at tomorrow's meetings the mta board will have an opportunity to approve the majority of the revisions expect for proposals. there are concurrently as part of the 10 percent there in service this is not a mta baseline budget but they're considering along with several other expenditure and revenue options. assuming that the 10 percent service increase will moved it will move forward forward in 3 pieces 3 percent this fall and 10 percent plus increase over the next fiscal years. the capital side there's a handful and those will be implemented over the next 12 to 18 months and would be part of overall work that's being planned. the benefits are that the neighborhood does not have to increase go construction twice and economics of scale for taxing them with proposals already in place. the remaining project level travel time reduction is 40 miles of environment will be available when the funding it available we have the engineering and plus detail design on half the proposal with the potential of the go bond that the mayors transportation task force recommended would take the first set of p

but from here we go to a first kind of rough proposed budget next friday, march 14th at the mta board. we'll also at that meeting be hearing about the service changes recommended by the transit effectiveness project. two weeks later, those service changes will be before the board for approval on march 28th. this says pbd. i think that's also a 9:00 a.m. meeting on the 28th. from there, on april 1st, at a regular tuesday board meeting of the mta board will be their first opportunity to vote on the proposed budget. and that will be based on the feedback we've gotten through this process and based on feedback for whatever we end up proposing on march 14th. if they can't come to agreement on the first or if they have other questions, they have a second opportunity on april 15th. if they can't come to agreement then, we will have to schedule another meeting because the charter requires us to complete and submit a budget to city hall by may 1st. and then the board of supervisors has an opportunity to review during the course of may, june and july at which point we would have our budget in p

by analyzing those two alternatives the mta and the mta board will have flexibility. and the decision makers may for example, the k357b9d for the church and the moderate for the other. both alternatives result in less than significant impacts except for transportation. in particular from the eir the two alternatives have less for best of my knowledge and air quality and noise. i have a slide here that let's say the difference between the - okay. thank you. so this ill streets it will be invaluable impacts with respect to cumulative traffic and loading you, however, the expanded alternatives has greater impact for traffic feeling traffic and one quarter is impacted for each alternatives but the locations are different. since politician of the draft eir we have 3 project design. the t pr 71 and minor changes an analysis was provided and those changes don't present any you information that alternate the conditions and no new significant impacts identified and kwung the provided figures don't trigger the need to recirculate the eir pursuant to sequa. many comments receive

. >> my name is henry and i wanted to commend the mta and the board on their hard work on the tep and the changes are exciting. just some of my comments of support. definitely the jackson should stay if people use it. they could serve as a connecter for pacific heights to downtown china town. another comment i'd like to make it regarding the 27. i live on washington street, honestly my family could use that route especially my mom who rides the 27 to work, although the good point is velejo don't have service, they'll benefit from it and they'll be encouraged to ride the bus and my block as should had children -- i grew up on that block and i like the bus coming down my block since i was a kid so it did not endanger me. i'm still here. for the 19 -- i'm going to into the things i'm concerned about and that's of the 19 especially in the bay view. a lot of those in live if the bay view, they need a way to get downtown in case the tep don't work. they hope they maintain the service down into the bay view. and i think that's all my comments. >> at this time, members of the board, to pleasu

like to see the full walk first implementation that is $250 million for the budget proposal for the mta board. right now that walk first proposal is not in the budget and it's only $50 million that will get us no where near the 50 percent decrease within the next 5 years. i thank you >> thank you. okay anyone else who wants to address the board >> okay in this case back to the regular agenda. >> okay. back to regular agenda we'll go to item 6 introduction of the unfinished business by board members. >> we have a welcoming here we should have done for our brand new city attorney you like it so far (laughter). >> no legal struldz. >> i have some big shoes to serve so i'll do my best to fill the shoes. >> okay item 7. >> director's report. >> good afternoon director reiskin members. one special recognition award our director of finance and information technology to come down >> good afternoon it's a pleasure to be here this is for alex i didn't she's a member of our special project team in parking he singularly handed was the fwriernz the scope technology his knowledge and participation of every

i'll reiterate what we said at the board of supervisors hearing and the mta meeting. there are unique unique circumstances in the panhandle the park is frequented by bicyclists and dog-walkers and pedestrian see. the path is often overflowing and there's discussions about creating an additional park. large vehicles parked on the street are a safety harassed to people of the park and supervisor breed supports the issues in the panel. there are other issues like the homelessness and panhandleers. i think there are special circumstances on the panhandle and for that reason the supervisor asks for your support there >> thank you very much. (calling names). good afternoon. >> hello. in our neighborhood we have another set of circumstances we don't have a lot of trailers ours are mainly the big moving vans that are full of graffiti. we have people parking big trucks and vans of garbage and come up with a little truck and a load those are people running their businesses on the street we are taxpayers we live in a nice neighborhood. yesterday we were walking and there were 40

our meters and parking control offers a rest on sunday (clapping) and so today, i call upon our mta board of supervisors to suspend meters this sunday beginning this fiscal year. i'm grateful it tom nolan has given his support let's stop nickel and diming people at the meter. (clapping.) and there's one more thing we can do for our working family who rely on muni. last year the mta at the you're going the supervisor campos and many in the community we the results are in and our kids need it, it's time to make it permanent so i call upon mta to make it possible. and again with the comprehensive funding strategy we won't be robbing our maintenance dollars to pay for it. it's to make the city a little bit more ooshlg. 2350shg9 is also about having a city government that the taxpayers can afford. the past 3 years under the assessor carmen chu and now supervisor farrell we have a 5 year adapted plan and made dramatic progress in eliminating our structural deficits. thanks to the wisdom of our voters to confront unfunded pension and retiree health liability. better times will return but we must

so this was the reason the mta board made the change in the basing last budget to add enforcement of meters. what we can tell it has worked not spiraling that's why the parking meters are there that's why people liquor the parking meters. i will note that we didn't include the removal the elimination of the parking meters in the baseline budget so if the board were to change that that would have an adverse effect i think 8 or $9 million a year. in terms of of the rationale the recommendation didn't come from use it of the adopted and the recommendation came from the mayor i know he made his rationale pretty clear it's something, you know, frankly a lot of people don't like and he felt like it was kind of a concession we can make to the public given the affordability issues we have we have to pay muni on sunday or pay to cross the bridge. that's something my board will have to consider >> hi, i'm peter straus on behalf of the sf riders union. i'd like to offer 5 comments you've heard before 5 tonight. first of all, i don't think it's any secret to anyone the muni don't in the have eno

this report has been given to the mta board and planners. why did this finding the proposed elimination to the elderly as well as the disabled. instead of making changes and deletions on bus routes on the basis of supply and demand, the proposal should be based on the actual needs for transportation services. police and fire do not operate on the basis of supply and demand but actual need. so should mta. i had time to compliment you on the time to made but you still have a long way to go. thank you. >> next speaker? ga wah. >> good morning commissioners and mr. riskin and congratulations on mostly pronouncing my name correctly. that's rarely done. my name is am an jawa a conservation representative. i'm very excited for this proposal to move ahead and become part of the mta's actual plan as opposed to plan. this is a systemic change. when you make systemic changes it is

chairman announcement of the closed session the mta board meet in closed session they took no action and there's no litigation it would it be appropriate to disclose. >> members we'll take about a 10 minute break and come back for the budget all right. >> so director reiskin are you doing a brief presentation on this. so ms. bows is going to start off and i'm going to cover a few things on the table for consideration. on the operating budget side she'll highlight the capital budget and look forward to the public and board discussion >> so thank you director reiskin. we're going to tag team this presentation. hopefully, this the the power point works. okay. so the first couple of slides have not changed from the last presentation. the only thing i want to say we have actually had our first budget hearing last week and i know you were interested in public outreach so on the eight at the library those who are interested can join us at 11 o'clock at the public library and continuing our discussions with the cac they'll have their representations in front of you soon. so on the overview o

after the last time when 9 fairs went from 45 to $60 the mta board of directors figured it was noted a good way to sustain our revenue. we know your expenses go up every year but the main revenue should go up every year they've implemented a system that basically index is by inflation. there's some rounding so the $2 fair had not gone up for two years but generally fairs index up over time and parking citation fees and permit costs index over time we have a consistent systematic predictability that's in line where we expect our fees to go but the voter gave us authority to issue debt roche our capital needs were great we couldn't fund those nooepdz needs with our operating budget alone. this indexing policy was one of the things that the loan folks thought was strong and we can get low interest rates to improve the assets we have so the indexing policy generally speaking is a very good thing for everyone not that the fees people want to go up. so our opening statements when we look at fairs the

we recognize that mta, the board of mta has fully supported vision zero, however, we really question whether there is adequate funding and adequate goal -- specific adequate goals have been set by mta to bring this to fruition. likewise, with the mayor's office, there is the be nice look twice, but we once again wonder if there is an actual financial commitment to implement vision zero. our concern is that after we leave here today, all this will kind of go by the wayside. and, so, we don't know he if it is appropriate for their action to come back before this committee or there should be follow-up with regard to these departments, perhaps before the neighborhood services and safety committee. and, so, i have that question for you and would like to know how to best follow-up is to keep the pressure on vision zero. >> thank you. is there any more to your presentation? >> no. >> so, i think, number one, i do want to give the department representatives an opportunity to respond if they so desire to put questions that you pose. i noaa side from the civil grand jury report that this will

now the price tag for this project is about $44 million and the vote again will be taken by the mta boardpen at 8:00 this morning at city hall. live in san francisco alex savidge ktvu channel 2 news. >>> time is 6:44. a lot of questions remain about a bizarre series of events in the south bay. it ended with a death of a young woman. 20-year-old monica was killed when a train hit her car at east central avenue and butterfield in morgan hill. investigators say it started when she apparently sideswiped a parked car. ktvu obtained home security video showing her driving. >> she was panicked, i guess and made a u-turn and beelined it that way. >> she went down two dead end streets and then over a curb and through a drainage culvert and on to the train tracks. it appears she was trying to drive away as the train approached. now officials are waiting for lab tests to find out if drugs or alcohol were involved. >>> some palo alto residents are fighting a plan to install a cell antenna a light pole at a baseball field. verizon wireless would pay the little league and replace an existing pole with

new placing happening only more moing them and the example in the inner sunset i imagine go to mta and the board of supervisors i haven't researched this after the traffic studies and everything were dealt with then we would say this is a candidate for the program but we're dlooibl staying away from the decisions we're not involved in closing the streets >> it's important to note that the different if you have a steward and those agreements you can't what can be at a later date so the food trucks in jane warner park that would be specified in the agreement that no imperil activity if you put out our beverages there's problems. >> right now there's one universal limitation no more than 8 days a year for private events and other limthdz people want us to consider so no more than other universal limitations and below that every neighborhood can all that. >> so formula retail. >> i have no problem. >> well this answers a lot of questions i think people are generally on the same page as generally where this is going. i want to see this continued by long-range a week or month so people can talk. i thi

maintenance plan for mta staff we had worked out with them to receive it and it's reflected in the resolution before you that we would receive it by friday. we can forward it electronically to the board right now. we understand from mta staff that they would like to move forward with the allocation today and they are here to answer questions that you may have about the potential impact of moving this forward today versus moving it forward in january. >> and chair avalos i would like to recommend that we move this forward today. given that the mta has met the condition to get the maintenance plan but my hope is that staff can look at the plan and i think that would be good to forward to all of us electronically as well. >> okay. thank you commissioner mar. with no other public comment on this item, number 8. >> and seeing no one come forward we'll close -- are you coming to the podium? >> good morning commissioners avalos i'm a member of the cac i was at the program's committee last week when i heard this item. unfortunately i didn't get there in time for commissioner mar to hear me but regarding this item, doesn't muni have a budget that deals with maintenance this sort of thing and

with that said, at the last budget discussion, mt staff or rather the board directed mta staff to take a closer look at the budget. and administrative costs to find money for increase safety improvements, including biking as to reflect and support the number one goal of it agency, and the most recent budget, i want to flag that there's more money dedicated to paper and the use of paper than there is for the entire biking program that's $4 million. i want to flag -- i have a list of all the expenses in the budget that we've gone through with mta staff to find justifications for and also identified some areas where we could actually find more money for these important safety projects. with 30-seconds, i want to flag a couple of other troubling items and one is from this presentation, we're coming up short on our ten mile bike improvements, i want to work with you ways to bump up that number and i'm concerned that much of this funding for bike projects is predicated on bond measures, and these public safety improvements should not be up for public referendum. so in closing, i want to than

so a few years ago the board of supervisors look at the problem and recommend options. so the mta carried surveys and a policy research brought forward a recommendation that resulted in the board of supervisors adapting a new section of the transportation code in the fall of 2012 that's section 2.54 that same side where duly posted vehicles longer than than 22 feet or taller than 7 photo or retailers in combination thereof so vehicle objects may not be parked between midnight and 6:00 a.m. again where the sign it's location specific and the board adapted the tool and this body adapted want transportation cord for violations that's $110 for the court house. it's on the boxes but we are certainly impressed and have been asked to respect the social sensitive to this lee allow this is similar to those used on the boxes to manage parking things like size size and weight and time of day and location of vehicles. this new tool is similar but it's mondays to have a special sensitivities for people living in vehicles they vehicular this new dimely based restriction is when the board of sup

priority is our roads are safety i can't do that without our partners board of supervisors and other on this remedying and the mta and our community partners walk sf and the bicycle coalition. when i became chief the mayor and i spoke about public safety early on. in february we had the second time in 50 years with no homicides yet some padded pedestrian was killed on the street we've had more people killed on the streets of san francisco by vehicles than by homicide. we intended to attack this trying to get a handle on gun violence and violent crime in san francisco and that's through smaet strategy and will deployment and combirs our community. we've been successful so far but focusing on the 5 most dangerous intersections and our confliction factors and using our data for realtime deployment and redeployment we can get a handle at least for the enforcement piece but as far as as education we're going to need community and partnership we're looking both ways to cross the street now look both ways and make eye contact with the driver before you cross the street. you are our populations is over 8 hundred thousand