. before we go it had next item commissioner mar isn't able to attend today due to family emergency. would like to have a motion to excuse him. motion

by campos and second by commissioner cohen. >> item 5, executing a funding agreement with bay area rapid transtd for 3 year peerds in thumount not to exseat 406, thousand for san francisco bart travel and authorize to negotiate agreement terms and conditions. this is is a ookz item >> senior planner with transportation authority to present the item which begins on page 63. the item focuses on your authorization to execute a funding agreement with bart up to 406 thousand to work on a pilot program we have come up with. that is the focus othf item but we want to take the opportunity to tell you more about the pilot program itself. it is

interesting consopet and want to share the overview if you have questions or comments rchltd we call the pilot tentatively the san francisco bart travel smart rewards program. we'll work on developing a new name. the pilot will be focused on trying to address peek congestion on bart using travel incentives. as many are aware we have a very extreme condition on bart now with our employment growth in san francisco. we have seen very steep ridership increase particularly as you can see from this graphic the embarcadero and monk montgomery station the most. this illustrates the ridership growth for you all just looking at 2012 to 2014 there is about a 20 percent growth in the

transbay market in particularment this graphic shares a little about the crowding that resulted in. barts standsered for crane occupancy is 107 passengers per vehicle. some of the peek lotes are up to 140. we are inl conversation with bart and the other regional agencies about how we address this crowding and as i'm sure you are aware there a number of different efforts. there is the transbay study. bart has train cars coming on line in 2017 that are more capacious and reduce the crowding by providing more standsing room however in the shorter term, the remainder of this year and next year and to the following we don'ts have a short term solution. we came across a pilot program that was done in

singapore and this will replicate. it was called the singapore rewards program and this is a screen shot of that portal where the transit riders log into the portal, provide transit card number and they get points-all their transit travel but they goat greater points for traveling off peek period. they accumiate ports and provided with rewards and can cash out their points. in their case they provided them with transit value but their card can we used to make purchase. you can cash out or play a came game. this caused a 7-9 percent decrease in peak paerd congestion. that is a significant margin which is relative to other strategies we have available. we were

interested to see if we can replicate this in the bay area. just chted to share a little about the scrope we have in mind. we want to replicate the singapore program. what we'll do is we already have a partnership with bart want to conform if objectives what we are tritoog achieve. at this point we are look ing at train crowding. there was a software program that they look at licensing and market that to bart rider squz request they sign up and offer incentives. we also envision a employer outreach component and that involves working with employers in case there are issues they have with respect to allowing their employees more flexibility. we have done 2 workshops with the san francisco chamber of commerce where we invited employers to come in and give resources for

them. that will be a component. we are hoping to launch the pilot next spring and weual expect it to run for about 6 months and do an evaluation where we look at a range of metrixes particularly the cost effectiveness and whether it improved ridership ovall, reduced crowding. we'll look at a couple different metrix [inaudible] then we make a determination where to go from there. there are lot of potential application squz if it is successful we can see this to grow . in the netherlands this is a screen shot of their program where they have daungals they keep in the vehicle jz receive points traveling in off peek periods and created a partnership with shell to provide frunds the incentives. there are

interesting directions we can goin. we see it as a interesting pilot to explore and look forward to hearing your thoughts and questions and just to wrap up for this item all we are looking for is the authorization to execute that funding agreement with bart >> commissioner campos has a question but before him my biggest question is what is the experience we had so far in doing outreach to bart riders and leping to change behavior? do we have something in the past we have done that will show this will be a successful pilot in terms of reaching people we need to reach? >> i think there is outreach to bart riders but i don't think to this scale and nothing that i'm aware of with specific provision of incentive combined with tracking behavior. we ask people to sign up with their clipper carbds and see if they respainds it the incentives. that is why we view this as a

pilot because it is testing a snu concept, however givethen experience in singapore and similar programs in the netherlands it looks like there is a good track record that allows us to expect success. there are challenges, one being the peak is very spread. we have been looking at the data and it is a pretty crowded for a large window of time so that is a challenge but wile design the program to address that the best we can. >> how does it work? how does the software? >> the software was created by urban engine and based out of pala alto where google and stan ford people. you sign up with the clipper carbd and the program will be monitoring that information and looking for those who are most responsive to the incentives and continue to provide them with

opportunities to win additional rewards. again, there is a algorithm built into the software that make as aermidation as to the level of incentive dependent on the travel pattern squz how responsive they have been in the past. >> thank you >> okay. no other questions from the committee? mrs. [inaudible] >> if i can quickly outline the funding for this program for the total cost is about 950 thousand dollars of which 500 thousand is provided by the federal high way administration. the transportation authority work wg bart submitted a application and successful achieve thg funding from shwa. bart is contributing 400 thousand dollars and will see a request for [inaudible] >> thank you. open up the item

for public comment. any member of the public like to comment? >> [inaudible] >> thank you. we'll close public comment and colleagues can we approve this item? okay, we'll take that same house, same call. so done. our next item please

>> item 6 introduction of new items. >> colleagues any new items or new issues to bring up? public comment is open on this item and seeing no member of the public--not just yet. it will be the next one. general public comment is now closed and our next item is general public comment. >> yes. [inaudible] >> we can't take about campaign issues at the committee. thaupg very much. any other

member of the public like to comment? seeing none we'll close. >> item 8, adjournment >> we are adjourned. thank you. (clapping) ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ celebrating the wow. turnout this is our third annual to celebrate pride we notice we didn't have community event for

pride. we actual had 19 we had godzilla and are you ball weird names i think its unique we're able to have special event we're all women that relax and have fun you know everything is friendly and kind we're all equal i'm happy that