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 maintenance and operations -- shou

i wanted to thank the mta for being here. several staff -- i know janet was here earlier but thanks to the staff and i wanted to thank the bicycle coalition for being here and mr. hill from the community advisory committee and others as well. really quickly i wanted to say a number of critical points were brought up. i think leah said "if we build it they will come" and i think the three-5% mode share has been increased over the years but much more needs to be done in reaching the ambitious goals as others have pointed out it's really important that we aggressively take an approach to improving the infrastructure but also education and advocacy as well. i wanted to say that mr. jawa from the conservation of league of voters mentioned bicycling for bicycleelists but for others and the equity issue and others brought that up and sustainable environment is critical and alternative transportation including biking is critical and this is about a healthier san francisco as others brought up as well, so full build out benefits many f

plan requires a lot of funding as well as increased project delivery strategies partnerships with the mta and communities really allowing those projects to go in efficiently we can accelerate it with a concerted effort by the community by staff and new ways of doing business to implement these projects to design them faster and get in them in the ground faster and i believe there's no reason why we couldn't keep the pace of that investment but at the moment we're deliverying five million dollars per year and the new investment levels represents a large multiple of that about 38 million dollars per year if we were to do it by 2018 as was discussed at the hearing so this question of how much investment is not a concern i don't believe for us because it's really about can we get it done quickly in a timely way and to really discuss how we're going to do that neighborhood by neighborhood and corridor by corridor it's a whole new paradigm of delivery and community involvement in the outreach process to really discuss what we're wanting to see on the street how quickly we should be responding b

there were a couple of meeting that came in discussion from the committee and our members of the public. and mta appeared to address, those questions, and it is regarding more details on the tep, as well as the scope and recommendation and benefits and the questions with how this prop k request for the larger tep recommendations and how the segments were prioritized and also the questions about the out reach strategy and so with that i will introduce john hailly and he can give the presentation. >> thank you. >> mr. haily? >> good morning, mr. chairman, and members of the board, and thank you amber. briefly, we are here as amber indicated to seek your approval, to advance some 13.1 million in prop k funds, which we view as the seed money or the money that will bridge money that will help us to begin the process to improve the quality and the reliability and safety of the system. and secondly, to respond to some questions and concerns that you have raised regarding our approach to doing all of this. so, with that, if you don't have any questions, i will briefly walk you through, some highlights.

but the more that we are talking about the population especially, yes, we can have meetings at the mta and yes, we can have meetings at the community centers. but, i do think that it is very important that we go above and beyond in the out reach process. to those particular developments where they house primarily seniors, because it is difficult for them to get around in the first place and since i wanted to just know that in the five, of the case of the 5 l that was corrected and i was happy about that and also i do appreciate the fact that we may not cover everything. but the ability to maiblg changes in order to adjust to some of those major changes that we are proposing with the system in general. and it is definitely important to me. so thank you. >> you are welcome. >> and i just wanted to thank sean kennedy for his work, and this is a great case study because of, i think that the baker street stop was reinstituted with input as an example but i liked how mr. kennedy and staff came to the richmond district as well and listened to many seniors and others, and were flexible about t

this past saturday, the contractor had a first focus group for seniored and disable and no one from the mta cac or from the transportation, or the council was on this. and the concepts proposed were mun dates and trite and not specific to our con stit you entcy. the larger issue is what is ignored here, the tep cuts out stops. and that is often said, overly to help to speed up things, for years i have been asking mta, everything now, supposed to be data driven, where is the data of how it will effect the senior and people with disabilities and how it will effect the increases of collisions for pedestrians who have to go a block or a block and a half and they don't have it, they don't know how to get it, they don't have time to contact other agencies. and it is a process, of avoid, evade and deny. on those questions. and frankly, i am going to make this a political issue. all of you who campaign, recite the mantra of diversity. but when it comes to people who are weaker, less mobile than you, all that you say is let's talk. and you don't hold mta's feet to the fire about how this is going to

and so the five limited is a great example, and i think of the mta's example to have out reach and have that impact the way that you implement and i appreciate it. >> campos? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i apologize but i have to step out of the meeting but i do want to before, you complete your presentation, i just want to thank staff, for all of the work that has been done and to echo the comments of my colleagues, mr. kennedy and others that have been doing this, and i was impressed with the level of community out reach that is being planned that has been done and i do want to get a specific copy of the plan that has been written for this effort. and the one thing that i want to under score is what i said at the meeting with the staff, i do think that it is important for us to reach out to certain communities, and the senior and the disabled community being a key community. and i would like to get more and input from them in terms of our my orty and the facing of this and i think that it is important to speak to young people and to include the school district and in this discussio

i am with the mta. i wanted to clarify a few statements that were made. i think that the way they're written is a little misleading, specifically the number of staff that is dedicated to bicycle projects and 37 people part of the traffic calming bicycle pedestrian, pedestrian safety, and school guard crossing program. the $7 million of the bike projects that some of the staff work on. it's not all 37. i wanted to clarify. i ask for that to be clarified. in addition we are worked on all of the funding recommendations that we put together with the strategic plan scenario were fed into the mayor's transportation task force process so they're in the recommended categories there, so we're happy to move that forward. of the recommendations that the legislative analyst made i think we're working on almost all of those and we're happy to come back periodically as it makes sense to update whether to this committee or the transportation authority whatever you think is appropriate on the update and the progress. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> so those are t

>> $230,000 request by the mta. >> in partnership? >> everybody else, we more or less heard from, so, yeah. that's the one outstanding one. >> and then the other announcement is we hope to finalize our agenda for the joint puc environment commission on friday. meeting should go about up to two hours. >> the agenda is a joint agenda, so, you go back and forth? how does that work? >> so, we've been -- this meeting will help inform thoughts and i've had -- i think i had heard from maybe commissioner wald had given me some ideas. so, ideas from her and ideas here today i think give a clear sense of what to propose and i've already proposed to the commission president some of those ideas. they wanted to hear the 100% renewable energy discussion, where our rules and responsibilities overlapped. the catalyst from puc, they were talking about look at food waste and someone says, well, turning food waste into energy. and then someone says, hey, let's go talk to the department of environment and the environment commission. >> there's a whole bio

. >> thank you, and we have courtney mcgeary, and other members from the mta and bart with us here as well. good morning, with the authority this past month, we reviewed a total of 3 prop k allocation requests totaling 4.5 million, the department of public works has requested prop k funds for construction of the part let project ideas stemming from the mission street scape plan and an effort led by the plan and adopted in 2010, intended to create a flexibility urban public space on bartlett between 21st and 22nd street. before you is a visual of what the projects will look like upon completing. the projects anticipated result in the loss of 34 parking spaces and 56 existing spaces which may be mitigated with the use of an adjacent parking structure that is often under utilized and maintains and operated by the sfmta. the project manager assured our committee that community stake holders were involved in the decision to reduce the parking and determined that the benefits of the project far out weighed the law. >> the project is currently under going final design anticipated to be compl

>> $230,000 request by the mta. >> in partnership? >> everybody else, we more or less heard from, so, yeah. that's the one outstanding one. >> and then the

the museums. but we're only starting with mta and puc sites. why are we focusing on those. they have significant land holding and have to report their property to the city ordinance but there's a little bit of easy around the process there's a separate process going on to look at the john updyke how to approve the city process. so that's separate but we're indefinitely coordinating on what he's doing and lastly even though those sites are owned by enterprise agencies they should benefit the public. as ken mentioned we don't have a list today of specific sites we can say we're looking at some mta sites such as a folsom doing something there and for example, the puc there the balboa park plan that's been discussion. we feel first, we need to do the site specific analysis are reeven able to develop those sites before we can talk about the work so most importantly we need to have the community discussion and say 1972 e this is a potential development site and most importantly i should mention we want to test the program so we want to make sure we track this cooperation and make

months or three months or whatever and talk about the specific things that will show essentially how the mta reaches out to and involves the small business community early on in the process. and i would hope that something like that would you know that recommendations could come to codify some of those things and at what point do we check with the businesses? you know? and the community. any way i would like to offer that suggestion it is not detailed of course, but it would be a way of moving forward. >> i agree with that. and maybe, check in, you know, we could dedicate a part of our commission meetings on the checking in, on what both staffs are talking about. and we both have been working on this, and your staff has been great, our staff, and i mean that there is communication now where i think a while ago there was no communication and now we are finally talking. what we we asked the director to respond to that? any thoughts on that? >> that i think is a good suggestion for us, too. we both have a listing of recommendation and directions and a lot of them are aligned and working out the

my name is o'le son howl from the group of sf mta. our buses would cost about $100,000 more than king county. the reason for that is that we have a lot more optional equipment that we need for our services compared to king county. as shown in the budget analyst report, the attachment one, what we did there was to highlight all the optional items that are more than $1,000 and we indicated why we are buying these options and the reasons we are buying these options the example one example is the dti camera system which cost about $25,000 per bus and the reason for this is mainly for safety so that we can have a camera system that has the capability to download wireless that we can be able to access inside the bus just in case there is a hostage situation we can see inside the bus what is happening. it has all of these special features that were not included in the seattle contract. >> if i can point to even like the first top of the items that are $1,000 or more, if the charge for tires to have aluminum polished and it's $3,000 more. i'm

and i wanted to also thank the mta for agreeing to regular updates at the plans and programs committee meeting and consistent bi lingual out reach that they have shown that they are doing now, and so i am really, i am really appreciative of the mta work with the staff as well and my colleagues and comments and i want to associate myself with as well. thank you good. thank you. >> and commissioner weiner? >> thank you, mr. chair, i will be supporting this as well and i know that there was concern that the plans and programs, committee but i really want to reiterate the comments that commissioner mar just made and i know that any time you make a changes to our public transportation system, it can cause concern whether it is changes in bus stops, or routing or anything else. and but i think that it is really important to keep the big picture in mind that the reason that the tep exists is because, muni is on. er, the slowest major public transportation system in the country, and average vehicle speed is 8 and a half miles an hour. on average, and that is what the muni vehicle is helped fas

>> maybe we could just get that information at some other time. >> the mta is responsible for the exterior escalator and we are responsible for two at pallet street station and the one that goes to the plaza area and there are three stations that are not and, that is van ness and church street and castro street station which we maintain the exterior and the remainder of the stations joint or just bart stations in the south east are the responsibility of bater. >> okay. so i am understanding even though there are eight physical bart stations there, there were other facilities that bart and the mta work together on so i pds. >> and the commissioner you had mentioned that when was the last time that bart he is ka layed in the program? and i think that it was a 15 years ago where we had a system wide and we are called the escalator overhaul. but it does not necessarily cover every single escalator, they were identified the group of the escalators yeah. >> commissioner breed? >> yes. i just need some clarity as to with the replacements. who is going to be taking on the responsibility of the can

and this has been forwarded to us from the mta. teas cavanagh from mta will be presenting today. [speaker not understood], will you be presenting? go ahead, as this is a i believe a major encouragement. >> yes, good afternoon, supervisors. nickel strong with the department of public works [speaker not understood] [speaker not understood] and mappinging. we've been working on this project with tess cavanagh who is present sitting behind me from mta. this is a major encroachment for a total of several dozen mta rest rooms and kind of bringing them out one step at a time. this is phase ii. the board of supervisors recently approved the first two locations via an ordinance from last year -- i mean via resolution from last year, i apologize. and this is phase ii, which will include two additional rest rooms, one with an existing traffic island at third and mckeefe and one on the south side walk up hudson avenue easterly of third street. this will be in conformity with the general plan. we held a public hearing on all the locations back in 2012 and we didn't receive any input from anybo

the other issue that i want to bring up is the bain of mta employees. there is a lot of bullying and that includes employees who work in the city of san francisco county. they're trying to do their jobs. this is not being a dreadtionthv. ~ addressed. brian, a number of employees being bullied off their job for doing the job by the mta. that has to be addressed by this commission. there was a national week of action against workplace bullying. it is happening at the mta. the last point is it seems like this commission actually, and you yourself, are off target around the issue of taxing the people of san francisco for using the meters. why is it all of a sudden that the mayor says we shouldn't have meter use on sundays? i mean, it seems like he says that everybody is against it. there are some people who are in favor of it, but this commission went ahead with that of basically taxing the people of san francisco, working people of san francisco with these meters without really addressing what does the public want and they don't want more meters, especially

he murdered her and it rests on yours and the mta's shoulders. we have a proliferation of automobiles in this city at the present time, anywhere between 3 and 4,000. that are acting as taxis. i drive in the city and county of san francisco and i see it every day now. you have the law within your hands to regulate somebody driving a taxi, talking on a telephone, and texting at the same time. this is an uber driver. this is how he ran over the young girl. he was texting and telephoning at the same time. at the same time the taxi sfmta taxi agency is trying to drive the ramp van that pick up handicaps out of business. they're fining us. they're forcing us to buy another medallion from them. this goes on nonstop in order to pay for their bills. i urge you to do something about that. they're driving me out of business. i've had a ramp van taxi medallion for three years. the letter i submitted to you not only has my vamp van taxi number, it has my actual cost and income for the month of december. there's no money left. between the repairs, paying the mt

and the mta has a role as well. i think, you know, we really depend on your support in terms of providing a reliable public transportation that our communities need. we need more affordable bus service and for the mta they address service problems, service disparities, like overcrowding in the mission and our lack of service in the bayview. we know for you this is an important step forward in dealing with the affordable of transit. an important aspect of the affordability of san francisco. ask we need to keep working for transit beyond that. we've been working with ed, i met with him last week. i met with john haley around the t train. we need to continue to work on the service disparities and that is why we're working on the transit equity charter amendment. we're very concerned that the tech industry is privatizing public transit. we're concerned that the tech industry is using our public infrastructure and not giving enough back to the new system to provide the service that our community so desperately need. we f

and we have been trying to get a hold of somebody at the mta to discuss this issue, but to no avail. >> perhaps, mr. reiskin can talk to the director a bit after for a second >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you *, next speaker? >> scott howge,, i just want to bring up the small business community, the small business commission, has supported the task force recommendations that came out regarding the plakards that is a good example that we can work together and show some opportunities for collaboration. >> any other members of the public that would like to make a comment on something that is not on today's agenda. >> i don't see anything, mr. president. >> it looks to me like it is time to adjourn. >> i would like to thank both of the staffs and i would like to thank christian murdock and director dick-endrizzi and for your guidance on this and director reiskin. >> and do we have a motion to adjourn? >> all in favor? >> aye. >> okay, grea >> (clapping) all right. thank you erica and thank for the great work. leader pelosi and mayor ed lee thank you for your attention. welcome to y

there is a lack of political ware the board may speak to the mta and say this is what we think is what's right and on the other side there's some loud voices who are not particularly informed and our organization has tried to increase the outreach and also try to supplement the education of the public so they understand what the facts are and really we'd like to sxand we'd like to see everybody talking to each other in terms of the people in power and saying yes we stand together and we know this is the way the economic and vital future of the city has to go and i can say although they seem to magnify, actually the voices in opposition are more often than not a very small presence or omni present very often. >> thank you very much. any other member of the public who would like to comment? and seeing none we'll close public comment and can we take this -- >> and now we will go onto the item from our personnel committee. if you can call this item. this is actually called for a closed session i do not believe we need to have a closed session all the documents have been in the packet and are