and interestingly character defining piece of building, and i think most people who visit the site are taken by it. so this structure was built in 1965. it has been deemed a contributor to the third street historic district, and as you can see there are some plans from b.a.r. architects, who are here today, where we've begun planning what the hotel would look like to reuse the building. this is an image of the waterfront with the stack preserved, as well as unit three rehabilitated into a hotel. as john and enrique stated, this building has not been open to the public ever, so it's an exceptional opportunity for the public to have this open waterfront. we like that the buildings are close to the water. we like the fact that it creates a nice edge loalong th

waterfront, and we look forward to it being something with a lot of human activity and involvement. so there's an extensive preservation team on board. b.a.r. architects, holms buildings, page and turnbull, p.r.c. so the project sponsor has done an extensive amount of study for all of the buildings. for those of you that have seen the buildings themselves, they speak for themselves to some extent in terms of their state of disrepair. our design for development document that we're preparing with the planning department will have district controls to every sure that the new buildings are compatible with the third street industrial district. we also -- i think it's important to note that the e.i.r. concludes that the third street district will remain eligible for the historic

register even after the -- california register even after the buildings are demolished, so we are not putting the california register into question. it will remain eligible. there is a interpreter master plan. it's the same group that's worked on pier 70. we'll have clear guide posts and references to the history of the property. this is our preferred project. it's a series of buildings, ranging from 85 to 300 feet. there's a single 300 foot tall tower that is a counter point to the stack, so the stack is 300 foot tall. it's intended to reflect the height of the stack. we've also studied sticks preservation alternatives in our e.i.r. we came before this body at the a.r.c. several months. we did modify our list of

alternatives on the basis of feedback from this body. we added another full preservation alternatives, so we have two full preservation alternatives and four partial alternatives, about as much as you could possibly study in terms of alternate version of the site. the full preservation alternate that we've included as a result of the a.r.c.'s comments maintains both the same program as the project we're proposing as well as the proposal of the three individual significant resource resources,. what you'll see is because the meter house and compressor house are single story buildings, there's quite a bit of square footage that gets pushed into other parts of the site and more tall buildings that we're proposing as part of the project. so this is the schedule for the entitlements. we have our e.i.r. that's scheduled to be published in

september, and then, we would be back before you to take comment on that e.i.r. shortly tlafr, -- there after. so thank you very much. >> president wolfram: does any other member of your team wish to speak or is that your entire presentation? >> that concludes our presentation. >> president wolfram: okay. is there any member of the public that wishes to come forward? yes, please come to the microphone. >> hello. i'm peter lindenfall, and i director the potrero hill rehabilitation project. i just want to emphasize the importance of the preserving the brick buildings on this site, particularly station a, the gas house, the gas meter shop, and the gas compressor

building. a lot of these buildings are unfamiliar with people principally because you can't see them. they're fenced off at the moment by -- excuse me, by pg&e fencing. i've taken one picture of the north end of station a, and you can only see parts of the gate house, gas meter shop and gas compressor building. there's been a lot of talk about maintaining the industrial feeling of the neighborhood, and because of that, i think it would be crazy to take any of these down. i mean, using industrial materials would be no substitute for saving buildings that actually are part of the

historic fabric of the neighborhood and are very beautiful. thank you very much. >> president wolfram: thank you very much. does any other member of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner johnck? >> commissioner johnck: i'm so excited about what's going to happen here, and thank you for coming here, particularly oecd to bring the project into context with the southern bay front strategy and i think that was really helpful. i think -- and of course i was on the -- at the hearing for the a.r.c. when the project first came in, and i wish we had had more information at that time, but i'm glad you came up with some more preservation alternatives, which we, you know, asked for, and thank you for that. and so while we consider those,

i think since i've been out to the site, too, and it's absolutely amazing what the challeng challenges are to the site, it ends up creating an entirely new neighborhood and transformation of the site to achieve the goals that you've laid out. and i -- one piece of your presentation which i'm interested in, but i didn't hear about, but as an urban planner, i'm seeing how you're going to have to recreate streets, you're going to have to reorganize the flow of traffic in the context of the preservation goal and new uses, and i wonder if you could spend a little time just giving us some more information about the challenges of reorganizing the parcel to achieve flow and that's an important piece of

looking at it when you look at preservation. however you reorganize the site it's going to affect how the preservation elements shake out of that. >> mr. landa, upt to address that or maybe mr. abrams. >> the site plan, if we bring up the overhead, you'll be able to see it. okay. so currently, the site has no internal streets, right, so there's 23 street, and that's it. and there's humboldt street, which is a pretty narrow street in a pretty significant state of disarray which runs east and west and terminates into the project street. what we're proposing to do is match up the street grid with the street grid that was created by pier 70. these are maps when you look back on historic records, you can see there was some path for travel in a similar direction. what we're really trying to do is link the project seamlessly

with pier 70, so the main street would be the large blue line running up and down, which is maryland street. georgia street is a street that would be the second street. that street does run through where the compressor house and meter house are, and that's another reason we are proposing to demolish those building is because we want to open up the site as much as we can. if those buildings remain where they are, it doesn't allow us to have as much access to the project as we otherwise would have. >> when the planning department looks at these large sites that are being proposed for complete transformation of use, everything is -- it's almost like starting from scratch on these sites. the goal here of course is to not only create a great development that includes a lot of housing, but connect these

sites as much as poblg into the fabric of the city -- possible into the fabric of the city. so it's this incredible challenge how we -- not only is it a challenge in terms of urban design but then it's a financial challenge to the project, because unlike most projects, they're having the cost of building buildings, the cost of the new infrastructure that goes with them. so that's the challenge here. we encourage project sponsors to build as many street connections as possible, and which they're trying to do, and sometimes, the push back is we can't afford to build all those streets. the project won't justify the cost of all those streets, so it's a tradeoff, but it's both an urban design challenge and a financial challenge when you're trying to build a whole new set of infrastructure on these sites. >> just to respond, then, i'll let others ask questions or whatever, i'd like to look at this, too, as a cultural

landscape. as you say, it's never been really open to the public, and all of a sudden we have this fantastic new opportunity to bring the public in and the whole transformation with the other southern bay front project. so one, after i've seen it, knowing what needs to be achieved in order to create this transformation, when we look at preservation, knowing that the reason for demolition is to, obviously, make the streets and create the streets that we begin to think more about how we can preserve some of the integrity of those buildings without saving them. there's some elements that we could, you know -- this gets into the discussion of facadism and what's right or what's wrong, but you know, maybe portions of these could be moved to create an entrance to the site. i'm thinking -- i've always loved the entrance to pier 70 with the arch way there, reminding us of what this looked like, you know, the dry

dock, and of course, the connection to pier 70, too, is a fascinating thing to think about and how we relate that. and of course, your challenges here are much -- to me, much more significant. at pier 70, we had a lot of good structural -- even though there's been a lot of renovation there, the historic core, there was a lot more going for it, structure, than some of the buildings here without the roof and the water and the floors, etc., etc. so i guess that's what i'm starting to think more about, is how we get into the discussion of facadism and what will work maybe with some pieces of those contributor buildings, you know, saved, where they can be and moved somewhere to create an entrance. >> maybe rather than using the term facadism, creative solutions that are a little bit out of the preservation lexicon or something. >> that was a lot of words. >> yes, that was good.

>> that was more elegant vocabulary. but that's what i was thinking at the moment. fantastic opportunity. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner pearlman? >> commissioner pearlman: yeah. i want to thank enrique for walking me around the site this morning. it really is incredibly impressive. i just want to emphasize there is no street grid, so it is a creation of a street grid as director rahaim just talked about. this is always the tear between preservation and cost of development and what was appropriate for your times, what was appropriate 150 years ago when these things are built and how the city has expanded into these areas that were formerly just industrial and now we're creating these neighborhoods with lots of housing and needing supermarkets and other things that neighborhoods need. so i know that that's the juggling act that the project

sponsor's going through. but one of the things that i mentioned this morning to enrique is so much of what we talk about as preservationists and historians is these places tell a story. they tell a story of what happened here, and just because something happened here, we evaluate it. it's an evaluation process of we think this is important to tell the story of san francisco, and you know or the story of ship building at pier 70, and this is the story of power at pier 70. the buildings are one way to tell the story, but there are lots of other ways to tell a story, and i think this is a place where the juggling act might end up more on the presentation of the story in a way that's not specifically about buildings -- because of,

one of the things that's obvious is the horrendous condition. if you get up close to those walls and you see the whites of bricks that's literally bulging out, you touch the brick and it's falling apart. i had an iota of nervousness walking through today because of the notion that an earthquake hits when you're in there, and you've got a talent on a crane that's up there, and it's many tons, and i wouldn't want to be under it when it comes down. clearly, there's that to balance, as well. so i think this is, you know, a fantastic project. i look forward to seeing its development. i also wanted to comment on the facadism. there is a little facade -- for those who haven't been out there, there's this little classical symmetrical facade that's, you know, concrete, painted white, in the middle of those brick buildings that is a

suite little facade that would be fantastic as a folly on the waterfront, somewhere else on the site. it's totally invisible. no one knows it's there. it was a joke when it was building how distinct it is from the rest of it. and then, the exterior wall that's exposed on station a is quite a beautiful thing. as i was talking with enrique about that central park area that would be perpendicular to that big wall, if even parts of that wall could be incorporated somehow, you know, into a new building or being supported behind so it's the backdrop of the park, there's -- you know, if there are ways to do that, i think facadism is something we have to take on a case by case basis and not just say facadism is good or bad or -- but i think qualify it relative to what its purpose is in a

project like this. so i'm very excited about this. i hope it keeps moving along at a reasonable clip, so that we can all see the project before we leave this earth. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner black? >> commissioner black: i also want to say that i really appreciated the tour, and i -- the project sponsor may not be thrilled with this, but i really encourage members of the public to take this tour. it is a completely different world up close and personal when you get into the buildings and you get close to the exteriors of the building, and it helps you understand it a little better. before i took the tour, i went to pier 70, and i'm sorry to say, i hadn't been there for 1.5 years, two years, and i was absolutely stunned by how fabulous the buildings were. not only were people having lunch, but it's alive and kicking and it looks fantastic. it was really nicely done.

it's obviously very vibrant, and i see the potential for that occurring on this site, as well. one of the things that's hard -- i wasn't on the commission when the a.r.c. reviewed there, or at least i didn't see any of the reports. we don't have a staff report in advance of today, so it's hard for us. there's a lot of information coming at us, and it's something that i commented on during the site visit. we're making all sorts of comments on decisions that are very complex on this property. the property has tons of limiting factors on it. we talked already about the grid. there's also an existing power station that's never going to go anywhere, and when you're within 30 feet of the place, you can hear that buzz. that's going to limit the uses that go near that? there are obviously the

historic structures. i -- when i went in the existing historic structures, i was really disheartened by the condition of them. the structural sound, they are not structurally sound. i was more concerned than urp about an earthquake when i was inside that structure. they are not in good condition so that's obviously going to have to be part of our thinking. i don't think the public knows enough about this project yet, so there was a slide that showed the sleteps -- if you wouldn't mind putting that up again so people can know when they can start reading materials and what the dates

are, if you can find that. >> one thing, commissioner, you said that the project sponsor would not welcome more tours, we enthusiastically lead tours. they regularly sell out. to the extent they regularly sell out, we'll start doing them twice a month. it's a tricky site to have them on, because part of the site's a construction site, but we've done everything we can to host the community at the site. we'll have people at the site in september for two events. we'll toured interns, students, whoever wants to get on the site, we find a way to get them on the site. we do bring the public as much as we do on the site, and we are going to continue that process throughout the entitlement process. >> president wolfram: okay. sf tv, can you bring up the --

you can see now, commissioner black, the project schedule. >> commissioner black: right. it looks like this is going to the preservation commission on the 23rd. >> planning commission on the 23rd. we'll have comments -- after the draft e.i.r. comes out, we'll provide comments on those. >> in terms of the schedule roughly being -- we plan to have a copy of the draft e.i.r. being published in september. we will also be releasing the draft design for development document, soon there after, the infrastructure plan. we'll be in front of planning and the historic planning commission as well to have hearings on the e.i.r., as well, and that will continue on through the string as will our outreach process. >> commissioners, if i could, my sense it -- if i could, looking at this schedule, it's likely that the e.i.r. would come to you in late september or early october for your comments on the e.i.r. that's not specifically listed, but that's my guess given this

publication schedule. >> commissioner black: thank you. and to members of the public, it'll be on the website so they can review these things as they're posted. having said all that, i'm really excited about this project. i see the coordination of this, and pier 70, along with the rest of what's happening along the waterfront is a fantastic opportunity that the city seems to be taking advantage of. for what it's worth, i think the potential conversion of -- i can't remember what it's called, but the structure next to the stack into the hotel. >> building 3. >> building 3. >> commissioner black: building 3 is clever as can be, and i hope that that's possible, yeah. so those are my comments. >> president wolfram: thank you. i have some final comments here. i don't -- does anybody else

have any comments before we wrap up? i want to thank you for your presentation. it was really a fascinating project. i would say that in these projects, that there is a lot of new development all happens, and where everything is new, that they are definitely benefited when they're historic resources that are part of it, and that i encourage you to be creative in your thinking and maybe incorporate ways that are not necessarily meeting the secretary standards necessarily, but there are ways to include elements of historic buildings in the development because i think it will provide some richness to the project, just some variety. i am a little concerned about all the new developments that will be proposed as part of pier 70, the southern half of pier 70, and then, the amount of new development, even with your great design, it might be a little bland. i think what we're seeing in mission bay is there's some bland characteristics there

that just -- you can't really recreate kind of historic elements of buildings when you do new construction. there was similar issues that we've brought up at the hunters point shipyard where we've encouraged that 1307b sor to try -- sponsor to try to keep some of the industrial buildings there. it's a fascinating project with lots of challenges, and i encourage you to be creative in your thinking. so are there any other comments? thank you very much, and our hearing is adjourned. [ gavel ]

[gavel] >> good morning and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority meeting for today, tuesday, july 24, 2018. our clerk is alberto quintanilla. if you could call the roll. [clerk calling roll] kim absent. commissioner mandelman absent.

we have quorum. >> thank you. colleagues, could we have a motion to excuse commissioner tang made by commissioner ronen, seconded by commissioner cohen. colleagues will take that without action. -- objection. next item, please. >> item two, chair's report. this is an information item. >> thank you. i'd like to start by welcoming our newest members, one of whom is here and one who is on his way. that would be commissioners brown and mandelman to this body. i noted that when both of you were sworn in, you were sworn in as members of the transportation authority. you are both quite familiar with our work and i look forward to working with you on the key issues to shape our policies in the coming months and years. as we prepare to break for the august recess, i would like to highlight several project delivery milestones. one of which i will be present

to celebrate the opening of and the other two i will unfortunately miss during the august recess. but i know many of you on our staff will attend and celebrate. the first is san francisco public works' broadway chinatown streetscape improvement project. the fourth and final phase between columbus avenue and the broadway tunnel. which will be open this coming monday. you are all welcome to attend at 11:30 a.m. at the corner of columbus and broadway. and i want to thank the t.a. for programming $5.3 million in federal bay area grant funds provided to us by the m.t.c. and $2.4 million prop k and a.a. funds to this project five years ago and this funding has made this busy arterial safer with narrower traffic lanes, bus shelters, raised cross wa*ux, street trees, benches and street lights among other safety improvements.

i also want to thank the chinatown community development center for their long-term advocacy for these important improvements as well as the public works staff who actually redesigned portions of the project with chinatown c.d.c. and i look forward to celebrating the opening of that and i want to thank members of the public who put up with a year of frustrating construction and i know that they are relieved and pleased. another major vision zero project that we at the t.a. have funded with a combination of local and regionally provided federal funds is the m.t.a.'s masonic avenue complete streets project, which is finally complete. which spans three supervisorial districts. it's a full redesign of masonic street to geary. includes wider sidewalks and new median, paving, landscaping, lighting and upgraded sewer infrastructure.

the t.a. provided $10.2 million in obag funds and approximately $400,000 in sales tax dollars to the project. the sfmta anticipates holding an opening event in august so i want to extend my early congratulationss to them. many board members past and present who have lived through a -- again, long, frustrating experience. but the light is finally at the end of the tunnel. and finally after years of design and construction, the trans-b joint powers authority has set a date of august 11 for the grand opening of the sales force transit center. the t.a. has, as we all know, played a very major role in funding and supporting the development of this regional transit center which will house a hub for 11 local and regional transit systems including muni, a.c. transit, sam trans and eventual rail connections for the downtown extension of cal train and high speed rail. the integrated transit center

in cal train extension programs is the largest project in the prop-k expenditure plan which designated up to $270 million toward this project. to date, the t.a. has allocated $175 million prop-k funds and today we're agdized to add more for the d.t.x. design. we have also committed significant state and federal funds alongside our funding partners at the state and the united states and the region. this hasn't been an easy project by any means, but has already had a major impact catalyzing over a decade of development across the trans-bay transit district including much needed affordable housing. congratulationss to the tgpa, thank you to our funding partners and all of the commissioners and supervisors past and present, including supervise source and commissioner kim and to the neighbors in the area. i wish you had -- ish wi you a wonderful regional neighborhood celebration on august 11 from 12:00 noons to 4:00 p.m. at 425 mission street.

and then on a sad note, on behalf of the t.a., i would like to express our deepest sympathies to the family of nia wilson who was fatally stabbed at the mcarthur bart station on sunday night in what appears to be a senseless, random attack. but we are relieved that a suspect has been taken into custody and will support our bart representives on next steps. we also send our condolences to the families of dimitri scottkin, 69-year-old who was struck and killed while crossing slope boulevard last week and kevin manning, a petty cab driver who was hit riding on the embarkadero earlier -- last months and died on june 10. we have a vision zero committee coming up and hope to talk about more that we can do to prevent these crashes and deaths and injuries and, with that, i conclude my remarks. are there any public comments

on the chair's report? seeing none, public comment is closed. we will go to the executive director's report. ms. chang? >> thank you so much, chair peskin. i begin my report on another update regarding the earthquake safety work. as you recall, the bart team has been working to retrofit key parts of the original track and tunnel and station elements, mechanical infrastructure. there will need to be an extension of the work hours and, therefore, requires bart services to begin at 5:00 a.m. instead of the current 4:00 a.m. start time on weekdays. just wanted to notify members of the public that this extra hour will shorten the total project timeline by four months and it is a live safety project. we will be seeing the bart board taking action on how to replace -- provide replacement bus service to mitigate that extra hour that they need to use for work hours. we will be reporting back to the board on those replacement

bus services in september. we are pleased to report that san francisco was awarded $29 million by the state on affordable housing and sustainable communities program funds. these are cap and trade funds that the extra edge tooic growth council approved late in june. these we continue to put forward competitive projects and congratulationss to all

involved. we'll keep track as well of future cycles to ensure that we continue to pull down some of these important grants. we did also recently host the fourth annual autonomous vehicle symposium. i just wanted to mention that this year rachel hyde and i presented on a number of panels. an interesting note, i participated, for example, on a federal session on data exchange and this time it is not just cities. it's not just cities calling for data. it is also folks like the insurance industry. which made their point that it is important to have verifiable data so they can properly assess risk and properly provide for the appropriate risk premiums and if the data shows that there is a safety benefit, by all means, the consumer confidence should be reflected in those lower risk premiums. so, data will certainly help drive adoption to the extent that it is wanter. we appreciate the exchanges from all partners at that session.

the valencia public workshop, i wanted to announce that there will be a second workshop held on saturday, july 28. as you recall, the transportation authority has provided $175,000 in sales tax funds for this project. looking for ways to better organize the traffic and the shared services and other road user including cyclists and pedestrians. so, this workshop will be on the 28th on saturday from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. at the women's building at 3543 18th street. and we will be viewing the potential design alternatives and associated trade-offs and bringing the report back to the transportation authority board later this year. improving street safety, we have a vision southeaster row open house this weekend. we brought forth that final report for the first set of intersections earlier this year. this is a second project that's looking at 10 additional intersections in the south of

market neighborhood where freeway ramps touch down on to city streets. we conducted a survey and collected more than 800 response and we're now conducting the workshop to be held next tuesday the 31st from 5:30 to 7:30. and the bayview is receiving $600,000 for implementation of results of our community-based transportation plan. m.t.c. will take this action this month to a lifeline transportation program. as you call the fmta is doing this community-based transportation work coordinating with supervisor -- commissioner cohen's office and included in that is a participatory budgeting pilot for san francisco and solano countieses. so thank you, commissioner, cohen for your leadership there and building on your other participatory committee that you do in your own districts this.

will provide for capital improvement money to implement some of the recommendations emerging from that planning process. so we're very happy to hear that. vision zero traffic safety improvements are also being delivered in golden gate park so with more to come, m.t.a. has installed near-term traffic safety improvements funded by prop-k throughout golden gate park including at the j.f.k. and 30th avenue intersection and earlier this month, added four raised crosswalks at various locations. we're seing is improvements across the district as well as sfmta's fleet replacement project continuing to bring new vehicles to our streets for muni. it placed 20 additional vehicles with prop-k funding in the last quarter and so we see about seven of these electric trolley coaches and the rest hybrid diesel motor coaches w. that, i'm happy to take any questions. >> are there any questions for

our executive director? seeing none? is there any public comments on the executive director's report? seeing none, public comment is closed. mr. quintanilla could you read the consent agenda? >> items four to 11 comprise the consent agenda. the remaining items are considered routine. staff is not planning to present on these items but is prepare to present if desired f. a member objects, any of the consent items may be removed to be considered separately. >> there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to move the consent agenda made by commissioner yee? i'm sorry. i'm sorry, commissioner cohen. >> thank you very much. [inaudible]. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> good morning, we're live. ok. just so i'm clear this is on the consent agenda. if i want to is verdict something like item five, do i

need to procedurally sever it to discuss it? >> yes, if you would like to se enveloper any item. >> ok. and then also -- my goodness. so, just so i'm clear, we were just going to take the consent agenda as a yes and have no discussion around it? >> that's what we usually do because they have all been considered on the first reading at our last meeting. but you have the right to sever any items. >> no problem. i just wanted to make sure i was following it quickly. ok. i wanted to sever item five. we talked about it a little bit two weeks ago. mr. chair, is now the appropriate time to talk about it? >> is we'll sever item five and then vote on the balance of the consent agenda and then take up item five. >> i also need to sever item eight. >> ok. items five and eight. >> yes. ok. >> ok. so, on the balance of the consent agenda, items four, six, seven and nine through 11. is there a motion to move those

made by commissioner yee? seconded by commissioner fewer on that motion, a roll call, please. >> on items four, six, seven, nine, 10, and 11 -- [roll call] we have final approval. >> thank you. could you please read item number five? >> item five, state and federal legislation update. this is an action item. >> thank you. may i speak now? >> yes. commissioner cohen. >> thank you. i just wanded to get some clarification. did we amend this legislation? this is senate bill 1014. there was some discussion last week. you might recall the t.a. staff recommended that the

commissioners take a "no" position unless this item was amended. >> it was a support if amended position. it wasn't a "no." >> looking to staff, was the legislation amended? >> ms. craft? >> amber craft, public policy manager. the state legislature has been in recess so there's been no further action on the bill. >> ok. >> but we do -- our state legislative advocate has been in contact with the author in discussing our concerns with -- >> so if i understand correctly, the staff still recommends that the commissioners take a "no" position on this item unless it's amended. ?aerkt >> the recommendation before you is to maintain the original support if amended position so we would work with the author to get the amendments that are outlined in the memo and in that case we would

automatically support the bill. >> the actual language on page 15 of our packet is the resolve clause that says resolve that the transportation authority hereby adopts a revised position of support if amended on sb-1014. >> ok. so, as i understand that there's been no amendments and the issues that i raised a few weeks ago have not been addressed. so let me just go through my little talking points here. good morning, everybody. [laughter] so item five, we've been asked to adopt a position on the state legislation. this is for senate bill 1014. that has been sponsored by nancy skinner and the transportation authority staff has recommended that this commission takes a no position unless item is amended tonight. the best of my knowledge, this item has not been amended so i wanted to just share with you that i'm not comfortable upholding the staff recommendation that we only support senate bill 1014 and if

it's amended then i'm happy to support it. and the reason why -- what's important to note is that senate bill 1014 sets a starting that the air recess board and the cpuc establish targets and goals to reduce emissions from t.n.c. vehicles. senator skinner's recent amendments allow for t.n.c.s to count miles traveled by what they're calling active transportation. and that includes bikes and scooters and into the overall miles traveled in the calculation. in san francisco bike share and scooter miles travel account for only 3.5% of the total vehicle -- of total vehicle miles traveled and i'm of the position and i do not believe that this is a high enough threshold for us to completely change our position from supporting this bill. now i understand that the goal of the legislation is to establish greenhouse gas

emissions baselines for t.n.c.s and i think 3% is really a cig -- is really not significant enough a portion of traveled miles for us to move on our position instead of working with these companies to begin to get them to move on their emissions. so a question that i raised last week are -- maybe it was two weeks ago, i cannot recall at this point, but what was a definition of a vehicle that the transportation authority staff was using and maybe for the record you can share with us again the definition. >> great. thank you. and just for clarification, we're not recommending an opposed position on the bill. we're essentially the support is amended position is taking no position. >> no position, ok. >> and working with the author to seek the amendments that we're requesting in which case if we see the amendments we'd automatically support the bill. >> well, thank you. i appreciate clarification. if that is the case, then i rest my case and i'm happy to support the no position. thank you mr. chair. >> so is there a motion -- >> i'll make a motion.

>> to adopt number five. >> with a "no" position, yes. >> ok. as stated in the current resolutions. >> that's correct. >> and second for that motion? second by commissioner yee. colleagues, can we take that same house, same call. the item is finally approved. mr. clerk, can you read item number eight? >> item eight, approved part one of the fiscal year 2018-19 transportation fund for clean air program of promises. programming $38803 to four projects. >> this is also something that i flagged a few weeks ago and want to thank you, supervisor -- or commissioner -- what are you, trustee -- commissioner. you're commissioner today, right? commissioner, trustee peskin. >> not a trustee, but i'll take it. >> ok. all right. all these titles, they're crazy. >> particularly when it comes with a pay raise. just kidding. >> i can commiserate with that. i just wanted to let you know that i'll be supporting item eight. thank you very much for the

consideration on that. >> thank you. and, of course, one piece will trail when we get back from our summer recess. so is that a motion to move item eight forward? commissioner cohen? >> yes. that is a notion move forward. >> there a second for that? second by commissioner stefani. same house, same call. the item is finally approved. the next item. >> item 12, final approval on first appearance, adopt an oppose position on proposition 6, the voter approve for future gas and vehicle taxes and 2017 tax repeal initiative. this is an action item. >> ms. craft. >> good morning. amber crabb with the transportation authority. we did request or flag that we would be bringing this to you for approval upon first action. due to the desire to have on record a position before the end of september, which due to the august recess would otherwise be the case.

this bill would repeal the transportation revenue approved through the road repair and accountability act or senate bill one approved last year that brings about $5 billion across the state for transportation each year. san francisco alone sees about $60 million per year in local formula programs that are used for thing like local street and road repair, transit improvements and transit service. we also are going to be relying on hundreds of millions of dollars in the future for key infrastructure projects such as bart and muni vehicles as well as safety bike and ped projects. if the proposition repealed, there's potential for those projects all to slow and the need for locals to find additional funding to close the funding. gaps that would be remaining. we have been working with our peer public agencies across the state and the region on educational efforts to make

sures that public is aware of how those tax dollars are being used. we do have a fact sheet that i believe is at each of your desks and available for the public. at the key jobsing over there. -- at the kiosk over there. we values a website where we're up to the minute, the project was for san francisco at www.sfcta.org/funding/sb1. right now we understand that the proposition language is scheduled to be released today for public comment. so the spubl praoe to look at that as well. unless there's any questions, request your approval and opposed position on prop six. >> thank you, ms. crabb. any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. any questions or commentses from commissioners? seeing none, is there a motion to move item 12? made by fewer, seconded by commissioner cohen. colleagues, can we take that same house, same call?

the item is finally approved. next item, please. >> item 13, update on the independent analysis and oversight services with sjoberg evashenk consulting. an information item. >> thank you. ms. leanne liu. >> can we get the -- the presentation. ok. sbro*k deuce yourself. >> good morning. leanne liu. >> and leanne, if you could just pull that microphone a little closer to you. there you go. >> there we go. >> all right. bear with me just one second. good morning. as chair peskin mentioned, we received the green light in may of this year to move forward with the three focus areas surrounding prop-k which included program delivery, budgeting and sponsor reimbursements.

before we discussed the results, i would like to briefly clarify what i mean by peer comparison agencies because you will hear me mention that throughout the presentation. what it really means is that we're applicable, we compared the t.a.'s practices with similar transportation agencies who elected t.a. who are also the administrator of half cent sales tax. they are the regional transportation planning agency as well as the congestion management agency designated by the state. the factors we considered were a sales tax program of similar size and the number of staff. for the first focus area, we were asked to look at the prop-k delivery status in terms of funding allocated to date for the major capital projects as well as the 21 program categories. we also looked at how successful prop-k has been in leveraging other funding sources.

in terms of overall delivery status and the big picture, the t.a. and its partners are delivering the program as promised. if we are measuring progress in terms of sales tax dollars allocated. we are not yet quite at the halftime mark, but have allocated 57% of the $2.8 billion program. specifically since 20 the 04, the t.a. has awarded 1256 grants worth $1.6 billion for a variety of projects and subprojects such as small amounts for safe routes to schools initiatives or multimillion dollar projects to replace the m.t.a.'s radio communication program. ments for your capital projects, again with not even half of the prop-k time passed, we have two projects that are open to the public. three projects that are nearing completion and one, the downtown extension, that is in

design. a similar picture for the 21 programattic categories where $958 million has been allocated through the end of last year and on this slide it shows the allocation status for the 2 -- 21 categories for the time passed and the 30-year lifetime. as you can see on average allocations align with the time passed. but there are some categories shown in red fonts with fewer activities. we looked into a couple of those categories that seemed to have a slower start but did not find anything out of the ordinary. for example, programattic development has only been allocated $4 million through december 2017. but exenss pences this fiscal year 18-19 are expected at $2 million.

se it appears that activities for this categoris are ramping up into near future and the $20 million commitment from prop-k for this particular program will be achieved by tend of the program. the second area we were asked to look into related to how prop-k helps leverage other funds. as it is the case with most public transportation promise, there are different callers of money to pay for projects and taxes represent an important funding source especially to leverage state and federal dollars. with prop-k, the 2003 mandate was to spend $12.4 billion over 30 years with prop-k paying for about a quarter or $2.8 billion while the rest was expected to come from other federal, state or local funds. this means that every prop-k dollar was intended to secure

$3.4 in other funds. end of last year, according to your annual report, the leveraging goal has been met with every prop-k dollar generating $4 to $7 in other funds to help pay for promises. . -- projects. to get an idea of how that leveraging goal is met at the individual project level, we selected a sample of projects to see what the actual leveraging looks like. as you can see in some instances, prop-k paid for the entire project such as the public works street resurfacing program. and for the presidio parkway, it secured almost $14 for every prop-k dollar invested. in conclusion for this first program delivery focused area, we found that sftca and its partner agencis are delivering the program in terms of sales

tax dollars allocated. we have capital projects that are either completed or nearing completion. and the prop-k live ranting goal has been i met. while i appears that they're on track to deliver the program as promised, we found it challenging to navigate the t.a. website in the annual report to obtain basic information on thing like status or progress. the information is there, but in so many places, that