>> thank you to my left is. >> san francisco free market affordable housing for our teachers why not build the the police force own their housing village no four story high poor village and can't provide housing with the teachers low income or free housing just for teachers see as a teacher they will work like a nonprofit organization career see with our children of the energy the activities something with full fullness and

achievement they guarantee themselves their security especially, when they live close to the colleges schools for time to prepare for the curriculum and students thank you. >> thank you supervisor campos thank you for bringing this measure i'd like to add my name if it is not on it. >> you're not. >> thank you. please add me i want to acknowledge the educators thank you for coming and sharing our perspectives on the urgency supervisor campos is there anything the you want to add. >> if i may madam chair thank to the amazing speakers the people that took time out of they're busy schedules all the folks that spoke you know just made the point better than i or

anyone should but we talked about the teachers and paraprofessionals it is critical not just them but a lot of workers that play a critical roll in the education of our children's and thank you for your support. >> no more if you remember public comment public comment is closed. let's see supervisor any other future discussion colleagues supervisor wiener. >> please. thank you, madam chair i'm happy to support this legislation i think that teachers and educators in general are in a unique progression and having disruptions the mid of a school year in addition to the observance terrible bureaucrats on the educators impacts our children and we need to make sure our kids are referring all

the education and 2014 and so forth they need i'm happy to support. >> is that a motion. >> yes. pile move forward to the i make a motion to send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> we'll take that without objection. that madam clerk, any other business before this committee? >> throw the baby out with the bath water thank you leakage this meeting is adjourned clapping

>> i would like to call to order, the finance committee to order. our chair, spurp mar will be here shortly, and i'm lon down breed and we are going to get this started. to my left

supervisor norman yee and jane, kim and we should call the record. >> commissioner breed? snechlt here. >> compos? >> absent. >> kim >> present. >> mar? snechlt absent. >> yee. >> here. >> could we approve the minutes, without objection, those are approved. >> we will take the public comment. when public comment has been completed. >> all right. let's get to item number, 3. and we are now joined by commissioner mar. who is the chair of the committee. >> item three. state and federal leg sislativep

date, this is an action item. >> welcome. >> happy to be here today. i thought that i would give this a brief, overview of where we are at the capitol and where we are. >> could you identify yourself? >> i am sorry, yes. >> mark watts, advocate for the transportation, authority in sacramento. the legislature welcomed the new assembly speaker yesterday, when he was sworn in and he was elected in january and so he is now, fully in charge of the transition has been completed. and it was a very, very, happy ceremony. and i think that he has filled out priorities for his term. and i think that they will suit the state very well. beyond that, where we are in the legislative process for the capitol, is on a sheet of paper

here that i can't seem to find. >> darn it. i apologize, here we go. the end of february was the last day to introduce measures and you will see that reflected in the matrix today, where we have gotten about 40 bills, that we reviewed and made recommendations on. and i will come back to that in a moment. but next major deadline for legislation would be april, 22nd. for the bills that were introduced in late february. and they have to clear the first committ committee or they are dead or they are dead for the remainder of this session. there is a spring recess in the midst of this process, on march 17th, and march 28, they will be in recess, so the hearing for these measures will be very, very, heavily attended. and very, heavy agenda.

s and as they try to get through all of these by the end of april. in terms of note, on transportation, funding, which is a strong interest around the state right now, senator bell, has a measure in the special session and he intends to amend and we had hoped to see that on monday or tuesday at this point in time, his office says that he is refining some of the amendments, his amendments will add significant amounts of funding and finance for transit projects. even though the main balance of the bill will be focusing on the state and local, road repairs. there is an indication that the administration may elect to move on with a more stream lined proposal in about $2 billion range, that would not require a super majority vote in the legislature, we are trying to understand if that is something that they are working on. but there are indications that

there are, or there is a preference to try to get a small amount of funding for state and local road repairs, rather than make the push for the larger amount, that is represented in senator bell's bill and the assembly member's frasier's bill. and i will be keeping you abreast of the developments as we go through the next couple of weeks. in terms of the matrix of the legislation, there are 13 specific recommendations that we are making to you. one is a changed position, and then the other 12 are new bills for your consideration. and in addition, there is like 32, or 33 other measures that we have recommended watch for one reason or another, and they have may have applied to a policy area, where there is not much flesh on the bill at this point in time and many cases there are spot bills on topics that may become of interest. and so rather than trying to

find them again, when they get amended and we put them on the watch and that allows us to monitor that flux more evenly. and so if you would like, i can cover the 13 measures, starting with the first one, which is ab 1550 on page six. this is a position we had recommend that opposed in the past. and we are recommending watch. and it deals with disadvantaged communities in the cap and trade area. it did not change for the proportions of the projects or the funding that is required to be spent in the disadvantaged communities and as you may realize, or you may recall from the first go around of the money and the disadvantaged communities in the region did not fare well because of the way that is designed, and this bill, takes another step and leads the current, 25 percent requirement in place, but as the requirement and 25 percent of the funding

must be for projects that benefit, low income households. and so, what we have or why we are recommending moving to a wasatch front rather than oppose. we would like to continue working on the definition of disadvantaged community more in the background and working with there is a green gas reduction, and working to see if we can improve the disadvantaged definition. and we are asking for your changed to a watch position. >> i just wanted to thank you so much for being sensitive to the low income communities. and in some ways whether they are in the san francisco bay region or east la, so that we are taking in some ways a regional and even a state wide approach to equity but policies, but thank you. >> and we have seen a number of these types of measures over the last couple of years, and we are recommending oppose on ab 1768,

and on page 10 of the matrix, and essentially, it directs, the, remainder of the high speed, rail bonds to be used to pay off the, outstanding high speed, rail bonds, effectively, turn nighting the stream for the project and so as a consequence, we are recommending oppose. and in the several more and i will cover them briefly, because i don't think that there is going to be concern about the recommendation and we are recommending oppose on 1866 on page, 12. and this would redirect, the remainder of the high speed, rail bonds to the state water project funding and again, that is a major change in the high speed rail. and we think that the policy of this before you is for the high speed rail program. and the next measure, ab1886, we are recommending a support and i

have to tell you that i have to draw a diagram, three or four times before i fully understood this one. and essentially, there is an exemption provided within the e seqa, where 25 percent of the projects are no further than a half mile. this takes it to 50 percent, so no more than 50 percent of the land mass, is an expansion of the sequa expansion for these types of project and we are recommending a support position. ab 1964, on page, 14 is another, and a long series of bills, over the last couple of years, this one is little bit different than the ones that we have seen before. this simply extends the white sticker, authorization, to access hov lanes, and the white stickers are pure, battery and electrics and the natural gas vehicles as distinguished from

the greenstickers, when are the hybrids. and so this, applies only to the white sticker vehicles, but they are growing in sales, and the population throughout the state, is growing. and the concern is, that allowing, the continued and expanding access of the hov lane and so we recommend an opposed position. >> ab2034, on page 15, recommending the support position to you. and more than a decade ago, the federal government, authorized the delegation, to state transportation departments. to over see nefa, of the reviews, within their state. and that was enacted and it has been continued once and this simply continueses that authorization at the state level to allow cal transin circumstances to administer and

over see both nepa and sequa documents but i will not comment on the effectiveness, but it is a continuation of an existing policy. and what will bring the high speed rail program to an end. it says that no more bonds could be sold. >> and it will have to go back to the voters and so there is a double layer of protection against this becoming effective. because i don't see this measure moving forward but that one is found on page 15, if you would like more details or more information. we are also recommending support on ab, 2126, on page, 16. of the matrix. and this applies, to the state's current authority to utilize construction manager, and general contractor and authority, for administering projects, large scale, complex, projects and it will be coming to another bill, similar to this in a moment that applies to you, about you this applies, only to

the state. the state has the authority to do six and they have occupied the six slots in statute, and this will extend it to 12 for cal trans, to administer. >> mr. prazir is the author. and the state, highway and protection program is the main program or the main, financing source at the state level for the projects that are approved or we construct that provide, major maintenance and reconstruction, as well as the operational funding to operate the state highway system. and the funding is generally, only available to the cal trans. and the ctc and the annual report, recommended the expanding a one small provision within this program to allow the operations, to also have capitol improvements. so previously, up to now, the

operations will be you know, widening the guard rail, and you know, expanding tauxiliary lane, and this allows for the capitol projects to qualify for the same projects. this bill, ab2374, was introduced by mr. chui. and we are recommending that the transportation authority not only support but register as sponsors of this measure, because it came from staff conversations with the author's office. and it would uniquely expand, or authorize, some what uniquely authorize, that the ramps, for the -- island, program and the ramps that connect to the bridge system, would be eligible utilize the cmgc authority just like we, or just like cal transhas now for a certain number of projects. and i would specifically be

targeted towards some of the complex engineering and construction that is anticipated for phase two of the ramp project. and i have been doing a lot of due diligence with state engineers and other folks who have had concerns in the passed about the similar authority. senator bell, has introduced sb 1066 which is on page, 35, and we are recommending a support for this measure, it does not appear to do much on the surface. and it is more of a place holder sponsored by the -- and what it does is it provides in the state law, the authorization for the new fast act revenues approved by the federal government and by congress to flow to the regular programs at the state level that we anticipate them to. and in essence, it does not really change the law, but it is, and it, it would, actually be operative, if it were to

pass. the game plan, however, is for the self-help counties to have, a joint, jointly, jointly managed bill that they can work on in case there are wrinkles in the fast act that the people have not anticipated and some of the funding formulas. so this is to preserve their option is to move the legislation. and senator glazier from the east bay has introduced us, and we are recommending the support position and it is on page, 35. the mtc, has commute benefits ordinance, and they have the authority to adopt a commute, benefits ordinance, and that is soon to expire. and this was, simply, extend that authorization, indefinitely, and consequently we are recommending support. and the final measure for your consideration, is sb, 1259, by senator runner, and on it is page, 36 of the matrix and we

are recommending oppose. this picks up the idea that have been attempted several decade or more to allow veterans with special, decals and the ability to access toll facilities and there has been similar, authorizations in other states, where we have, and the reports are that, it can result in fraud. and associated decreases in the toll revenue. so, it is, mainly an issue of equity. with that i bring my oral part of the presentation open for questions if you have. and i will try to answer them. i am still trying to digest all of the bills. there is more than 1,000 in each house. >> so questions colleagues? >> i wanted to say on the sb1128, by glazer that the bay

air quality district, and the community benefits policies and give many options or a couple of options to employers, and i think that is a really important one in insuring that we are reducing greenhouse gas and trips as possible. and the coalition that are really trying hard on automatic speed enforcement. and the speeding cameras. but i know that some communications with some of chui's office were fruitful up until the last minute but we are hopeful that there is legislation that comes forward, but it is a little disappointing but i want to give a shout out for the work behind the teams on those efforts but thank you so much, mr. watts for the great presentation. and commissioner yee? >> thank you, for your presentation, and i know that you mentioned some bills may not have all of the details, necessary, or whatever, and so you are watching it.

and one of them may be, under or possibly may be ab 1677. >> on page, 9. or 17? >> i guess that what i would like to do is to move that to suggest that we urge you to move it from watch to support. and the reason for this, is because this is a bill that, so that the board of supervisors have already passed a resolution to support. and we want to keep it consistent and we want to keep the heat on. and we are actually, my office is working with the senator on this particular bill and we are trying to give them as much information in terms or suggestions about the bill, as possible. hopefully, we will have some meat on it. >> so, commissioner yee has made

a motion to add, ab 1677 from the move from watch to support. is that your motion? >> yeah, this is in regards to the tour buses. in terms of making it possible for local jurisdiction or the local government to have the additional inspectionses as sort of the general idea. >> is there a second on the motion. >> so it is seconded by commissioner, breed. so we are adding 1677, to the action list, presented by mr. watts. any other comments, colleagues? >> let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. and so on the motion to add ab1677, from a watch to a support, position, could we do that without objection? >> the house has changed. >> so the house has changed. roll call on the motion.

>> breed? >> aye. >> campos? >> absent. >> kim. >> aye. >> mar. >> aye. >> yee? >> aye. >> the motion passes. >> and then now on the recommendations on the new bills and the recommended positions can we do that same house, same call? >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you, so much mr. watts. >> next item? >> item 4, introduction of new items. this is an information item. >> so let's open up this for public comment, anyone from the public that would like to speak? public comment is closed. next item. item 5. ? >> general public comment. >> good morning, commissioners. (inaudible) trueself or well-being. (inaudible) money, (inaudible) making oneself a well-being.

(inaudible)

>> thank you. >> next speaker, anyone else? >> i would like to speak about number, 18, please? if you could go to 18. so i think that we have already handled. >> you might be in the wrong meeting. >> i apologize. >> or actually i am sorry. i apologize. >> i think that the proper time would have been when we were dealing with the legislation. but you could speak on general matters. >> that is fine. >> okay. so seeing no other public comment, we will close public comment. and mr. stamos next item >> item 6, adjournment. >> thank you for coming today. meeting adjourned..

>> shop and dine the 49 promotes loophole businesses and changes residents to do thirds shopping and diane within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services we help san francisco remain unique and successful where will you shop and dine shop and dine the 49. >> my name is neil the general manager for the book shop here on west portal avenue if san francisco this is a neighborhood bookstore

and it is a wonderful neighborhood but it is an interesting community because the residents the neighborhood muni loves the neighborhood it is community and we as a book sincerely we see the same people here the shop all the time and you know to a certain degree this is part of their this is created the neighborhood a place where people come and subcontract it is in recent years we see a drop off of a lot of bookstores both national chains and neighborhoods by the neighborhood stores where coming you don't want to - one of the great things of san francisco it is neighborhood neighborhood have dentist corrosive are

coffeehouses but 2, 3, 4 coffeehouses in month neighborhoods that are on their own- that's good morning, welco

march 15, 2016 plans and programs committee meeting of san francisco transportation authority. i'm katy tang and

to the left is commissioner peskin, avalos and to my right, commissioner cohen. the clerk is steve steamose and like to thank jim smith and [inaudible] with that if we can go to roll call. >> item 1, commissioner avalos, present. cohen, present. commissioner farrell, absent. commissioner peskin, present. commissioner tang, present. we have quorum >> if we can call item 2. >> item 2 citizen advisory committee report. >> we have chris [inaudible] our cac chair >> good morning commissioners. here to report on 4 items in the packet. improving west side. most of the comments include things like need to look more closely at non

commute hours, [inaudible] to bart which is item 9. more attention paid to commuters traveling to south bay and multiagency efforts to create private commuter shuttles. our comment were mostly about clarification on the selection of fund allocation and public comment include concerns about geo graphic equity. 11 million in prop k and [inaudible] approved with [inaudible] and on capacity update item 8, our comment were mostly on lrt, on the timeframe of delivery, citing the increases around demand projection indicated the lrt should be indicated now. [inaudible] greater investment in

transit that can handle increased demand and serve the existing population. with that, take any questions >> thank you for your report and weighing in on the west side sar. seeing nor questions or comments we'll open up to public common. item 2? seeing none public comment is closed. if we can go through the consent calendar, >> 3 to 4 are considered routine and staff not to present on the item. if a member objects any item cz be removed and considered separately >> seeing no questions any public comment on the consent calendar? seeing none public comrnt is closed. >> on the consent calendar, avalos, aye. commissioner cohen, aye. commissioner farrell, absent. commissioner peskin, aye. commissioner tang aye. the consent

calendar passes. >> recommend appointment of 2 members to the citizen advisory committee. this is a action item, we have mike [inaudible] >> the transportation authority advisory committee has 11 members suving a 2 year term. the plans and programs committee the board appoint to fill any vacancy. the transs portation thoert staff or caa make recommendation ons the appointment and applicants must be san francisco residence and appear before the committee once. attachment one shows information about currents committee member jz the list of applicants for vacant positions is attachment 2. detailed application materials can be found in the enclosure. the vac aenss are a result of resignation of wells witney and mr. lar son. mr. lar son is

seeking reappoint: there are 26 applicant you can consider and with that i can take any questions. >> thank you, i don't see any questions here at this time. i believe that we had received word from commissioner yee who would support reappointment of john larson. >> madam chair, if we could delay the district 3 appointment to our next meeting, i would appreciate that. >> alright. so the motion to continue. seconded by commissioner cohen and take that without objection. are there any other applicants in the audience here? please come up and make a presentation. if you wouldn't mind letting us know which seat you are interested in. >> [inaudible] in district 8

and not in [inaudible] any other vacant district but wanted to come and state i'm interested in any district that is available or open eve chb though i don't live or work in that district >> did you already submit a application? >> i did. >> so you are part of the packet. thank you very much. any questions or comments on that? okay, thank you very much. any other applicant here who submitted applications? seeing none we'll open up item 5 to public comment. any members who wish to comment on item 5? seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues--alright, thank you commissioner avalos, seconded by commissioner cohen and take that without objection. so, we'll move on john larson for district 7 qu continue for district 3 appointee. >> item 6, recommend approval of the 2016 prop a [inaudible]

programming recommendations tote aelg 2, 192, 934 for 4 projects, amendment of the prop aa strategic plan. this is a action item. >> thank you, we have anna [inaudible] here. >> good morning supervisors. anna [inaudible] for policy and programming. i'm pleased to present to you the item for w the 2016 projject for vehicle rejivation fee program. just a overview of the program, this is a additional 10 dollar vehicle registration fee approved by san francisco voters in november of 2010. it is a relativity small source of funding generated less than 5 million dollars a year and in

representation of the relatively small amount of funding there are only 3 cat goers, street repair and reconstruction, pedestrian and safety and transst reliability and mobility improvements and one of the primary focus is also on quick to deliver projects. representing also that idea is any funds 234 that become available throughout the program is reprogrammed as thibecome available to the extent possible and these are fraujects completed under budget or if a project is able to be funded through new revenue sources. so, we have a approximately 1.193 million dollars that is available for reprogramming

right now. i just wanted to also give a few highlights of the program to date. so, in the current strategic plan for prop aa there is about $26 million in the 5 years to 19 projects. pleased to report the program is on track, there have been allocation of more than $21 million to date and so there have been a few projects completed under budget in the categories shown on the screen that generated funds available for a immediate coffer project and given we had twice the amount of funds requested than we had available for programming, and we are nearing the ends the first 5 years of the strategic plan and when the board adopt thd first 5 years of projects, we had revenue assumptions that were based on a certain number of vehicles registered in san francisco on

a monthly and annual basis but decide to revisit or revenue assumptions for planning at the time. i'll go into it had additional revenue assumptions but based on the revised analysis of revenue we have 1 million dollar additional for programming at this time through the coffer projects or available nx year with the strategic plan update. this brings the total amount available assuming the funds will be reprogrammed at this time or at least the amoint available in general to about 2.2 million dollars. this slide shows the analysis of the revenues that are available that are available now and are estimated to be available back in 2012. we began collecting rchb new march 2011 and it is a modest amount of

additional revenue, it is about 3.9 percent additional. when you look it over the 5 year period that we have been collecting revenues, it totals just over a million dollars and when you net out the 5 percent in program administration cost that is how you end windup the amount available now. this reserve as 240 million cap reserve which is 5 percent of the annual revenue which we think ask prudent for a fluctuation in revenue, however, the source has been a rel tivly stable amount of revenue over the years, it is just the increment is slightly higher. on this slide you see the applications we received so we received 5 applications requesting that 2.sish million dollar and with increased revenue we are not able to fully fund all the applications as requested. we

reviewed the applications eligibility and scored the applications and you can see the details of the criteria in your enclosure, but in general there is program wide criteria which is based on project readiness, can the project proceed to construction or at least to design in this fiscal year and analysis of community support, construction coordination opportunities. there are also cat go specific criteria, for example with pedestrian safety category the projects are consistent with walk first. the funds and transit reliability category are just over 500 thousand on a prior slide, there was a special condition adopted in the 2012 stuteejic plan that funds that became available in this category from cost savings are-that the funds are reortizeed for muni rapid

network projects. which is reflected in the funding recommendation primarily for the muni bus layover area as bart daly city. we recommend fully funding the project with the funds available in that category as well as the 4 projects in the safety category. we don't recommend funding for the presidio project, this was the lowest scoring projecktd and the scores primarily recognized a lack of project readiness and also the lack of funds after higher scoring projects were funded. for the muni bus layover project this will accommodate plan service increase for the 14 rapid that will begin in the next few month squz allow the buses to layover on the paid parking lot

at the bart station. it will take about 30 parking spaces but bart is supportive of this. [inaudible] will also commit funds to this project. we are also recommending funding for two one bay area grant projects. this is the broadway chinatown streetscape project which we recommend funding just over a million dollars and also to the health streetscape projects. [inaudible] is already under construction and broadway streetscape has bids out for advertisement and probably have come in recently. so, this would fully fund the one bay area grant projects which

are high priority frasan francisco and would like to see them advancing smoothly and also recommend parjs fundsing for the design phase of walk first ball bout location and this will fund up to 25 existing safety zones with concrete bowl bouts and sfmta will prioritize the locations based on the walk first criteria and collision history at these locations so it will take out the [inaudible] and put in permanent concrete bowl bouts. and the locations are shown on the map. i also have additional information on the location of the potential locations for the bowl bout projects. happy to dissiminate that information. project sponsors are here, happy to answer any questions you might have. that concludes my presentation >> thank you very much.

compligzer peskin. commissioner peskin j. >> i just wanted to thank staff and my colleague frz the million plus dollars to do the fourth phase of the broadway streetscape improvements, unfortunately a few days late for a pedestrian fatality that happened friday morning as a resident of district 3 who lived around the corner died in a hit and run at that intersection. i spent some time there on friday and again over the weekend and yesterday morning and visited the widow of the individual who was killed and the police are looking for the hit and run driver. there are immediate things we can do that i discussed with director riscon at the mta including daylighting on the corners until the project comes along but it is sorly needed, it is a very very dangerous intersection and

right next to a elementary school, so i'm delighted it is moving forward >> thank you very much commissioner peskin. anyone else? seeing none thanks again, i think all the plaujects are wonnerful and look forward to help with efficiency at bart. at this time we open up item 6 to public comment. any member of the public? >> [inaudible] killed at the corner of broadway and powell street in chinatown, so what happened is the chinese people prefer they have a sign that says be careful when crossing the street [inaudible] a good way to have them be more aware of the [inaudible] >> alright. thank you very much. any other members on item 6. seeing none

we close public comment. we are joined by commissioner farrell so will take roll call >> commissioner avalos, aye. commissioner cohen, aye. commissioner farrell, aye. commissioner peskin, aye. commissioner tang, aye. the item passes. >> thank you very much and now if we can call item 7 >> item 7, recommend allocation of 10, 975, 410 in prop k funds and 794, 980 in prop aa funds with conditions for 6 requests subject to attached fiscal year cash flow disbution. action item >> thank you, mike [inaudible] >> we have 6 requests again. first, protection system so this funds the [inaudible] this funds protection systems at presidio yard which [inaudible] currently only one of the

facilities 8 maintenance has fall protection so there is a back log of roof related repairs. second, sf pub lrk works requests to repave segment of claiten, clipper and por tola. the project will construct new curb ramp jz repair curbs and sidewalks at various locations. the second paving request is 47 blocks of 11 streets, [inaudible] the pavement condition here is all most as bad at 59 out of 100. this will construct new curb ramp jz repair side walk. besy car michael crosswalk. open a midblock cross wuck on sherman street connecting [inaudible] this emged from a site visit with

school administrator squz community members and would identify engineering measure tooz improve safety and encourage studsant to walk and bike to school. sfmta [inaudible] signage and daylighting alt the curb and traffic signal timing changes. next elevator safety and reliability upgrades. this is for construction of companyhensive rehabilitation of 12 elevations at 4 muni metro stations. funding comes from a place holdser for muni projects and this provides access to the subway stations which are a critical component of the rapid network. finally, the muni bus lay over at daly bart station. we heard with this with prop aa project. this allocates funds to the bus layover project and this is

contingents on the board programming for the funds. this will improve bus reliability and allow for increased service on the 14 r rounts. [inaudible] but barts thinks that will end up with the wash with the extra riders that the 14 r will bring. so, with that i can take any questions. >> thank you very much for your presentation. any questions or comments? commissioner avalos. >> thank you, just a question on the daly city stop for the 14 r. areioaware of what the actual -what people are paying to take muni to daly city bart and take daly city bart downtown? is there a discount because they come on muni for that? >> i'm not sure how that workwise the transfer.

>> just trying to remember what the deal was on that, so that's okay. just the extension of the 14 to daly city bart helped a lot of residents in my district t is the quickest route to get downtown so i support the project. >> great. thank you very much. seeing no other questions or comments we'll open up item 7 to public comment. any members? seeing none public comment is closed. if we can have a motion on that. >> motion to approve. >> thank you motion by commissioner avlease and seconded by commissioner cohen and take that without objection. item aithd, please >> item 8 rail capacity strategy update. this is information item >> we have graham from sfmta.

>> good morning commissioner, graham [inaudible] thank you to tuque tauc about the work we are doing here. it is a start of major investment and near term actions mta can take to help improve the system today. we'll go over the work and how we did it and dive into the recommendation or improvements we identified and where do we take this work from here. anyone who rides the muni system regularlyly or those that ride it infrequently know it is crowded. it is [inaudible] in peak peerds and can be uncomfortable. there are many factors where a system doesn't meet the reliability goal squz this leads to a customer

experience that is inadequate and doesn't meet expectations. this is todays condition in a city that is rapidly growing and added residents and employees all the time so we needed to think in 2013 how could we do something in the near term to address the issue while making sure we get ahead and think long term and how to plan for the city residents and employees of the future so the rail capacity strategy is driven by 4 goals, cuchberage, couding, reliability and travel time. those goals manifesten 3 buckets. the first is looking how to turn the dialthen near term 6789 we realize we can't deliver major investments in the next year or 2 or 3, butd in the next fifen years there are things we can do to provide impruchbments for the customers today. there is also a thinks at a system wide level we can try to deliver that will

provide impruchments in the near term. this is again the start of the conversation in termoffs long term thinking. how might we think of a rail system for the future in san francisco, what are the rough areas corridors that are high priorities and the cost and think the path record of dlivy and what would that tell about the desires of a future rail system? use basically a 3 sfep methodology of assess, develop and screen. on the assessment side we have existing information, ridership and forcast and forcast and land use, travel time and reliability factors in addition we convene thd rail capacity technical panel which is front line managers and people who know the system like it back of their hands and senior folks that are experts. this

went through a line by line look of the issues and hang ups the sishm has today and what cause the head ache squz the opportunities to unlock the potential of the system. we went through developing concepts for those solution jz had a stakeholder system for long term ideas and screen these concepts based on our 4 goal outcomes we were looking for. as we went through the line by line review with the rail capacity technical panel we identified themes occurring and they are not unique but mta should consider whether state of good repair or enhancement. a number of enhancements are [inaudible] looked at the muni forward [inaudible] additional things more specific to the rail system are terminal tracks end the

line facilities and station or platform enhancements to make sure we can handle the crowds. these investment types would be considered under regular state of good repair project or other enhancements within the rail system overall and isn't necessarily capital projects because they are most effectively delivered as part of larger efforts. there were discreet locations with unique issues that were identified by the technical panel. these includes the west portal area where conflict with pedestrians bikes and vehicles cause a lot of friction and reduce our ability to get trains in and out of the muni subway. the muni metro extension we identified the need for a additional turn back track that will alleviate turn back crowding at the embarcadero station turn back, it is identified as a constraint within our tublt operate the existing subway and also

provides a spill overory release valve in large crowding event. the additional project on the muni metro extension is surface [inaudible] system and this is looking at recognizing that we have a lot of protection and dedicated right of of way but additional flex #b89 will allow the front line operators to get the most of out that system. one idea is that during a special event you can operate trains on the same track in each direction to clear out crowding and special event traffic that can effect the rest the system if we don't alleviate the acrowding in a timely manner. the fourth element, many are familiar with the [inaudible] lots of bikes and pedestrian activity there and what we hope is through the west portal project which we prioritized and identified to go out and do

piloting of it hopefully in the near term, we can learn lesson squz try to apply those at church and [inaudible] so we don't chase or tail and not having a grab bag of improvements because that is a lot tough nutd to crack. we think there is a opportunity to learn from the west portal prom project what might be most effective there. we are trying to turn the dial some increment in the near term. the sfmta is developing our 5 year capital improvement program and these rail capacity strategy improvements were considered along with a host of other investments including muni forward, other major corridor improvements and spot improvements in the system. that is currentsly under way being drafted. there is a up coming webinar march 21 where folks can provide feedback as well as open house march 23 and 26 and preliminary

funding the west portal and muni metro extension projects through construction have been identified for the next 5 years so we are looking to invest and find way tooz provide relief to our customers today. when we shifted thinking to the long term, we wanted to bring together not just the inhouse money and also key stakeholder jz people thinking about our system on a regular basis so we have a couple stakeholder workshops to bring ideas and how there may be solutions and where they think the city should invest first. we held a online forum for people it draw the map of the future and it is shown as a heat map where darker lines represent frequent requests or submission of rail portal and took this information back and

tried to disstill the concept back to the 4 goals of crowding, coverage, reliability and travel time. looking at how concept said performed we developed tiers and the tiers were themeed around what the concepts deliver. tier 1 is not only delivering on all 4 goals but expansion into new areas or very significant enhancement but benefits to the existing system and currents riders. the easy line to point to is the [inaudible] in the southwest portion of the city and allows sfmta to operate 4 car lanes through the subway and deliver a lot or to castro and church and van ness where we see the most crowding so that is addressing a system wide issue

as well as a local issue. tier 2 represented concepts with similar potential but still conceptual and will continue to do more thinking and seeing if the benefits stack up and tier 3 is essentially the investment you need to achieve the 4 goals. that is building up a network on the future and the coverage side represents high capacity service in a half mile. we feel pretty good about that and that is just on the rail side. any major rail investment also comes with a look at the bus system and how to improve access for everyone even though the improvement only occurs on a single corridor. these are a long list of concepts. how do we take the start of a conversation

and muchb it forward? all the elements are already in consideration under the mtc core capacity transit study and that will-we should have preliminary findings later this summer. additionally, sfmta along with the planning department and transportation authority, office of economic and workforce development and mayors office are working on a long range transportation program. included is a robust outreach so we reflect the desires and need of the community in the long range thinking and these concept squz ideas will be incorporated into that as well. with that,- >> colleagues any questions or comments? thank you for the presentation. i think we are glad to hear there is a long term look and view on the action we need to take to improve the public transportation system and think all of us wishes we

could see improvements sooner than later but think for your work on this. so, at this time then i will open up item 8 to public comment. seeing none public comment is closed. that was a information item so move to item 9 now. >> item 9, bay area rapid transit perk update. this is information item >> we have rien greene [inaudible] here. >> how is everybody doing. rien green 37 rks rosell to give a update about the bart incentive programs we call bart perks. i'm here to give a

update of the status. you may have seen recent media about it because there fsh a update to bart boards so we wanted you to be informed of the status of the program as it evolves. going to the status of the scope task and where we are with developing the program. context on the program, i was here in september presenting a little on it so some may be familiar but the impsis is we have crowding on bart. the graphic is a illustration of the ridership growth in the peak direction in the transbay over the last 3 or so years. it has gone up to 20 thousand in 26 thousand in 3 years. ridership growth and bart is experiencing as a result of that very packed trains so the results are showing the national subway standard for train occupancy is

115 people per vehicle and bart is often experiencing loads of 140 per vehicle and where experience this every day so well aware it is packed like sardines. bart is working on several initiatives to address the problem in the medium and long term. you may have heard in the news the facktd new train cars are coming and will provide additional capacity but in the short term we are sunching is there anythingee can kooto relieve crowding for riders. also of great interest to us since this is a congestion problem. we are in conversation what we can do and intrigued by a pilot program in singapore where they reduced crowding on their transit system. so,

moving to give a overview of the scope of the project, we are working on goals objectives and design incentive approach, developing the program methodology, determining how to configure the software and provide payment to the rider jz develop a marketing and employer outreach approach and splitting the responsibilities with bart so work closely with them on all the project tasks but [inaudible] outreach component of the program. bart is leading the development of the software. how the program will work and some have heard this before, but the idea will be that anybody riding bart can earn points for their trips on bart. i will skip ahead a little to explain it. and they will earn additional point for the travel in the shoulders of the peak period and use those points to cash out for

rewards, specifically cash records through pay pal. that is a general scheme of how the program will work and right now we are working on refining the goals and objectives. as i mentioned, the top goal is really to reduce crowding and that comes back to trying to provide a better experience for riders. the taupe goal is engaging the public and providing a quality customer experience and making the most of available transbay capacity. we recognize that if the program is very successful it is possible if we free up capacity in the peak period some of that capacity can be back sold by other riders. we still consider that a success for the program because that is allowing optimal use of available transbay capacity and getting the most people through that capacity that we can. so, those are the two top goaloffs the program. as

another top goal is evaluate whether the incentive base approach works. we tried a lot of different approaches or investigated a lot of different approaches and very intrigued whether this incentive based approach can be successful so that is a real important objective is find that out whether it is successful and cost effective and equitable and try to extrant lessoned learned. another important goal is increase employer support for flexible work schedules. we know this is a major constraint on travel. this is a survey we did at embarcadero and montgomery where we asked riders why they can't arrive at work before 7:30 or what are the barriers of presenting them to

do that. most people said the pluralty of people said it is personal preference and prefer to travel in the peak period. twnt percent of people we talked to. another 20 percent said they are not allowed to and at work won't permit them to travel outside of the peak period so that is a barrier for people and want to try to address that with the program by work wg eemployers to work and encourage them to allow more flexibility for their employees. those are the goals and objective squz gave a preview oof the scheme to get more into this, the idea is that you earn points for your travel on bart. this graphic is illustrating the fact that generally you earn 1.per trip or per mile. we are leaning more towards mile at this point. say 1 point per mile in the travel but in the green bands we call the bonus

hour which is shoulders of the peak period. you can earn up to 6 times that value so 6 points per mile and have the opportunity to cash out for a low dollar value or to use your points to play a gam in the application and you have the opportunities to win a higher dollar value by playing the game. does anybody have questions so far on the incentives approach? no? >> i think we are good. >> so, that's roughly how we expect it to work. also want to give a little overview of how we market the program, so our goal is to get up to 25 thousand people to sign up, that is what we hope for and do that by through a variety of channels so we work with employers to advertise through them and

advertise directly folks coming outd of embarcadero and muntry and also use digital tis plain and doing social media oitreach and marketing and interfacing with the media to try to get the word out with the program. as i mentioned we plan to call it perks, this is the logo so look for that in the future. for the schedule we are in process to trying to prepare and expect to be able to launch sometime this spring and the initial phase runs for about 6 months after which we do evaluation and we also received another federal grant-i should have mention thd work is funded by a grant from f [inaudible] and bart but received a grant to extend the pilot from fta so extend for a couple additional

month after the initial pilot period. i think this is something we want to watch closely. we are excited to see what we can learn from this as you all know we have acute congestion problems not just on bart but everhere, muni and our roadways downtown and this approach, this incentive based approach is a palletable way to address the congestion problems we face, that is why we are very interested to see if this can work because it can have so many applications outside of the bart context. happy to take any questions you have about the program. >> thank you for this and all your work in thinking how to reduce congestion on bart. i think that is very exciting and look forward to see the results after the pilot has done to see if it changed behavior for riders. any questions or comments? seeing none we will open up to comment.

public comment is closed and that was a information item so we'll move to itm 10 >> new item. >> seeing no new item-sorry, commissioner peskin. >> thank you madam chair. as i said in my earlier rarecollects i want to thank you for helping to phase the 4th phase of the broadway streetscape plan but the recent death in front of [inaudible] last friday reiterates chinatown needs to be ground zero for implementing vision zero. we have literally lost one life a year over the last 4 years in and around chinatown. i requested our staff work with sfmta staff to utilize our planning dollars so we can fully realize the recommendation in the chinatown

neighborhood transportation plan, which was approved in july of last year and would like a update at the next meeting where we are with that. we can't afford to delay the plans so status report would be greatly appreciated. i want to chat about the [inaudible] bus yard. years ago in the early 2000's when i was last on this board working with the mta in partnership with citizens advisory committee process, we did a land use study on the kirkland bus yard and at that time the mta thought the bus yard would be sur plus to their needs and did studying whether we can utilize that as a affordable housing site. it is a huge site, 2.6 acres at the northern end of district 3 and thanks to the work of supervisor kim, the voters last year passed

proposition k which requires the city to expand the affordable housing on public sur plus sites. unfortunately this site wasn't listed as a sur plus site. back in the day we realized we can build as much as 180 units of affordable housing at that site so today i request the ta build on these past studies in partnership with the mta and planning department to discuss feasibility of affordable housing on the site and examine the possibility of retaining a bus yard and building housing above and we should also look at recommendations for temporary relocation of the bus yard during construction should we get that far and 24 optimal unit mix to maximize affordable housing on the site. with the passage of prop a last november we have the opportunity to really make

something of this site and want to thank you directors riscon and chang for the interest in the issue and would like to set our first meeting within the next few weeks begin working on the project. >> thank you commissioner peskin. commissioner cohen >> commissioner peskin, you mentioned that this particular piece of property wasn't identified through the proposal that supervisor kim brought to the voters, can you explain why? >> so, i dont think anybody from the mta is here but oever the last quarter of a century at two different periods the mta determined the kirkland bus yard was sur plus to their needs and subsequently changed their mind about that actually in the last iteration matt ford was the director of the mta it was considered to be sur plus and realize would the coming with

van ness brt they needed it again and hadn't thought that through so it isn't listed as sur plus because now the mta thinks they need the bus yard but i propose we explore the possibility of a bus yard with housing above. >> the reason and ask is it makes me wonder what other pieces of property are out there that the city ons that is unaccounted for. just food for thought. >> it was interesting-this is a divergence fl to the prop k thing but i laughed one of the ochbl properties that showed as sur plus is the fire chiefs house on bush street. >> thank you for your comments and commissioner peskin i would throw another thought in the mix. i have want vetted this with mta but hawj debate about the need for a training facility and there are concerns about us potentially entering into a 9 and a hamp year lease for 2.something

million dollars without guaranteed certainty after that period of time and looking for a large space to have the new ones trained and retrained so i'll throw that into the mix as well for consideration. alright. looking at a picture here and feel it would be perfect with that but haven't spoken to hta. no other comments or questions we will move to public comment for item 10 and if you can speak about the new introduction item. >> good morning commissioners. [inaudible] very interesting item. the principles of 6 methodologies of [inaudible] one, political management and areas of national planning and strategies for managing the people. b, legislature for [inaudible] of civilized culture. c, judicial

branch for [inaudible] military affairs [inaudible] a, [inaudible] b training the military force. c, using the military force and d [inaudible] number 3, [inaudible] also areas of a, making use of resources, b production, c making money and d, using of the money. number 4, religion in areas of a, establishment of the [inaudible] following the holy way. [inaudible] diversifyed pathway. 5, work on areas of understanding of loneliness [inaudible]

>> i need you to comment specifically on the new introduction. we'll close public comment now and if you can call item 11. >> item 11, public comment. >> [inaudible] holy nature in creative expression [inaudible] fulfill ones destiny of loyalty and parental love [inaudible] the leadership to our people [inaudible] removal of all tragic disasters and

difficulties [inaudible] about life and death as well as tragedy of war. [inaudible] should investigate upon studies of other [inaudible] holyness and [inaudible] extension to everything. [inaudible] >> alright, thank you any other members who wish to speak during public? seeing none public comment is closed. if you can call item 12? >> item 12, adjournment >> thank you this meeting is adjourned. [meeting adjourned]

>> good morning and welcome to san francisco county transportation authority. i'm scott wiener the chair and we'll call the roll. >> item 1, roll call, commissioner avalos, present. commissioner breed, present. commissioner campos, present. commissioner cohen, present. commissioner farrell, absent. commissioner kim, absent. commissioner mar, absent. commissioner peskin, present. commissioner tang, absent. commissioner wiener, present. commissioner yee, present. we have quorum >> okay, i want to thank sfgtv

for broadcasting todays meeting, leo [inaudible] and also colleagues supervisor farrell has asked to be excused in adivision supervisor kim is ill and unable to attend so can i have a motion to excuse commissioner farrell and commissioner kim? motion by commissioner cohen, seconded by commissioner compose and do wree need roll call on that or take that without objection. >> take without objection. item number 2 >> chairs report. this is a information item. >> colleagues we have two pieces of good news to share. first i like to congratulate cal trans and transportation authority with public and private sector partners for winning

the california transportation award. we had the opening of the new presidio parkway replacing the doil drive with a safe, modern and beautiful facility. i like to applaud the organization for their work and thank for the recognition as we finalize dlinchy of the innovative project. speaking of invasion, i would like to thank u.s. transportation anthony foxx for making san francisco eligible to compete in the smart city challenge program. this is a way to show how vehicle technology can [inaudible] through partner shipwise the federal government. tim

[inaudible] of sfmta is here and will give a overview the proposal. i'm hearing about san franciscos ideas and how the transportation authority and the office can support the effort. we are still at early stages there is great potential to incorporate new mobility to make the streets safeer and promote cycling [inaudible] with the bay area population expect to add 2 million people by 2040 we are working on transit expansion plans but we must make it easier for people to live without a car or drive the car less. we cant have another million cars in the bay -air roads. technology can help get us to our goal more quickly. on a less positive note,

unfortunately with barts troubles over the past weeks we have seen the consequences of what happens when we wait too long to address the basic transportation infrastructure needs. bart is 45 years old and truly showing its age. at the same time it faces record demand and continued excollation in ridership. the recent electrical problems that are completely decimating barts fleet are just the most extreme example of a system that is becoming less reliable and frankly coming apart at the seams. we absolutely must fix the system, modernize and expand the capacity. in november we will see a capital infrasfruckture model on the bal: it will be a dejaster if the bonds fails. we need to make sure we as a

city are doing our part along with alameda and con trucosta counties for barbts vehicle replacement and acquisition program. what is happening with bart is also a cautionary note for us in san francisco as we make policy decisions that determine whether we are going to invest in muni or not and we need to make sure we are continually getting ahead of the curve when it comes to infrastructure needs of our system. so, colleagues thank you for that and we'll proceed to public comment. any public comment on item number 2? seeing none, public comment is closed and this is a information item. we'll move to item number 3. >> item 3, executive director reports. this is a information item. >> thank you chair wiener. good morning commissioners. [inaudible] happy to report-thank you for highlighting the good news

chair wiener. in keep wg the theme of research and invasion i was pleased on the 14th of this munt to join with staff with los angeles and con trucosta transportation authority at a state hearing. chair fraser held a importance of state funded research in transportation technology. the research we benefited from has been in the area of traffic safety for vision zero, office of traffic safety and numerous other technologies to help optimize our system so we appreciated chair frasers leadership and to participate in the meeting. here in the region our work with mtca and bay area government we have draft project performance results which we'll bing to plans and programs committee next

month. with the release of the data we will be able to sehow our projects compete against other projects then region. we have every reason to believe it will do well for progress but in coordination with a bad and mtc we'll take a look at the land use function as the region has important choices. just untime our bart incentive program is getting ready to launch. you may have seen on the news bart perks we are working together with bart to [inaudible] corroded portionoffs the system, the transbay [inaudible] embarcadero and mun gumry stations and the idea is sign up for the program and earn points through the clipper card for shifting

travel outside of the peak period to ease the congestion problems on bart and extend [inaudible] this doesn't take place medium and long term capital planning but a important way we can partner with the community and public to extend the life and the capacity of our system. you can find more nrgz at sf [inaudible]/bart travel incenseive. in terms of the local work the treasure island management team put together 3 grant applications so hopefully we will be successful working with ticd the [inaudible] community development and [inaudible] we submitted a state cap and trade grant for affordable housing and. we submitted a federal tiger grant for a hybrid vessel we hope toacquire for the ferry service and applied for federal inclusive

planning impact grant. i highlight these because it is terrific to see there are no programs forwarded at the federal and state level that understand and underscore our strategy of nob nab in order to demonstrate new ways of conducting and achieving sustainability development. at the neighborhood level throughout the neighborhood transportation improvement program, we work closely with your offices and staff and a number of districts, district 11 we are working with commissioner avalos team on the park station community work at san jose and [inaudible] on district 8 on elk street and district 6 to look at [inaudible] in district 9 we have been able to kick off the alameda interchange

improvement project with commissioner campos and his staff this is in effort to improve the safety, pedestrian bike safety near farmers market [inaudible] more nrgz on those outreach meetings about the concepts beginning to emerge, visit sfcta.org/alameda change. the crooked street is shared with community members in the area of the crooked street. options are a full range of visitor access and circulation and physical treatments to deminsh the high level of vehicle and pedestrian visitors and avoiding the spill over effects to ajaistant streets. one of the findings we made is there as many

visitors here as in the key locations in the city but the lack of management cupsty, so unlike the golden gate bridge and other places with a organization we think that is something that will be helpful to sustain the benefits of the short term programs that are tried. we'll come to the plans and programs exhibit no. 3 was committee and folks can join outreach meetings later march. [inaudible] there is also a final meeting to announce the rail yard alternative and boulevard studthy planning department has been hosting and hold the second community meeting wednesday march 30 at 6 p.m. at the same location at the first which is potrero neighborhood [inaudible] at 955 [inaudible] come find out more about plans underway to address the

alignments options for the downtown extension of cal train in conjunction with land use and free way vision planning. project delivery yerba buena appears to be on time. we have been able toreplace the bridge work and [inaudible] place seismic joints and concrete barriers. we anticipate being able to share that with you all and have a ribbon cutting in the summer time so my thanks go to eric [inaudible] for managing the project for us. and we are also at the same time coordinating with the bay bridge authorities as well as cal trans on touch down and integration of the bike and pedestrian path, the west path on

to the islands later this summer. as far as bicycleing improvements we are happy to report the prop k funding embarcadero and [inaudible] signage up are so thank you for sfmta for putting in signage to help [inaudible] away from king street and on to less stressful streets and paths. the page streets improvement and congratulate mta on thampt the muni procurement is continuing pace. there are 444 motor coaches and 60 trolleys on order. mta received 101 motor coaches and 38 trolley coaches and many are oon revenue. the prop k funds are put to very good use and bond fund are

not eligible for vehicles so that under scores the measure chair wiener described in his remarks for helping bart, muni and cal train meet the vehicle needs. new traffic signals are also being installed through prop k funding at that webster and o' farrell street location to support vision zero and many other places acrauz the city including intersection of [inaudible] thank you sfmta for get thg improvements out with our prop k fund. with that, happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you very much mrs. chang. any question or comments? seeing none, is there any public comment on item number 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. this is a information item. item number 4. >> item 4, approve the minutes

of february 23, 2016 meeting. >> any questions or comments or chairchgs with respect to the february minutes? seeing none, is there any public comment on item 4? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we take a roll call vote onite 784 >> avalos, aye. breed, aye. campos, absent. commissioner cohen, aye. commissioner mar, absent. commissioner peskin, aye. commissioner tang, aye. commissioner weener, aye. commissioner yee, aye. the minutes are approve >> item number 5 >> item fiver, approve the-adopt position on state legislation, this is a action item >> any questions or comments on item 5? seeing none, any public

comment on item 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. the house is changed so can you call the roll on item 5. >> commissioner avalos, aye. commissioner breed, aye. compose, aye. commissioner cohen, aye. commissioner mar, absent. commissioner peskin, aye. commissioner tang, aye. commissioner wiener, aye. commissioner yee, aye. the item is approved. >> item 6. >> item 6, approve the improving west side transit access stuteejic analysis report. >> any question or comments on item 6. ? seeing none, any public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues can we take item 6 same house same call? without objection that will be the order. item 7. >> item 7, appoint john larsson is to

system advisory committee. >> any question or comments? seeing none. public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. same house same call? without objection that will be the order. item 8. >> approve the twnt 16 prop aa call for projects programming recommendations. toteology $2,192,934 for four projects and stuteejic plan. >> commissioner peskin. thank you chair wiener, colleagues. as you all probably heard the friday before last there was a fatality at broad way and 4th street the 4th fatality in as many years and condolances to mr. laws widow and children. unfortunately these streetscape improvements are

after-mr. laws passing but pleased we have found the last million dollars for a 8 million dollar project to do pedestrian safety and streetscape improve. along broad way between columbus avenue around gene parker elementary school which is a place a lot of kids go but a dangerous intersection. i request we approve this portion of item number 8 specifically on attachment 1, the third item, subject the too the condition before dpw puts this project out to bid that a little bit further consalitation with the community relative to the streetscape design be addressed. i discussed that with staff so would like to add that condition and then approve the item. >> that is a motion? >> yes, sir. >> is there a second?

second by commissioner breed. okay, any other comments or questions, colleagues? yes. >> through the chair, commissioner peskin where believe the contract has been advertised so if quee can condition it on prior to award of a contract. >> i will accept that change to my motion so prior to award. >> okay, commissioner breed that is a second? revised motion is made and seconded. seeing no other comment, any public comment on item 8? seeing none public comment is closed. commissioner peskin made a motion to amend, can we take that motion without objection? without objection the amendment is adopted. take item 8 same house same call? without objection that

is the order. >> item 9 allocate $10,975,410 in prop k funds and $794,980 in prom aa funds with conditions with 6 requests to subject to attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules >> any questions or comments? seeing none, any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed and can we take item 9 same house same call? without objection that will be theordser. item 10 >> item 10, update on u.s. department of transportation smart city challenge grants. this is information item. >> okay, i believe the mta will present on this mrs. chang? >> yes. [inaudible] >> tim papandreou should be here shortly.

>> this is the last item on the agenda so-- >> i don't think i can give the entire presentation but i'll give it a try. this is a excited development and want to take a minute to brief you and the public about the good news. the u.s. department of transportation named san francisco one of 7 fine finalist cities to compete for a 50 million dollar prize the purpose of the program is highlight the innovative ways technology can help urban areas meet the transportation challenges for mobility, safety standpoint prom emissions and community based planning. so, it is very wonderful we are finalist and don't have the prize yet but expect to continue in the direction even if we don't receive the big prize. it is something we have been

working on in many respects and underscoors efforts under way such as vision zero and [inaudible] and bike and car sharing and other services coordinating. in the city. the project is only eligible for medium size cities under 850,000 people and we just snuck in. the idea would be to demonstrate strategies, demonstrate committed leadership sw capacity to sustain the strategy beyond the grant period over the next 3 year jz integrate our project with existing data requirements and making sure those will beope toon the public beyond the grant period. the smart city challenge is expected to improve safety, enhanceability and climate change and there is a 10 million dollar portion the prize offered by volcon

which a non profit in the seattle area focused on emissions reduction. the smart city vision element you will see are many, about a dozen and they begin with technology elementsism underscooring the [inaudible] and automated vehicles, connected vehicles, intelligence transportation, the idea your vehicle can talk to road side infruc structure such as signals and they can guide you to avoid a incident ahead or to be able to more quickly get to your destination. in the second band innovative approach to transportation include the analytic and logistics part which is behind the scenes but a way to optimize conditions on streets for road users. finally we have communication technology and land use

components as well as community engagement and equity components of the program. there is a couple steps process that we have already proceeded to the 7 finalist city stage and in the proposal where we'll receive $100 thousand to development the local proposal. the date for that is in may and expect to hear award winners announced in june. here is tim and i'll let him take a breath and take over and we'll work with the u.s. department of transportation and private sector partners many public sector partners at state, local and regional level jz the city will receive the prize and if wree not suck saysful receive thg grand prize we expect to continue our efforts forward. here you go, tim. >> good morning everyone. tim

with the mta. thank you for setting that up. so, we applied for the city grant under some specific criteria to try to get through the initant of how it can move out to have the most sustainable and equitable transportation system. [inaudible] resulted in what we call a binary policy system that is incompetable with cities gruth not just in san francisco but many cities around the country. that system has resulted in people who are choosing to are required to use a [inaudible] in the city are [inaudible] 80 percent empty, there are 4 empty seats that

utilized and most of the times the car is stationary so need a place to park and most the cars are privately owned so it is creating a economic burden on people to get around the city with private transportation. because of the design the city and transportation system we have enormous peaks in the morning and evening which creates a large demand on the transit supply but for the rest of the day it isn't very utilized. it is efficiency issue as well. in the mean time we had a plethora of new services that have popped up, referred to as shared mobility or some call it [inaudible] economy system. they started early on with car sharing bike sharing came on board but had a lot of companies that are based in

silicone valley provide their own transportation for employees. we have what some refer to as a [inaudible] and then recently we had the electric scooters and new quad vehicles. none created more controversy for the city than what we refer to as transportation network companies, uber and lifts and the shuttle which is a service to move around the city. what we learned is these options are growing rapidly because they are [inaudible] we are trying to figure oit the best way to manage the services while if they are not going away we want to figure a way to work with them and incorporate into our transportation system the best we can. now, that is what is happening in the city up to now, as we look

to the near future we are working very closely with some the car companies that are starting to test [inaudible] vehicles. recently we had a few companies testing in san francisco and one of the car companies had a collision earlier that got acquired by general motors. there is a lot of change happening in this space but barely scached the surface and want to guide the process rather than chase it or be led by it. one of the things we pushed for in the grants and hope to work with the usdot and california government is we don't want to see the path from conventionally owned private cars to [inaudible] we

want to see private cars to shared a automated cars because we think that is the best use of our street space and the best opportunity we have to meet those multiple city objectives. our goal was in the statement is we will work with the companies to guide them into trying to meet local city goals through a shared connected platform. with smart city proposal is simply a focus on working with companies and services and not on their own, working through the community. we felt it was important to state to the dot that we dont believe we can arbitrarily choose a neighborhood but want to work with the community to figure oit what they are interested in and how they would like us to move forward in this approach. we will focus on the data driven elements of this and

expand and integrate the shared mobility services with public transit and incorporate shared and connected vehicles when they are ready to be brought to market. [inaudible] work better together and provide more access to mobility without the car ownership and also save customers time and money. a big focus of the grant is customer focus and figure out the opportunity we can improve the customer experience in the transportation system. from all the research we have done we know vehicle technology can meet multiple city goals if guided effectively. they can reduce traffic fatality, reach the [inaudible] and reduce [cough]. we think we combine the suvss together and should be able to see something that

is trans formational and [inaudible] shift more priority for things we care about which is walking transit and cycling but also if we can save up the demand for needed to use the parking garages we can potentially transform them and create affordable housing is that is a huge opportunity to reclaim some of our public space dedicated for private car use over to something that is more aminable to social equity which is affordable housing. the grant focused on 3 areas, one is create a city policy framework [inaudible] a lot of the companies are brand new and they are literally all over the place in terms of their ability to meet our city goals and objectives. work on developing the [inaudible] and then guide the

development of the automated technology. we have 6 keep principles we would like to push forward on as a screening criteria before we qualify the companies from now on and that is looking at the safety both in the vehicle and traffic safety approach to the operation making sure they focus on affordability, accessibility, available across the city and make sure they work with each other so they are [inaudible] and leading to the [inaudible] these customer focus objectives will help improve the things people have been telling us that are important. for example, being able to see all the different transport services in one app. [inaudible] and pay in one app. those things will create a simplified approach in knowing the services are available and also utilize around the city. we are going to work with the companies to create a

governance structure how we manage our data and tie that to the open data portal we have with sf open data and create city dashbords and metrics how we can see the efficacy of the work. lastly, which is important, is how do we test all this new technology on our streets? we will develop a community design framework to prioritize the different [inaudible] on the streets and then integrate the technology into the municipal fleets and land use policy because the potential for connected and automated [inaudible] will have a big impact on parking and that will allow us to reassess some of our parking policies we have in land use. now, before we do any of this we need to develop metrix and a process to make the changes so again, data driven is

critical. let's walk through some of the concepts we have come forward on. we have the idea of [inaudible] platform where we filter providers through the 6 goal areas. one area we focus more on is understanding our customer needs, so learning more about what the residents, workers, visitors and commercial delivery services need to move around the city. work with providers to qualify them so they can be considered part the transportation system and work with our technology partner tooz integrate all the technology makeing getting from a to b [inaudible] what pilots we can do to apply the technologies on to our streets whether [inaudible] station squz so on. if we can move forward with this approach we can see that

based on the research this is a hi ypothesis of the analsis, we should see collision, congestion, emissions and street demand go down over time and also affordability and liability going up over time. there is a phase to the roithd right that we should repurpose streets and parking for more aminities we consider important in the city. we have diagrams [inaudible] currently in phase 1 where we are today, a lot of cars on the streets [inaudible] taxi and transit, but mostly a congested experience for everybody. recently we had the increase in the different tnc services which are creating more capacity for on demand trips but still not a real change in the

transportation system. we believe that if we expand the sharing economy in the transportation system to have more car and bike sharing and the different carpooling services that is when we will see travel demands in the city and should be able to repurpsh spots for [inaudible] and things we care about in the city as well. when we get to shared and connected system where the vehicles are connected and communicating they can move much closer to each other and aware of the traffic conditions and safety issues that is when we'll see positive reductions in meeting the vision zero goals and reducing emissions and so forth. [inaudible] we can start repurposing the street space to open space and things we care about as a city. ultimately the vision is that in the automated version there will be less space needed to move people around and

more space dedicated for things we care about and that is basically our vision that we are moving forward on with this grant. the second piece of this is to create a community challenge to ask the neighborhoods how we can start piloting in the area. one neighborhood is selected, we may select more neighborhoods but it will start one first and figure ways to we can provide technical services to the applicants and improve the [inaudible] services and new ideas into that neighborhood. the city team that is moving forward with the grant is a core policy team between my team and the mayors office, uc berkeley and the consultant we are starting with and the technical support team consists of many different groups inside the mta and city partners with department