City and County of San Francisco Tuesday, February 07, 2012

[Roll call]

>>

you have a quorum.

Please be devised that

the use

of telephones, pagers, or

similar sound-producing devices

are verboten in this meeting.

Approval of the minutes of the January 17, 2012 regular meeting.

The motion is adopted.

Any comments?

all those in favor?

Item five, communications.

There will be no closed session today.

Introduction of new or unfinished business by board members.

>> when are we scheduled for another safety update?

Do we have one coming soon?

Can we get that on the calendar to get an update on what as a going on?

>> I don' t know the answer to

that, I have a brief highlight to give you.

but we will come back at some point soon, I think there is an

outcome from the pedestrian safety task force.

Within a month or so, it might

be a good time to report out front.

>> item 7, the safety directors report.

>> the afternoon acting chair

person, as members of the public and staff.

We are happy to be starting out as we always do the first

meeting of the month with employees special recognition awards.

This time we are going to start

out with the transit division, recognizing some folks that

participated in an event that

you will no doubt heard about or

impacted by, really acted

heroically.

Back on January 18 about 6:00

A.M., the gentleman from out of

town to a couple of unfortunate

wrong turns and found themselves heading into the portal.

made it very far down the tunnel, about halfway to the

station if you can imagine, the police are continuing their

investigation of what he was up to and what will be his fate.

He got far enough down the portal that he crossed over the main line so it shut down

service in the entire subway system.

Fortunately, for us, we had one

of the inspectors there at that

time, known as tj.

i can start asking folks to make

their way to the microphone so they can be recognized.

He reacted quickly, called the

control center to get all of the system' s got, recognizing

the hazard and quite likely prevented what could have been a

much more significant and

catastrophic incident that could have not only damaged the

system, but impacted people' s lives.

His quick thinking started the

ball rolling and in 15 minutes,

mike and his teamj

formed an emergency response units and were on the scene to address the problem.

They needed to put lrv into use

to help move the vehicles , had a determined pulling in all the way out of the tunnel would take too much time.

They were basically able to move

it into a pocket in the tunnel

and got service restored within 2.5 hours of the incident.

If you can appreciate the magnitude of the work they had

to do, the damage that was done

by this gentleman to get service

back in that kind of

environment is phenomenal.

I want to a knowledge the work of the crew here.

We also have robert alonzo,

manuel enriques, [Reading names]

I think we should all give them a big hand. [Applause]

>> Mr. Haley.

>> words would not

do justice,

both to this incident and to the daily occurrences.

This is tyrone julian, the

inspector that acted quickly and decisively.

He prevented a vari ery serious

situation, his actions allow us

to freeze the railroad at a time

that trains were within 30

seconds of where this criminal drove his car down through this.

Tj, this is john

randy

katenich, who will speak for the group.

Their extraordinary creativity in solving all kinds of

situations you would not want to

get into a storytelling contest

with any of these guys.

they have toppers.

Randy, who will be giving the

acknowledgments for the group,

the last time I saw him was last thursday afternoon somewhere in

the tunnel between church and

castro where he was swing

awing to

get some wire down.

Randy?

>> I don' t do the, um, that is for sure.

With training and knowledge, I have learned a lot over the years.

We have learned from each

other, and thank you for acknowledging us, I really appreciate it.

>> you have to speak longer. [Laughter]

>> I would like to say something to the board here.

I could not be mo hope of you are as well.

>> on behalf of the board of

directors, the entire agency, and every citizen of this city,

we appreciate the fast response and the hard work.

You deserve a round of applause and your supervisors speak so highly of you. [Applause]

>> thank you. Next,

is from our capital programs division.

I will ask them to step up.

He is an assistant engineer who

has been working with the capital position since 2006.

He is currently serving as the resident engineer.

The R.E. Is the man or woman on the agency' s behalf managing the

construction, making sure that community issues, traffic issues, and back issues are being addressed.

I know that from my time at dpw,

being an R.E. In the public right-of-way can be extremely challenging.

he and his operations folks tried to keep their buses going through.

He was pivotal in coordinating

with transit operations on this

project and a number of others,

including the overhead retrofit project.

on the cable car project, he

completed production of the

safety certification documents

which is not sexy stuff, but it

is important and essential for

us to turn our systems and back into revenue services.

For that work and for the

general enthusiasm and attitude, we' re happy to a knowledge him from the construction division.

>> good afternoon, members of the board.

Once again, I am pleased to introduce another one of our young engineers.

he has only been with us about

five years now, but during this

relatively short time, he has

demonstrated his capabilities and his attitude.

Not only has he acted as a resident engineer on many of the

important projects, he is one of

the guys that coordinates the

construction work to make sure that the operations are not affected and things go smoothly.

Throughout all of this effort, he has shown commitment to the agency.

>> to the border of directors,

and my fellow colleagues, as a native of san francisco, it

makes me proud the represent the city. I will continue to work

diligently for this organization and our community.

I would like to thank my wife and family for their constant love and support.

of like to express appreciation for the continual encouragement

of the staff to resolve daily issues.

In particular, I would like to use this opportunity to express

my gratitude to my colleagues.

it enables us to produce a successful construction projects.

>> on behalf of the board of

directors and the entire agency, we appreciate your work very much. [Applause]

>> in terms of employee

recognition, I would like ask

martha to come up to the podium.

I learned a few things about

martha, she has been with the agency since 1978. She doesn' t look old enough to be here.

She started as a very young parking control officer.

She started way back and worked

her way up to be the director of enforcement.

she took over the residential

parking permit office in 1994, and then the 1999 management of the school crossing guard program.

She has increased the number of crossing guard positions to 150.

she is providing twice yearly

safety trading as well as --

training as well as increasing visibility and safety.

It is sometimes a very difficult job, one that is important for our children to get to school safely.

the other thing I learned about

martha is that she recently announced plans to retire after 34 years.

There will be some big shoes to fill.

In the evening that I am leaving

the office, it seems that she is

in there at her desk, working away.

we will certainly Miss Her when she chooses to actually retire.

We are happy to be a knowledge in her for her grade service today.

Does

Mr. Yee want to say a few words?

>> good afternoon .

movements like this are always vigorously.

Her colleagues from the program, we are very pleased to be recognizing her for a long

career and her years of

service, but I think we are all

very sad that we will be losing the close association we have

had for the last 30 years or so.

It is a tough job, and I have been to a lot of community meetings.

People have varying opinions,

but the crossing guards are universally loved.

a lot of it has to do with the attitude that the crossing guards take with them to the field.

It has a lot to do with martha' s inspiration and leadership.

We want to thank her and recognize her for that.

She and I actually went to high school together.

she was two years ahead of me, so life isn' t fair.

She gets to retire before I do.

>> would you like to say a few words?

>> I would like to thank everyone for taking the time out of their schedule to recognize me for my service to the city.

It has been a pleasure and honor to work for the city.

Every job I have done for the city, I have done that with

integrity and I am proud represent the city and county of san francisco.

It is a fitting into my career

because parking and traffic have come together and I see that we

are really providing a service to the citizens of san francisco.

My parents lived in san

francisco for 40 years prior to my coming into the world.

I feel that it is my,.

i am very thankful to have

worked with such a wonderful

group of people, not just in my crossing guard program, but throughout my career.

As a senior parking control officer, I worked with jerry.

i will Miss Everyone, I might come back as a hearing officer. Thank you.

>> on behalf of the agency, thank you for your service.

We were lucky to have you for so long and good luck in your retirement. [Applause]

>> the times that we have worked together in enforcement, it was a real pleasure working with you.

She was very diligent, cared

about her work, and she cared about the people that worked for her.

she is one of those people that even though you go different directions, you run into each other and you have to say hi.

It was an absolute pleasure

working with y[Applause]

>> moving along, just a number of relatively small updates.

Director lee asked about pedestrian safety and we will come back with a full report.

We activated a new traffic signal at sunset which previously had a two-way stop.

this has been an area where we

had a lot of requests, schools nearby and kids crossing. It is an improvement.

We have speed zone signs that a

number of schools, 355 schools have been completed.

We' re happy that the work is

continuing and we will complete that work before the beginning of the next school year.

If I remember, it was 200 schools.

close to 1000 signs, every

school where we are able to do significant improvement there.

Red zones installed for

increased visibility along sixth

street in south of market, one of our most challenging areas in terms of pedestrian safety.

new signals, pedestrian countdown signals.

Accessible pedestrian signals at

19 intersections, this is part of our continuing pedestrian

safety program aimed at reducing accidents and fatalities.

We look forward to coming back with a complete report.

It demonstrates that good progress we have made.

A couple of weeks ago, I was in washington, D.C., and I was honored to accept on behalf of

the mayor of san francisco, the sustainable transport award.

This is an award , an

international award given to one or two cities each year.

we were co-winners this year , is

apparently a very prestigious

award led by the institute for transportation and development policy.

It is a consortium of international planning

organizations that selected san

francisco as the winner based

primarily on the sf park program and the city' s pavement

to parks program.

Sitting up on the award

podium, and seeing some of the stuff

that they are doing, it was

quite an honor for us, for san francisco to have achieved this award.

It reflects a lot of the good

work of this board, the planning commission, and the mayor' s office.

yesterday, crests hayashi and I

attended the land use committee

for the first requested quarterly updates on taxi issues.

We covered our intent to establish a baseline from which we can do some quantitative

reporting such as electronic

trip data and other performance measures.

We also gave a preview of the

consultant we engaged to do the

best practice analysis, the

convenience and necessity

study, improving ramp service,

dispatching improvements, driver training.

It was a good discussion, relatively little public

comment, but continued interest from members of the board of

supervisors to see the taxi service in san francisco.

There has been a lot of discussion and e-mail traffic

regarding parking proposals that we have advanced, that we

initially intended to bring for

this board meeting.

there was a significant and

allowed opposition to proposals, and there were about

five different areas that we are

proposing from mission bay.

We'

re bringing them all together, so it appeared to be a pretty significant proposal.

I attended a community meeting , and got quite a bit more

feedback, and based on some of the reaction and a very

legitimate concerns, both

substantive and process was, we

will take a few months to circle back and do some more data

gathering, do some more engagement with the broader sector of the community.

And come back to the board at

some point down the road with either similar proposals or different proposals based on that extra time.

Director ramos:

was able to observe that community meeting as well, there were some very

strong opinions voiced, but we will do the out -- and take the time to bring back something

that we think is the sensible and worthy of your consideration and support.

We wanted to give you a brief

update on free muni for youth initiative.

we came with an informational item on that and you give us direction to go back and refined

the proposal which we have been billing.

We have been working closely with a supervisor campos' s

office, the T.A., the mayor' s

office to hone in on a a proposal that we feel would be

ready to bring back to you.

At this point, it looks like by

the next meeting or another one

after, we will have a proposal

to come back, some of the open

questions are really the same

ones we started with, and nailing down a financing plan.

It was a proposal that would not

adversely impact muni operations.

We are close to having a finance

plan, and for what duration this would happen.

we have also seen for the

parking, a pretty significant

level of communications via email.

There are campaigns out

there, the grass-roots support is quite strong.

We should be coming back with a proposal on that.

A couple of capital project updates.

Project continues.

We did a shutdown of church and the market and replaced all the

real and some of the overhead

equipment, repaved the intersection that I think went very well.

There was some service disruption, but we managed it and had very little complaints.

We are

starting our carl street

track replacement project and we' re synchronizing the shutdowns.

The next one looks like it is the weekend of February 24 we

will have a partial shutdown of

the n and minor reroutes of the 3743.

The owl, they will be doing

-- there are bike lane restrictions

any detours, we will do all of the outreach we have been doing.

As much as this work can be disrupted, it is a critically important state of repair work.

It is great that it is moving forward.

i reported I think that the last

meeting that we completed the first of the tracks with replacements.

We have the next ones coming up, I believe it is this weekend.

This will be at 35 and 36

revenues -- avenues.

it is critically important work.

Finally, a couple of the news items.

We recently completed our annual bike count report.

This is the sixth year we have been doing this account.

The good news that we are showing a steady increase in

cycling in san francisco.

71% increase in cycling from

when the reports started in 2000. We'

re looking at bike trip but sure as being about 3.5%.

That is up from 2% in 2000.

That is a pretty significant increase in about a decade.

Late summer, the busiest the

vikings season at 18% more riders that early August.

this is welcome news as the board adopted a goal of increasing load share of all non-private auto to 50%.

Bicycles are necessarily going to be an important part of achieving that goal.

the final piece of good news, I don' t know if it is official

yet, but we got word that the fta,

will be issuing a letter of

no prejudice for the subway project.

We expect to get the letter today.

It will allow us to basically continue spending money and start digging the hole for the tunnel machine.

We see it as a significant vote of confidence from the federal government that we are dealing

-- our project is progressing

well and we hope that we continue on a very good track toward getting the full funding

grant agreement within the next couple of months.

That concludes my rather lengthy report.

I am happy to answer any questions.

>> congratulations on the sustainable transportation award.

It started while your there.

>> it was a collaboration, but it was there from the start of that.

He

has taken off, the parklets are being copied around the world.

>> I know that we have all been reading the males and hearing the voices on that.

Always glad to hear about the increase in bicycle account.

It is good to remember the increase would be hard to handle

in any of our other transportations, maybe except for pedestrians.

Directors, questions or comments?

Director heinicke:   thank you for

the update on where we are with the taxi report in the quarterly reporting.

As I understand it, we are

planning to hear, at some point, a proposal first half on how to

proceed with medallion sales and

what the next step is following that pilot program. Is that correct? >> that is correct. I don' t know if it is the next

meeting, but one of the March meetings to hear from the taxi

advisory commission that have contemplated something like 19

different proposals as well as a recommendation from the staff that will capture many of the

elements of their proposals.

>> I saw the presentation that you and the deputy director put together for the board of supervisors.

I appreciate that.

on the parking proposal in these

five neighborhoods, we have

heard an awful lot about -- I just have one question.

As you look at this again, what I be correct in understanding that one of the options you May consider would be the expansion

of the rpp program or mixture of

rpp and meters?

Is that within the realm of possibility?

>> we' re looking holistic we got

parking management, two of the main tools to manage parking

would be permanent parking or managed parking.

He we originally were proposing

a mix of both, but there is a lot of contention about what is

appropriate on each block given the mixed use nature.

It is part of the in depth data gathering that will help us figure out which of those tools

or other tools or no tools will be important.

>> I appreciate everything you

said about going back on the youth passes and that sort of thing.

One detail that will be significant for me beyond paying

for it, it would be the actual fair media and if we' re going to have a program like this that

will encourage you to ride the transition more, it is a wonderful time to get them

signed up and educate them as to how great these fares can be.

It always leads and advocacy, but if there can be some

addressing of how the media will work administratively and perhaps in the great with clipper, that will be important to me.

>> it will be free with a youth pastor loaded onto a clipper card or whatever the fare would be.

if you are paying with cash, you

director ramos:   I wanted to

comment on the parking and what happened as of yet.

I was unable to attend the first

town hall sort of forum, and I

did attend the second meeting

Mr. Bahn was at.

There were a few muni staff there, mta staff.

It was nice to see a supervisor

ofcampos, ki -- to see

supervisors campos, kim, and cohen there.

I think it is absolutely imperative to find a solution as quickly as possible to this issue.

We are looking at a budget deficit and if we don' t get this addressed, it will translate to service cuts.

That translates to a tax on our most vulnerable population.

We need to think about that in every decision that we make.

I appreciate the exploration, but I want to make sure that it

is thoroughly vetted and takes

an accurate read, from my

perspective, the unsuccessful raid we have been willing to achieve.

I did hear a lot of hyperbole at that meeting.

A lot of what was coming from

the committee was routed, to put it nicely.

I hope we can move forward with a little bit more respect with

one another, recognizing that

you all are doing a fine job, getting a lot of input.

We do need to come to some sort of compromise.

i think the mta has demonstrated that willingness to reach out to the community.

We have to come from a place where we agree.

There was a substantial amount

of folks that did recognize that free parking isn' t free and we

need to find a way to accommodate the needs of the

city through a better look at

how we can better manage the parking there.

I want to commend the staff for what you did.

and probably having little bit

more of an in-depth dialogue.

The hearing felt like it was more of something that the community had organized.

They didn' t really articulate a rationale behind what was happening.

thank you very much.

Director brinkman: the youth

passes, that will be coming back to was relatively soon.

That will be a pilot program now

with the folks that perhaps will be rolled into a permanent a

budget item are permanent program, correct?

>> what we would be proposing

would be a pilot that would run

starting from whatever effective

date we are able to start from through the next fiscal cycle.

director brinkman:   and will have

the opportunity to figure it out and moving forward. We don'

t want to start of program and not be able to continue on with it in the future.

>> there is a very strong commitment from the activists is

that are supporting this to work

with us and work at the state

and federal and regional levels to help with that ongoing support that this program with me.

-- would need.

>> you do have members of teh he public. [Rading

eading names]

>> I wanted to speak to a few

items in the executive director' s report.

Beyond the the many infrastructure and fixes that

you heard described, I want to report that the bicycle

coalition is working with the

group that spun out of the pedestrian safety advisory

committee and the mayors that safety initiative.

And this group, the mta peace

act, and the bike coalition

cooking up some programmatic safety things that are really about safe streets.

We want to look for bringing some of those to you in some form.

The infrastructure is good, but behavior and etiquette are also key.

i can never quite remember what his it is.

Of course, this was in

recognition of our various market had the parking management. our great use of streets.

It has a picture of the four-

borough partly -- four barrel parklet.

It is a smart use of the transit stop.

Free muni for youth, the bike

coalition is very supportive of this.

We got wanted to adversely affect operations are budgets of funding.

We will keep working on that.

We want to talk about the bicycle account report.

That is partly why we got the recognition internationally.

i think that is all I have to say, I will be back for other items, thank you.

>> [Reading names]

>> my namei

is jane martin, we'

re organizing low income

riders across the city.

I wanted to report a little bit

of the progress on what has been happening.

We have a resolution passed and supported by the board of supervisors.

The mayor' s staff was very supportive, and we have a growing movement of youth and

family across the city getting engaged in this.

I wanted to report some of the work that has been done with the school district.

Currently, you have to pay a lot to ride the bus.

From our experience with our

members, it is really the parents that pay.

In order to address that , we' re working to develop an educational component.

I also wanted to say that we have been working closely with the staff, thank you for all of your work on this.

and with a supervisor campos,

a huge amount of progress has been made.

And one of the other current questions we' re trying to work

on is a desire to find the mission mobility project that

thet.A.

t.A. Is currently investigating that.

We want to be full partners and we would love to meet with each of you individually to talk

about the funding proposal if there are any concerns you might have.

The coalition would love to sit down before the upcoming discussions and go over some of this stuff.

If you have any time to sit down with us, we would really appreciate it.

The earliest american the action

is on the sixth of March, so what we' re hoping is there can

be an informational item at the meeting on the twenty first horn next meeting so later in the afternoon the youth can be part of this dialogue.

>> [Reading names]

>> thank you so much, commissioners.

As you all have mentioned, there are some many young people that have been getting really excited about this and we know you have received a number of females.

We have also been on the bus is collecting signatures and we will be bringing in those hard copies.

I think they May have sent a letter to you, the mayor and the supervisors from district two.

a wide range of parents and young people engaging in this.

They saidtu up amblr -- set up

a tumblr site.

There are over 750 use from across the city.

We put together a very short video to bring some of those young people that could not be here.

What we wanted to say about that

as it is loading really quick, what excites some many young people, you will hear a lot more about this.

It is about this being free, that is what is innovative and different.

A cheaper past is not capturing

the same or different idea of a

round access to transportation, education, shifting the way

young people relate to transit as their first choice.

With that, we will introduce this video.

[Chime]

[Chime]

>> thank you so much. We'

ve run into issues.

If we give too much time to certain speakers -- we appreciate the video. [Reading names]

>> I worked as a youth organizer in chinatown, I am here to advocate for the fact that we

need to consider free passes, not reduced.

If we were to have cheap passes, a lot of the kids and families

will struggle to get on the bus.

A lot of times, we think that

2009, it was jumping to 15 and students are paying $21.

For a lot of students I work

with, it is not something that their families can pay for every month.

The constant pressure is like a groundhog day. It is going to happen and we don' t want to be back here saying we need cheaper fares.

For the first time, we see a lot

of agencies collaborating together and we feel that the pieces are there. Let' s put it together like a puzzle and collaborate.

[Chime]

>> [Reading names]

>> I just wanted to talk in

support of the free muni for youth campaign.

The reason this is so strong is not only the collaboration with

the board and directors , but also because the youth has

really taken ownership over this campaign.

A and there is a real need in the community, working-class

youth that depend on buses to get to school don' t have the luxury to not be aware of their family' s financial situation.

They know when they have to try

to get on the back of the bus and of that they don' t get a

ticket so that they can make it to school on time.

and also what it symbolizes to

them, the mobility and freedom of having free access to transit.

The youth have been saying that it is their school bus, but we want to encourage them to say

that it is also home their car.

I grew to love writing in the

transit system in new york, not

just because I got a free metro card, but because of the opportunities it gave me to

develop as a person, being able to coexist and to get along with

people with the verse backgrounds as me. Being able to learn how to

navigate a complicated transit system and help me build my

confidence as a person and help me develop as a responsible youth.

I want to encourage you to make this investment so that they can

have this feeling of

appreciation for the mta and transit system here.

>> [Reading names]

>> I am an organizer with power people and I am here in support of the initiatives mu to makeni

fre -- to make

initiative to make mun

I free for youth.

We believe that lowering and

reducing fares will not address the economic strain that families feel.

there is a parent or guardian

that ISw3 struggling to pay that. And there is overwhelming majority of support when we are

talking about this initiative,

and the appeal is making it free. There are many parents that expressed difficulty in having to pay multiple passes in

addition to their island.

it is important that we see this

issue not only as a youth issue

but a parent and family issue.

It is important that we also see

it as the key to independence for young people.

many say it is about maneuvering

the city and being able to have full access to the city without depending on their parents.

Many young people to express a lot of pain and having to ask their parents for money that they simply no they don' t have.

Let' s think about not putting a

price to the value that this

has for young people.

The board can make this a

reality and a huge opportunity

that both the city and the mta and vests.

>> [Reading names]

those are the last people that have turned and a speaker card.

>> I get on the buses three days out of the week.

What do you think of this

campaign, and it is an overwhelmingly positive response.

A lot of use were getting out yesterday and asked a little boy, would you like to ride the bus for free?

He said, are you serious?

I would not have to worry about getting shot or anything like that.

We have had that experience, an incident with the man that was

shot.

a thing he was so excited, but

it was really sad that coming out of elementary school, he has to face that.

Like many of my comrades before me have said, it is important to think about as something that is

free, because we have seen --

muni is already facing financial

problems, so we know that we can say to reduce it and it will eliminate the problem because we

will be right back here saying this is too much.

I want to relate an experience of another mother that I met.

she was saying that sometimes she is unemployed and she doesn' t have the fair had her girls come back from the bus saying that they couldn' t get on, the bus driver would not let them on.

It is a hassle for the families

, and trying to bring some of

their stories to you guys to you can understand why we are pushing for this to be free.

The things that we do, the low- income people that we talked to.

>> I am the director of the san francisco youth commission.

Like they said before me, I just

want to speak to why the free passes so important.

17 young people appointed by the mayor, we have been really

concerned with the cost of the monthly fast pass.

The pass went from $10 to $20.

The youth commission policy

proposal that his board adopted the use lifeline program looked for a discounted pass for a low- income youth.

Having that is where the community was a lot of ways a year-and-a-half ago.

We have shifted, and I think the shift is really important.

That is why a key board of education and the youth

commission, they are really so compelled by this campaign.

And one really important piece of that is the fact that the

yellow school bus service will

all but be eliminated in the school year 14-15.

That is really important, the

fact that 70% of the public high

school students depend on transit to get to school and that a yellow school buses no

longer an opportunity for them

is something that I recall the very board making mention of back in October.

In addition to all of the other

reasonings, don' t forget how

this new topical fact of no yellow school buses.

Thanks.

>> always good to see you.

>> the last person to turn and a speaker card.

>> I am probably the most unpopular guy in the room right

now because I want to speak

about the parking plan that this board has.

I think this board suffers from a motor fovea.

There is a prejudice against automobile drivers.

no driver is represented at this

meeting and it is totally unfair

because they are also part of public transportation.

They are part of traffic.

The reason why this board advocated charging for a

citywide parking is because they are shaking down the motorists for funds that this board meets.

they are not going to big

business, they are not cutting

6-digit salaries, they are taking it out on the driver.

My primary source of

transportation is muni.

That is why I complain so much about the service.

people should not be punished for driving a car.

Are the biker is going to pay for parking?

Everyone has to share this burden.

If you want to take this to a logical extreme, people will be charged parking fees for sleeping in their own bedrooms.

the mta needs money and will get it anyway they can short of robbery.

>> that is the last person to turn in a speaker card.

>> i live in the north mission district where the parking plan is slated to go down.

We had some work done and they did some really good work organizing the neighborhood to

come to a consensus plan.

I hope that as we move forward, the mta can adopt that kind of conclusive approach.

i also want to speak to fr

aboutee muni -- about free muni for youth.

That creates a culture of taking

transit, and we get a double winner down the road, which

would be much more effective getting around town, filling many of our needs.

secretary boomer:   thank you.

Ms. Chair, there are no others.

>> that is the first thing I was going to mention.

There were quite a number of

former cac members, but I want to call the attention to our

newest member, just appointed by

supervisor mark farrell, and we

welcome him to the cac.

He has been attending committee meetings for quite some time while pursuing this appointment,

so we are especially glad to see him joining the body.

he has demonstrated a clear

interest in the kind of issues this agency deals with.

On behalf of them for us to be able to be included on the bond and oversight committee.

Me and the former vice chair and

current members of the cac, so

we are grateful . This is the first time we have

been doing these bonds, and we

are concerned about a successful launch.

This is the power that this

m.T.A. Board has had, and we want to see it goes well the first time out of the gate.

I have several issues for you.

The first is on your consent

calendar today under a 10.2 k

and l, which involves a bus route.

We recommend that the cac adopt

the plan, adopted two before you

today, to move the sunset and the avenue stopped from 19th and

lincoln to cross over and martin luther king.

we recommend they consider some supplemental lighting there in order to increase the safety of the stock.

There is something at the stop

itself which sits just inside golden gate park.

We are concerned about having a

lot of lightning in the past

from lincoln way to the stock, so people will be comfortable

going to and from it at night -- in the past from link and all of

the way to the -- in the past

from lincoln to the stop.

The importance of reducing

running times, this is something

that will contribute to that on

the 28 and the 29.

I think this chaves, if I recall correctly, four minutes off of

north bond -- I think this

shaves, if I recall correctly, four minutes off the north

accountable

-- the northbound.

we think this will enhance the

pedestrian and automotive safety on that block as well.

We know that there is some opposition from people who are concerned about having that stop inside the park, feel a bit more

threatened than if it were just outside the park, and that is one reason why we think the lighting is something you should

look at to make that stop more inviting inns safer and make everybody feel comfortable using it.

Because they will get a faster ride out of it.

The next recommendation I have

for you pertains to item 13 on

your agenda today, which is the transportation sustainability program. There is a lot of interest in

this with the cac and a lot of conversation.

to the sfmta board and the board of supervisors that all policy based discounts on the

sustainability be less than 100%. As we understand it now, the

idea is that for things like affordable housing and units of housing where there are no units

attached that there would be no paying into the sustainability.

-- the sustainability fee.

We are not suggesting a number that it should be scaled down to, but we think it should be

something nonzero, because there are obviously some commendable

goals for having more housing that is not accompanied by parking.

These do generate transit trips,

and this is something that has

to be paid for, so if we look at

the fiscal sustainability of the

agency, we think it is important

to look at charging something for this, for these developments.

Also, I have an item pertaining , a recommendation pertaining to item 11 on the agenda today.

we have a discussion about the america'

s cup, and we recommend

that the board take measures to

ensure that the sfmta budget is protected from unexpected losses

related to the 34th america' s

cup and that the day-to-day service is not negatively affected after the conclusion of the event in 2013.

There have been a number of cases where with large sporting events like this, they have

generated some infrastructure and then a lot of debt and a lot

of unpaid expenses overtime

after the event is over, and we just think that the board should look very carefully to make sure that the agency' s budget is

sufficiently protected so that

any cost overruns or what have

you do not negatively impact the agency in the long run.

Peter albert brought to

the cac

and press a transportation plan, which I think is going to be shared with you today.

Our concern was just that the

agency not be on the book in the

event the there were some cost overruns from this.

so those are the recommendations I have for you today.

If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.

vice Chairman

Brinkman:   thank you very much.

>> we appreciate it.

There are one dozen people

behind this to work very hard on

these issues and spend a lot of

time and some late night on this stuff.

Vice President Brinkman: thank you.

Do we have any public commsecretary boomer:   not on this. There are three people who have

put in a speaker card, starting

with david w

iener -- herbert

wiener and then 2 others.

>> herbert wiener, i think they should be paying me for writing it.

-- riding it.

The buses should be running

every 20 minutes are running over 25 minutes. There are coaches that are missing.

yesterday, the haight-ashbury was clogged up.

There were about three boxes on top of each other.

What is going on here that there has been such colossal mismanagement?

If you want to have a transit

first agency, please do not make it transit first, passenger last. i have really been putting up

with a lot of garbage, and I get very frustrated.

I get very angry when I Miss A muni bus because I do not know

when the next one will arrive, and I am just plain out of luck. This has got to stop.

You have to make this efficient.

You have talked about getting rid of cars.

you in their right mind is going

to take a bus instead of using a car if the boss constantly breaks down?

Now, there really needs to be some fixing, and the policy

right now is to fix the

passenger, not fix the bus

system, and this is really wrong.

the motto of muni right now is the maximum damage with the least resources and services.

That is your banner read, and you should wear it with disgrace. Thank you.

Secretary boomer: thank you.

David, followed by another. Those are the last two speakers.

>> part of the citizens' advisory committee. A couple of things to bring to board attention.

I never commented before with

the

cac and probably before you

as well, people trying to take bikes.

I think we need to proactively

worked -- work to manage compliance to that end, and it

is not easy to have a consistent

message to passengers and other

passengers can help reinforce

when someone brings a bike, even during a station at night, and get on the platform.

There is a lot of that on the

second car, the n- judah.

There is not always the second

car open, particularly in bound

on the n judah, sent to the extent that john and his folks

and reggie and his folks can reinforce good operating

practices, supervision, passenger behavior where appropriate, I think that would be good. i do not know how better to communicate that, but I wanted to bring that to your attention.

>> thank you for your service on the cac.

>> good afternoon.

i have some of your emails, and I can send it to you.

Pulling up in front, on the

other side of van ness, and that is just one incident.

I know you see this all of the time.

Another time, I was in the

valley{ on halloween, and there

was one at 24th and castro, and

there was 824 does a derryl -- a

division derryl -- divisadero.

One supervisor of was there.

There was a 71 in back of it, and the other bus, I cannot remember the number, whether it

was six or 43, probably another

six, but there were two buses

waiting for the tour bus to pull

out of the stock, and I think you should be concerned about

this and should look into a

policy with the bird -- board of supervisors to charge these buses and ticket them.

This is an economic justice kind of thing because I do not work

for one of the tech industries.

i do not make a lot of money,

and people who ride munis tend

to make less money, so I really encourage you to look into this.

We did have somebody come in, and I am a member of that, and

testified that they did a ruling to say that it is ok.

I could not get no confirmation of that. I called.

vice President Brinkman:   thank

you for your comments.

Secretary boomer:   we have one more speaker. And that is the last one.

>> I am having a hard time with the distinctions.

We have problems regulating supply.

If sf park does increase parking availability, this May make it easier.

In a city like this, that will be more and more the case.

If that turns out to be the

case, you will be shifting because parking is available.

That needs to be studied,

because this could delay transit in the long run.

The nature includes that steady, but I really think this has to

do no harm to transit delay especially for seniors and the

disabled who have to walk twice

as far, to have as many seats as possible.

The other item is revenue.

Money was given in 2007.

that money and fell through the system.

We have two folks who are making one quarter million

dollars per year on the mta budget. This will call for money.

If the agency does not take

steps to improve its standing as a reliable conservative resources, then you are not going to get any traction to get that two-thirds vote.

It is incumbent on the agency to

take concrete steps to make sure that they stay in the agency and new resources dedicated are not shifted to

other sources that actually beef

up transit to provide things for san francisco.

Vice President

-- Chairman

Brinthank you.

>> this is an issue we have heard before, but when a member

of our cac asks for information,

I would ask that she be given the information she is looking

for and what we are looking for

with respect to those commuter buses. And the second thing I will

point out, asking for a bit of

personal indulgence, we hear a lot of complaints about the system. Trust us, the five of us are on

this, working with Mr. Haley and

Mr. R eiskin.

My son was going on a field trip, and he was able to convince them that all they wanted to do was right around muni with me.

-- ride around muni with me.

There were several bus rides, an

f train

ride, including a stop

at the f train museum. They went out of the way to make sure those children are comfortable and safe.

We actually encountered several other field trips during the

same thing, so I feel obliged to note that.

this was the morning that knucklehead drove his car into the tunnel, and I could not believe it. Of all of the dates for this to

happen, this was my field trip day. He everything was running

smoothly by the time I got to

the school, and I just have to say to my friends, a huge thank you.

it was one of those moments

where I felt proud to be part of the agency, so thank you.

Vice Chairman Brinkman: thank you for your comments. Anyone else?

>>

my wife abandon the 28 because of the lack of consistency before the

improvements that Mr. Haley

implemented, but she is back on the 28, and she is getting

seats, and things are working out.

Whenever you have done appears to be working, and we certainly hope we will be seeing some of the same at things. Thank you so much.

secretary boomer:

Madam, are at your consent calendar, where

things will be acting on as a single vote rather than

discussed separately, in case

someone wants to have an item severed.

Madam Chair, I have received no

request from any member of the public that any item be severed,

and seeing no one in the

audience currently, it would stand.

Vice Chairman

Brinkman:   all in favor? Opposed?

secretary boomer: a kick, moving on to the regular calendar.

Director

heinicke:   one question? Those changes were made with input from the taxicab community. Is that correct? Was there input sought on all of this, or at least, were they

given -- the changes to the

traffic patterns and stopping regulations surrounding the ballpark after the games are

over, did the taxi communities receive an opportunity to

provide their input?

>> we worked very closely with the giants and also the

coordinating committees in the neighborhood when we suggested

this, and I think they did reach out to the taxi groups.

>> and this was a trial. We can monitor very closely and

make any tweaks as necessary.

>> but you did not receive any

objections from the taxi communities, the driving communities? >> no, we did not.

Secretary

boomer:   moving on, yet members of the public who wish to address you.

Vice Chairman Brinkman: anyone?

Secretary boomer:

would you like public comment first proof thoughts?

>> -- public comment first?

Thoughts?

>> we have some people here, and they can walk through whatever

level of detail, what you heard last time.

They can summarize it, or we can go directly to public comment, as you wish.

vice President Brinkman: how many items? Four? Anybody in a hurry?

>> we would like to summarize what recovered last time and what is before you for consideration.

>> sure, mike martin, with the office of work force development. As you heard during your

meeting, this has become a really central document for the planning of the america' s cup,

and I really want to compliment you again and your staff in particular for getting ahead of what is one of the major

questions as to how we are going to manage this event and all of the people coming to the waterfront, and I think the

community engagement that came with a process where we allow us to get ahead as we put together what is the vision for the america' s cup in san francisco.

As we talked about this before, this is the first time these

will be available by short.

We had to do a lot of thinking from scratch, borrowing on a lot

of ideas that are out there, thinking about ways to bring

forward new thinking, pilots

products, things that would not only benefit the event and have it legacy but for the city.

So we used the plan for some of our apartment was mouth is, and the things we were able to do.

What is before you today is the

adoption of the ceqa findings

that was certified by the planning commission and upheld by the board of supervisors.

The key sort of mitigation strategy is the people plan, so it endorses that plan.

it also endorses further work to bring that to an implementation stage, so we are looking forward to continue to

work with your staff and can answer questions based on what

you heard last time or what you hear in public comment.

vice President Brinkman: thank you. Should we hear public comment?

Secretary boomer:   [Reading names]

>> speaking to bicycling as an expansion part of how we will get this done.

it is not just that we' re going to tolerate bicycles.

We are going to put them front and center.

We have been working with mike and peter and their team, and we are pleased with how that is going.

Some of the biggest parking that has been seen.

Bicycle rental, by a share,

pedicab.

Transit integration, all the best of this agency coming

together, and working with agencies outside of this agency,

really making that work, but what we are really keen on did

mismanage of is the temporary legacy improvements to bicycle circulation.

they are safe, comfortable, welcoming to everybody.

Locals and visitors alike, and we are really, really keen on making sure that we take advantage of the america'

s cup to show everybody what anbar derryl can look like when it works for bicycles.

what spur brought forward a

couple of years ago, -- what the embarcadero can look like.

So polk street is a key corridor.

and then there is the good golden triangle. We are already working on a better market street, but the america'

s cup is a way to make it work better.

We hope that you will support

all of this business, but know

that your agency, we are here to help. We want to make sure it is a beautiful event and that every

becomes by -- everybody comes by.

-- by bike.

Vice Chairman

Brinkman:   thank you.

secretary boomer:   [Reading

names]

>> draw a name in the sand when it comes to money.

I do not want to ruin a party,

but do not let this event happen on the backs of this agency or preferably any other agency in the city.

do not let this event suck money out of our city coffers.

In fact, do everything you can to get money coming into our city coffers.

Suck the other way. Enough has already gone that way.

secretary boomer:

thank you. David?

>> thank you, I will try to not coppinger in saying that.

This should not take away from

the core muni and mta services, and I continue to believe that. I continue to not be particularly involved in the planning for the america' s cup. I am kind of doing some other

things around town, and I also

did not have a chance to read the statement of overriding considerations, and I apologize,

because I really liked to read these.

I am kind of a ceqa guy that way.

I am not sure in what kind of

small face -- space you are

finding and what items are not getting the needed with respect

to the muni and the mta, but I would hope that you would find

ways to address them, and if you cannot, I am not sure I would

adopt the statement of overriding considerations.

I would try to mitigate those

items within the america' s cup

effort overall, using the people

plan and other reference to try

to address those, as she said in her own way that we should not impact the rest of the system. Those are our thought.

Secretary

boomer:   thank you.

Next speaker.

>> I am here from the advisory committee.

For many years, we have been

advocating the e line.

Mr. Albert has been to our meetings in developing the people'

s plan, and we are deeply

disappointed that the contractor

you is -- who is rehabilitating

this will be unable to do this

to have any kind of service using the cars that are

designated for it for the america' s cup, at least this year. It has been our hope for 15

years to have regular e line

service, who live in south beach, to get to the northern waterfront.

It is a service which we believe will have enormous traffic.

There is still the possibility that you could cobble together

some sort of service during the two months this summer of the america'

s cup for e line

service, and we would like you to do that.

After all, the america' s cup is supposed to pay for the cost of

this, so this is not something that would come out of your

budget, and then we look forward

to working with you next year.

Secretary boomer:   that is the last person to have turned in a speaker card.

vice Chairman Brinkman: questions?

Director bridges: I thought they would go into bolstering the service.

It would be nice to know, I am sure you have thought about

this, what kind of safeguards you have built in, making sure this does not turn into a

liability, that is a benefit of the city.

>> the people plan was

developed with a number of principles that we reviewed at the last meeting.

One of the principles is not to read first impact dated the operations really of any of the

city agencies, and I think that goes for the entire america' s

cup, and to have a positive

legacy behind once the america' s cup leaves.

You are correct in the service in support of the america' s cup

will be supplemental, and there has been great care given to

ensuring the daily service for the rest of us who May or may

not be participating and are spectating for the america' s cup.

There is funding that will be raised and provided to offset

the costs to the different

agencies, the fire departments,

the mta, for the service they are providing.

To be honest, the extent to

which we was a 100% cost recovery is not clear at this point.

However, aside from the news that will come from the event, as you saw in the presentation last time, there is an

anticipated $1 billion positive

impact to the local economy, and

we directly benefit with any positive impact.

We see the america' s cup as an

ability to ship is our system,

to showcase our ability to

search our capacity for a large number of people, to get more

people of on to me and other modes of transportation.

The message is do not plan on driving to come to the america' s

cup, so we see some ability to

test and pilot some supplemental

service that will serve us, in some cases for regular service,

such as the e line and

ultimately be able to to earning that large dividend for the city.

I think we certainly see it as

not at all in conflict, the

ability to provide database service and a great benefit to the agency in the city.

>> if I can respond to that,

that was one of the first things i thought about, as well.

Before ibis even appointed, people were talking about this issue.

one of the things I am excited

about was about the billion

dollar potential revenue,

tremendous for the folks for

what we can gain, I had made a

request for some sort of a form

that shows or in a report that articulates those benefits, and

I saw something like that in the

plan, and I did want to

compliment staff, and I am going to support this plan moving

forward if with the those -- move forward with those thoughts in mind. thank you.

>> just to understand the issue, because I am not sure that I do, there' ll be some cost.

we could lose some money, but we are not taking on any large capital projects or other things that will saddle us with ongoing debt. Is that correct?

i certainly year Ms. E

lan -- va ughn'

s comments.

We are supporting it on a world

stage, and this to me sounds like a right way to strike that balance.

so I will move this item.

Vice President Brinkman:

all in favor? All opposed? Ok.

secretary boomer:   item number 12, supporting the

electrification

of cal train.

>> he felt it was important that we move forward on this.

He is the mta board' s present on the couch rain board, so he is

connected to this issue in a number of ways, and while initially we were planning to

bring this informational items, there has been a lot of discussion within the city

family, through these terrific transportation and planning

functions in the city .

With regard to high-speed rail, there has been a divorce to the opinions taken with regard to high-speed rail throughout the

state, and we want to make sure

san francisco is very clear and strong in its support, with a

few caveats that you and your of, and they are reflected

before you, and we are likewise

working on a regional level with

san jose and others along been

-- the

caltrain corridor.

We are at a very important point.

the next part will be submitted

soon to the legislature, which will start the clock for them to act, so we wanted to bring this

to you,

articulating what others have been advocating a very

strong support for the high- speed rail because of the

critical importance to san

francisco and its economy and

the region, so very timely that we have this item before you today.

I am pleased to have someone

from the transportation authority here to present more

or less the san francisco position.

A little bit of background, where san francisco is an act on this.

-- is an act on this.

-- is at on this.

and we have another person with us.

With that, I would turn it over to go through a presentation, as we will hear from another.

vice President

Brinkman:   thank you. >> I am with the transportation authority.

Briefly, this is like a five part presentation.

We will talk a little bit about the working group we have a

established in the city, and we

will move on to talk about a

business plan proposed by the authority last year.

And then our proposal that we

believe will deliver high-speed rail earlier and more

efficiently than what the high speed rail authority is currently planning.

Bensen next steps.

The high-speed rail plan

basically is to take high speed rail from los angeles to san

francisco with the first phase, and then eventually on to sacramento.

with the peninsula, the plan envisions having a minimum of

three stations, one in centers

say, it and one at the trans bay transit center.

There are other potential locations, but that has not been decided yet.

One of the things that we feel

very strongly about, it is and

have been a champion of high- speed rail in california.

The city is committed to high speed rail.

i know that they have taken quite a beating in the press,

but it is a very difficult job that they are working on.

And they are providing fun

during -- funding.

this is the only element of the construction in the country today.

The trans a transit center will

be open for service in 2017, and when phase two is completed,

before -- the extension of the

service, it will provide connections to 11 different transit providers.

This includes bards and so forth. You can see it in the list --

this includes bart.

The working group was formed a

little over one year ago, and it

was to deal with things.

A summary of some concerns that

we have included some options.

it offered some in packs --

impacts, suggesting they should

be to achieve great separation.

While reducing access to mission

bay and impacts

to geneva avenue. The intention of the group was

to bring together multiple

things for the city and so the city could speak with one voice.

Here you have a list of the members of the working group.

the transportation authority, and then it city agencies.

The economic and work force

development, mta, the port, and the planning department.

in the 1.5 years, almost two

years that a working group has

been established, they established because the agents it.

-- established the agencies.

a san francisco terminus.

We identified options for

maintenance facility for the high-speed rail.

and we looked at another approach.

In addition to that, we have

obtained agreement to include

city options in the

environmental documents.

these graphics are a little bit

engineer-y.

Been involved tunneling under

16th straight -- street.

It is just a matter of the length.

This envisions the possibility

of substituting a portion of the freeway with the surface

boulevard, and then having the high-speed rail.

the business plan.

The california authority at a business plan established in 2008 and 2009.

It requires a new plan this

year, and it is a requirement of

prop 1a before they have any .

Right now, we submitted our comments on January 13.

you have probably read the report from the legislative

analyst on the business plan,

and there are main concern s that there is some funding but not all.

In reality, there is no large

infrastructure project anywhere that they have committed to. that is just not the way it happens.

The anbar and a review of -- the

environmental review is true as

a general statement, but what

they have done is bring down the right mental document into

different areas so they can address whenever they are going to be building first ahead of time.

And, of course, there is the

issue of funding .

Right now, there is only $6 billion, and the cost is more than that.

the phase 1 completion has been delayed.

The cost has more than doubled.

construction done in the central valley.

We relayed our own concerns with the business plan.

The first one is that the first high-speed rain -- rail will not be until 2022.

This will be at fourth and king, not at trans bay. 2034.

the statement in the business plan basically said it would be as money became available.

So there were concerns that we had.

what you have is them saying it

is a financially unconstrained schedule. All of the money will be needed.

2030 four 4 cents as an, it May not even be that.

other concerns that the city family had is that there is no commitment, as we discussed.

The money is spent before the first passenger boards a train.

We believe that the long wait

for service will frustrate the

public and turn them against it. This May be problematic.

They do and grays and operation.

But it is different than their vision. Theirs is at very high cost.

We also believe it will not attract private funding.

last week, we had a technical meeting. With the high-speed rail representatives.

It was a very positive meeting.

They welcome to our comments. We will continue meeting with them, looking at ways to

incorporate our comments into

the business plan, so I want to make it clear that we are

working with a very positive relationship with them.

The fast start project.

this is a concept that I guess

had its initial determination in April of last year, when we started to think about what we

could do to accelerate what happens in our neck of the woods.

And so we thought about, ok,

what can we do could do we initiate some kind of high speed

service that is now early,, that can be done concurrently with whatever high speed rail is doing it?

And that would provide an early experience for high-speed rail,

and maybe the way it is structured will attract private

funding, and very importantly, because you have to live under a rock not to be aware of the

challenges in the peninsula that high-speed rail has been facing.

This concept provides the

opportunity to create an agreement and consensus, which is very important. We need that to get high-speed rail to san francisco.

The concept is pretty basic.

There are two projects that are currently in the books that are currently under way.

One involves caltrans.

and the downtown extension to translate.

These two projects have completed their ornamental work.

The downtown extension has been and are meant to be cleared.

And they have completed the work. It only needs adoption by the

board of the agreement the

document to complete the anbar and interplant.

We think there is to the report projects, there is a minimal infrastructure to accommodate

the high-speed rail and we will start from there.

there are caught -- a couple of power stations and some

transformers, train control.

The downtown extension, a 1.3 mile extension that will provide

access.

We

believe that the project provides a great opportunity for the bay area.

Because it provides for the

early delivery of high-speed rail to san francisco.

it will have a high ridership, and it could be a model.

It would be the best use of available funds.

This table shows the comparative

cost of the proposed systems.

the fast start project is

significantly less expensive than what the authority has postponed.

-- I have to make it

clear that

the 4.5 number reflects some cost reductions that we are looking into for the downtown extension.

We will be working with others

to look at ways in which we can

make the project more fun the ball.

in this day and age, it is not easy to come up with even $5 billion.

As you can see here in this chart, we have the projections.

it is a line.

It is supposed to be a bar, but it is so small that it appears as a line.

The san joaquin valley. When you compare that to the

peninsula,

19.5 with caltrain, there is no comparison with the other sections.

Caltrain conducted a capacity study, and they are still working on it.

the preliminary findings were that the blender system has merit.

And it as a potential of up to

10 trains per hour.

Without passing tracks, it

would accommodate two high-speed per hour with others.

it is more than adequate for initial high-speed rail service.

It is something that can be

achieved as easy as I think can be with this type of project.

we are in support.

There is a feasibility study on going to evaluate the methods,

such as the design bill.

and looking at structures.

I am happy to report on that study. The first draft has been

completed, and is now being

reviewed internally by the stakeholders working group.

as a matter of fact, we have a

meeting tomorrow to discuss this.

And so we are hoping to have it

ready for publication shortly.

and the first is supporting caltrans.

Their service plan and analysis.

This effort of the fast start --

will only work if we are working together, pushing in the same direction, and that is very important.

the study I was just talking about, complete it, and work

with others to develop this. That has already been done. The mayor had a meeting last

week, including studies from san

jose to discuss this concept and start building a consensus for

it, and, of course, for the

members .

It is a bit of heavy lifting, but it is necessary in order to get everybody on the same page,

and especially at the peninsula. There has been a lot of animosity. We will be as this will help

bring a consensus hot and allows

service,

-- bring a consensus and allow service.

It will provide service, early

service, to the right the ship corridor.

we believe it is more technical and financially feasible way of having a burly service.

With that, I will be answering any questions you May have.

-- having early service.

>> we actually have a second

representative from caltrain.

Director brinkman:   I got ahead of myself. Thank you.

>> I will just get started while they are fighting the presentation. Good afternoon.

I am director of the modernization program. Wanted to thank you for your time today.

I believe the handout that you

have is more than what I' m going to speak about. It has information.

Really the caltrain financial state of the state. And the first half and second-

half is about our modernization program.

I was asked to talk about the second part, so I will be starting from slide 13.

ok, so , for the presentation

today, and I will be talking

about the overall caltrain

modernization program, and I will remind on the coordination with high-speed rail, which

should complement what luis presented.

There are key components to our modernization program.

It is the implementation of an

advanced signal system, and

metrification of our california train system, which is currently diesel, and our goal is to

convert it to a better system, and I just want to point out that a consultant with high- speed rail is here today.

so our advanced signal system -- basically a distance for

communication-based overlay signal system positive train control. There' s two key aspects to this signal system.

the cboss component is essential to support the blended system. It helps us to increase capacity, which means it allows

us to run more trains in our corridor. The smart system allows us to operate closer headways between the trains.

The second component, which is

even more important, has to do

with the unfunded safety mandate

that is required by the fra, and

that is something that all transit operators will need to

put in place by 2015. There are discussions about extending the time line, but as

we know it today, and his 2015, and it is our goal to meet that time line. the second component of our

program has to do with electrification. This is a vision and goal that

caltrain has had for quite a while.

It is an adopted policy that has been in place for over a decade if not longer. What we are essentially trying

to do is we want to provide more

service to our growing customer

base, and we want to do it in an

environmentally friendly way.

That friendlier way is to use electric power instead of diesel.

It also serves another purpose

in that in this approach, we are able to help address our

financial state caltrain.

We have been struggling without a dedicated funding source to find the money on an annual

basis to operate the caltrain system in which the demand for our service has been growing.

By election frying our system, we are able to provide more

service, which would support

more riders, bringing more revenue, and by converting from diesel to electric, we would be

able to save money on the fuel required to run the system.

The project includes not only the electrification conversion,

but also to increase service.

Today, we operate five trains

per direction in the peak hour, and part of this electrification project is to increase that from 5 to 6.

Our original vision was to have

our system up and running by 2015. We have been struggling for years to find the funding for this project. The total project, which

includes electrification and the vehicle conversion, is approximately $1.2 billion.

We have some of it in place -- a couple of hundreds of millions -- but we are short the rest of

the money, and that had been

stalling the advancement of our program. This is a nice segue into the next project -- to the next slide.

As we were struggling with this

funding situation, the high- speed rail program was approved

by the voters, and high-speed rail also selected our corridor

as the right of way to access to san francisco market and its terminus.

The opportunity for partnerships

had to do with the fact that high-speed rail needed an

electrified system and caltrain

has been wanting an electrified system.

The thought was that together,

we could combine our local,

state, and federal resources to electrify the corridor, which would serve both purposes.

In advancing the system, we have

had lots of challenges.

i am here, I guess, trying to

represent the interests of the

three counties, all of the

peninsula cities in the middle, and san francisco.

We need to identify a project that works for all of our

stakeholders, idealistically, and maybe more realistically,

most. Initially, we had been

contemplating -- all of us -- had been contemplating a very large project for our corridor.

In our existing corridor, we essentially have a two-track system.

In certain areas, we have three or four tracks, but it is

primarily two tracks.

What was initially contemplated was the expansion of the system

from two four, and because we do not have the right of way to

accommodate an expansion, it

would necessitate impact to many

of the jurisdictions that have

grown up along our corridor. Significantly, many of the peninsula cities.

In contemplating what those

impacts might mean, having emotional reactions to what that might do with our downtown, so

we had three elected officials challenged us to find a better answer, and those elected

officials were a U.S.

Congressman, a senator, and an assemblyman, and they basically

said, "we want you to explore

the feasibility of a blended system." the splendid system is an

integrated caltrain and high- speed rail service, maximizing the use of our existing tracks,

connecting at the station in san

jose and extending all the way

to translate terminals --

transbay terminals.

Focus was an effort to emphasize community impacts, and in addition, it would have the added benefit of lowering the project cost. The system would be much smaller than the larger project that was initially complicated.

-- contemplated.

It helps with project delivery in advancing that.

The first thing that caltrain I

it -- did in response to their request was to conduct -- we call that lots of things, but I

think you landed on a capacity analysis. Basically, we had to answer this

question first, which is -- given our existing tracks, can we share those with high-speed rail? If we cannot, I' m not sure there was much more to do. We had to make sure that

operationally, the concept proposed was feasible.

We have been working with

ltk engineering consulting, who had been with us quite a while.

They know our system intimately, and they developed a computer simulation model for us, and they build our corridor. the system that they build is

very different from what we have

today and the same in many ways.

It is same in that they

essentially put into place a track that exists today.

What is very different is that they have modeled a completely electrified system.

it has our advanced signal system in place, which allows us

to run closer headways, and it

models the superior performance

attributes of electric trains versus our current diesel fleet.

This is very important to point out because if we were to model today'

s system, I believe we could not get the results that

we did, but because we modeled the electrified system as how we envision it, we were able to accomplish more.

Some of the additional track

assumptions -- we assumed three high-speed rail stations, and I am going to clarify something

because it has led to confusion

with what luis presented. The capacity study looked at only our existing tracks to

date, which means we looked at fourth and king. It does not imply we' re not

going to go to transbay terminal. A question at hand was -- with

our existing tracks, what could we accommodate?

Then we also tested the idea of

passing tracks.

This is for a segment of our

corridor -- a corridor is approximately 50 miles -- we

know that it was not supported by our local folks in the peninsula, but we did say if we

added tracks for a segment about eight to 10 miles an those

tracks were utilized by high- speed rail trains only to bypass

the caltrain trains, we have to continue to make our stops. high-speed rail needs to go faster.

Could that bias more capacity?

We also studied that option.

This is the slide that luis had.

The model shows us that we cannot operate such a service plan.

We are building on top of the

six caltrain trains.

We can support up to four trains. Up to two that the passing

tracks and up to four with the passing tracks.

This is what the model has spit out. The model is credible.

We are continuing to work with

high-speed rail to make and

model output and bridge that to the reality of our corridor and

make sure that this makes sense .

In terms of next steps, we have

conducted outreach on the draft

report of this capacity analysis to our stakeholders. We are hoping to wrap it up in

the middle of this month. Another important point to make

is the report is a proof of concept only.

We had to make assumptions about changes in schedules.

We contemplated different speeds.

we contemplated a lot of things, but nothing is set in stone.

It is not the answer to anything. What it tells us is that if we

were to do it this way, we could

share our tracks with high-speed rail. There are many more steps to come, which I will share in the

second, as we -- as to how we get into what the answer is.

we have checked off two new

planning studies that luis also mentioned. In doing the outreach with the

capacity study, we have gotten feedback from multiple stakeholders on other things that they think we should look at.

I think the one most relevant to

san francisco is cassette and now, can you build up your model

to the tra

nsbay terminal and run

the trains through and what implications that would have on travel time and what other implications that May have?"

we are doing that is the second part of the analysis and looking at other what if options. people are curious about what happens to freight traffic, curious about if we ran different types of schedules, so we have a handful of things that we have to look at. The other big question that we

have to address is a long our

corridor, we have 40 at-grade crossings. When we were contemplating a

larger project, it really was

assumed that it would be a fully

grid separated system. Now that we have a smaller

project, we will not have a four tracks everywhere. We will not be going at speeds beyond 110 miles per hour.

we have to ask the question of

how we need to upgrade the air- grade crossings because there is

no regulation that requires us

to separate if we are contemplating speeds of under 125 miles an hour.

This study is to not only get the regulatory issues but also

the local city consents as the change in date downtime will have impacts to their local traffic today and tomorrow.

This is the last slide I will go over.

This is a visual that tries to

depict an overall planning

process that caltrain is

facilitating with all of its stakeholders and figuring out what we would like to see in our corridor. What are described in terms of

the capacity analysis and the

two new planning efforts are the three boxes at the top.

Our goal is to get to the very

bottom box or close to their , where we are essentially trying

to get from identifying issues

and gathering data to inform our stakeholders to identify in

what project alternatives we want to environmentally clear in our document.

As you know, high-speed rail has

put environmental activities for our corridor from san francisco

to san jose on hold, and it is on hold until we figure out what

it is we want to build in the corridor. We believe that with the inputs we have gotten from various stakeholders that this will get us to that end. This is an approximate two-year time frame. We started this effort about six

months ago.

We have about a year-and-a-half

to complete the planning work

and to go through a dialogue

that is going to be focused on essentially a decision matrix.

Everyone will have to make compromises to support both systems.

This will essentially lay out

the upfront investment and

compromises that would be needed

to get the return on investment and for us to quantify what that return on investment is.

I will mention one more thing

before I conclude -- I think

that the hardest part of doing

this coupled with the interests

of san francisco laid out in the

fast project approach is all the stakeholders are sort of on a

different pace.

We cannot go too fast or we will

lose the majority of what could be potential support for the

project, but we also realize if we go to slow, there May be

opportunities missed.

So one of the things caltrain is

focused on is the challenge of going through this planning process in a very thoughtful

way, especially for our peninsula cities that are dealing with very hard issues

and how this could impact their communities and figuring out how

we can partner with high-speed

rail and the cities that are

ready to bring in early investment into our corridors

without compromising the planning process. The answer is not in place yet. It is just a challenge we are

dealing with, and I think what

has helped with the dialogue and we will be forced into this conversation, but it is probably

a good thing is high-speed rail has been reaching out to the bay

area and the L.A. Stakeholders, and they are committed to

something they put in the business plan which was to say, "we did not have to do everything incrementally.

You do not have to wait until 2030 or 2040" -- whatever the

year is. "we'

re willing to partner with you and make early investments."

we are willing to fund what that would be well in parallel we go through this process so that we can bring our stakeholders along. That is the end of the presentation. Thank you for your time.

Director brinkman:   do we have

questions for the board or shall we your public comment?

Director heinicke:   I note in our resolution, you have us supporting -- or the draft resolution before us has us

supporting caltrain electrification, but it does not go several steps forward and support the fast start plan and the elements of that.

Is there a reason for that?

I see the draft letter that you and other san francisco

officials would be signing to

support the whole fast start program, which, to me, sounds like something we should be

supporting as opposed to connecting two points in the

central valley to begin with, but I just wondered if there was

a reason -- perhaps what Ms. Jim just said -- that need to go slowly, or if the vote you are anticipating here today would be

one where we as a body would be

advocating the entire fast start program?

>> I think it is largely a matter of timing.

The decision by the city family

to get a resolution, the one

before you is an example that would be adopted by all the different relevance of the

bodies such as the transportation authority board, the planning commission -- was

developed before the fast start

proposal crystallized in our formal comments back to the high

speed rail authority.

They are not meant at all to be inconsistent.

I think the fast start is just May be thinking that a slightly

more advanced than the resolution that we initially had

drafted, but I think they are entirely consistent, and I think

we as a city are aiming to move

forward with the resolutions of

the different bodies to advance

the proposal and, as Ms. Lee

said, to do it in a way that is respectful of the communities that would be impacted.

>> your anticipation is that if we pass this resolution, you will be signing this letter, which talks in more detail about the program on behalf of this agency?

>> the letter actually already went out. That was issued, for some

reason, as an unsigned version

in your packet, but we issued the letter -- I think there was a deadline to issue that in

order to get our comments into the draft business plan.

We sent that letter from the department heads about two weeks ago.

Director

heinicke:   sorry for the length of this, but would it help the project if we were to

endorse the fast start program in its entirety, or would it be better to just leave this as calling for electrification of

the caltrain corridor?

>> I think it would be no harm

in amending it, and perhaps it would make the intent of the board clear.

I think that would be a good thing.

>>

if I May suggest, May be

endorsed the concept of the fast start project. We are still working with all the details that have to be

done, so maybe that would be my recommended freezing. Thank you.

director brinkman: thank you. Shall we hear any other

questions from directors, public comment, and then move on? Public comment please.

>> we have one person who

submitted a speaker card.

>> I wanted to be supportive in this case.

I think caltrain is very

important to the peninsula, to the region, to san francisco. I have been troubled for some time about the high-speed rail

proposal to build in the valley and disconnect that from the rest of the world, and to the

extent that this strategy proposal suggests local investment that has a near-term

benefits for the state, for the

region, for caltrain, that is all to the good.

I am aware of other efforts to talk about the sustainability of

caltrain and funding mechanisms for that, certainly making the downtown extension and electrification actually happened in our lifetimes would be good.

I would be remiss if I did not

mention norm rolfe and his long

advocacy for this project. Unfortunately, it did not happen during his lifetime. Perhaps we can all see to it that it does happen.

It is unfortunate that caltrain does not go downtown. There was long debate about whether that competed with the metro extension. I think the final answer was it did not. They serve different markets.

They are both important transportation projects, and I hope we do all things necessary and possible to support

caltrain and high-speed rail and make it useful, so I am supportive of this item. Thank you.

Director brinkman:   thank you. We need to have a motion for the amendment first?

Sari, one more public comment. >> good afternoon.

i actually hold Mr. Rolfe' s seat

on the cac, and I do so with humility. So much of this is predicated on a witch and a prayer, and I think without any funding identified, with the budget for high-speed rail but I think everyone in this room supports doubling over time, we are seeing a lot of wishful thinking

here, and it requires looking

at why high-spe budget double over a small

amount of time. Have the implants gone up that much? I think there are some legitimate concerns on how this

is being managed, and it seems

to be consulted-full employment ad. Talking about extensions downtown for the past 15 years with little progress, talking about electrification of

caltrain down at the peninsula with little progress, it is important to get to the point where we can put some of the building blocks in place of public confidence to make this happen instead of just going around in circles. Will this happen in our lifetimes? Not at the rate we' re going.

i did not seem like that is the goal here. When you are looking at the culture of corruption we have

seen in government of the past 30 years that has evolved into an art form in its own right, that is the main impediment to making this work.

It is not about transit or building structures. It is about the right people getting paid. Until the problem is solved, we will not see anything moving forward. Thank you.

>> thank you, Mr. Sullivan.

>> I would be happy to move an amendment to this resolution, if that is okay with the chair.

I know is boomer will appreciate this.

add a result clause that says

the "mta board of directors supports the current concept of

the fast start project to

expedite service increases for

san jose, the peninsula, and said francisco." >> thank you. We have a motion and second on the amendment. We will note that the motion is amended and now vote on the motion that as amended. All in favor? All opposed? Great, thank you.

>> directors, moving on, and 13, presentation and discussion

regarding the transportation sustainability program. >> as they are setting up, i will introduce this to say that

this program is something that is really important to the

future of how we plan for and

manage transportation relative to development that happens in this city.

This program is taking a look at

how we manage, regulate, and

mitigate development as it

relates to transportation to develop a process that is more

transparent, equitable, meaningful, and provides a much

better nexus between development and transportation between land use, planning, and transportation. It has been an extraordinary amount of work by collaboration

of city departments for the mta.

Our cfo, for the planning

department.

That group of folks along with others from all of those agencies have been working very hard to get to the point we are at today.

It really would be a significant

benefit to the agency and the transportation and development in san francisco, it is exciting to be at this point. As you will see a live presentation, we are still a long way off from realizing this -- as you will see in the presentation.

We wanted to bring this to you at this point so that you are fully up to speed on where we are and what the next steps are.

>> thank you, good afternoon.

Mr. Reiskin pretty much summarize it. I will just remind you that we approved a consultant to start

on both the next studies.

The tidf ans

d tsf hopefully will

be before the board of % I will turn this presentation

over

alicia jean-baptiste from planning, who has been doing these presentations and has become quite a master of it.

>> I also want to emphasize the collaborative nature of the project. We' ve been working closely with the mta staff to put this

together.

We have been working closely

with the office of economic and workforce development, it truly has been a collaborative effort.

So the program that we are presenting today is a distinctive approach to the development process and relates to aspects of the development review process that are currently separated, and that is

the environmental review process and the application of development impact fees.

By relating this two components

and establishing a citywide fee, we are establishing the ability of the city to find a

comprehensive set of high impact improvements to the transportation system as a

whole, which will ultimately to offset the impact of development over the course of time.

The program itself has three components.

The first is a change to how we conduct transportation impact

analysis methodology under the california environmental quality act, or ceqa.

Specifically, we are proposing to eliminate the use of automobile level of service as one of the metrics in that review, and I will go into each component in a little bit more detail in a moment.

The second component and the

establishment of a citywide transportation sustainability fee -- that would replace the transportation impact development at the and apply to residential uses.

the third component is the completion of an environmental

impact report steady in 20 years of projected development in the impact of that development on the transportation network as a whole over the course of time.

Just to give you a little bit of background on the history of this, the conversation was initiated at the board of

supervisors sitting as the transportation authority board in 2003. The board at that point requested that transportation authority staff to an analysis to reconsider the use of automobile level services and

metrics under ceqa, recognizing

that using that methodology often resulted in inconsistencies with achieving the city' s transit first

policies as well as our other multimodal priorities.

In 2007, the transportation authority staff developed a report initiative report

recommending the elimination of it and replacing it with an alternative measure that would

be coupled with a mitigation fee.

In 2009, the city but together an interagency committee

comprised of the agencies I just described, and we at that point initiated 8 nexus' study that looked at the relationship between development and developmental impact on the transportation system as a whole

over time -- we at that point initiated a nexus study.

the staff is responsible for

setting ceqa guidelines, and inserted language into the ceqa guidelines allowing for an alternative measure.

In 2010, we spent a great deal

of time modeling a variety of potential improvements to the transportation system, what their impact would be relative

to offsetting the impact we expect from growth over 20 years.

We booked able -- we were able through the comprehensive

modeling process to determine which projects would have the highest impact for the least cost and coupled the results with our nexis study, which should be publicly available in

the next couple of weeks to

establish a feed program and corresponding expenditure program. We are currently addressing an ordinance which would enable the changes I am describing now. Coming back to the purpose of

the program, it is worth emphasizing.

By making a change to the way we look at transportation impact under environmental review,

coupling that with in a citywide impact fee, we can have a full systematic program that allows us to comprehensively offset the impact of development on the transportation system in a way

that is consistent with our transit first policies.

Looking in a little more detail

about what these programs are -- looking in a little more detail about what these program components are, we do look at when we did an environmental review today and looking at transportation analysis, we consider transit the late entrants a crowding as metrics,

but the backbone of the way we

do that analysis is by looking

at automobile level of service, and automobile level of service, for those not familiar with it,

looks at what is the speed of automobile group put in a

particular -- throughput in a particular section.

What we find is that the

medications that arise out of an annulled the -- the mitigation that arise on an analysis tend to be in contradiction to the city'

s policy objective, so if what we are concerned about is how quickly automobiles are moving through a particular intersection, illogical mitigation might be to expand

roadway capacity, to add a line of traffic.

That is, first of all, often invisible and builds our urban dense environments such as san francisco.

It also can be in contradiction to our policies supporting the

bicycle network and pastry and -- pedestrian amenities.

We also have a fairness problem.

You can have 15 years of development activity

contributing to an intersection slowing down or how quickly an automobile is moving through a

particular intersection and congestion in that intersection, but it is always within the acceptable framework, and then

you have one project which

pushes it into the unacceptable

level, and that project is in

battle with the entire

litigation for all of the cumulative impact over time.

By adjusting the way we approach

this and having every project that comes through pay a proportion a small share of its impact on the system, we feel we are providing for a more equitable approach to achieving litigation'

s -- mitigations under ceqa. we are not suggesting automobile service would be disqualified completely as a tool. It is something we use internally quite often. We are just adjusting it does

not belong in ceqa.

In terms of how this impacts development projects, because

the city will be cityan eir

looking at 20 years of growth -- the city will be conducting an

eir, independent projects will no longer be required to do the same analysis.

That can result in significant time and cost savings for individual projects. We will, however, still be looking at projects for site design issues to ensure there' s no inconsistency between what a project is proposing -- or

conflicts between what a project is proposing and, for example, our transit system.

If a project had a curb cut directly letting out with a was

a bus stop, we would try to resolve that through site design. We do expect that all products would be required to pay the fee, as I mentioned, and by doing so, they would be essentially pre-mitigating and contributing to a larger, systematic approach to

offsetting impact on the transit system as a whole.

Transportation project will not

be required to undergo transportation impact analysis

using the new methodology under ceqa.

I large project -- large part,

transportation projects are not in conflict with the projects that will be focused on.

We do proceed there will be some limited cases where if you have a project that results in

significant sustained water level on a trend the street and just, by way of example, you could imagine installing a bike

lane on mission street between first and 30th.

That would be the category. We might consider needing additional review because we would be concerned about the potential conflicts with transit and transit operations. Other than that, we would not expect the transportation

projects to need to undergo this analysis at all going forward.

turning to the transportation sustainability fee, it would

replace the tidf and would be city-wide on net new growth.

I would offset the cumulative effect of 20 years of development on the transportation system as a whole, and we would be unable to

charge a reasonable share to all projects.

Transit bike and a pet project would not be subject to the fee, and we have a couple of areas in the city where there have been area plants that were adopted that included a community

infrastructure impact fee, part

of which was designed to offset

the impact -- the impacts to the transportation system of development in those areas.

In this case is, with its plan areas were adopted and fees were adopted, and was legislated that were the city to come forward with a fee that addressed any of the potential

public services capture under it, that it would then route

over to the city wide fee.

To the extent that, for example

in eastern neighborhoods, if we' re charging $2 a square foot on residential for transportation specific improvements, it would be captured as a citywide program. If the amount being charged in the area plan is actually

greater than was being proposed,

the differential would remain toward specific improvements.

i should have mentioned at the outset, because we will be

conducting an eir on this program, we are 18 months away

from it be impossible to implement.

In the interim, the tidf serves as the mechanism for offsetting impact on the transportation system, and we felt it was important to bring forward an

update in concert with introduction so that we could

adequately be capturing -- or

addressing this impacts in the interim.

As you, and sure, are aware, we are required to update our

studies. Our study was completed last

spring for the tidf, and we need to go through the border supervisors process in order to refresh that nexus. We will be proposing some administrative changes to how

the fee is collected to bring it

more into line with how we do impact fee collection for the

other categories city-wide. We assume there will be a modest increase in rates on non- residential, it would not at

this time extend to residential. At what happened as part of the

overall tsp program.

The rates that would be proposed would be consistent with what is

being proposed under the tsf.

The difference would be that it

would be proposed to extend to nonprofit institutional uses. We have been talking about

including eight grandfathering provision sets that those non- profit and institutional uses which applied for planning department entitlement prior to introduction of the update

ordinance would be grandfathered and not be subject to the fee.

we recognize that many nonprofit and institutional users have significant lead times in developing their capital campaigns, and we wanted to ensure that we were not jeopardize in anybody' s ability to move forward with a significant project by bringing this forward now.

In terms of the actual expenditure plan, we expect the

tsf will generate $620 million

and generate another $820

million in local, state, and federal funding.

Because the program itself both

serves as a way of mitigating impacts under environmental laws as well as a way of addressing development impacts under the

state mitigation fee at is a

very highly constrained set of expenditures that has to meet a higher level of requirements or criteria in terms of how we spend the money.

I will give you more detail on what is currently being

considered in terms of expenditures. this slide just offers where the funding will go in terms of the fee revenue.

Here is more detail.

On the transit headway improvements and expansions, this is one of the most direct way is at getting at transit delay and transit crowding as the environmental metrics we are looking at. It is the provision of additional service on a number of lines.

It is very tied in to the transit effectiveness projects and what is coming out of that in terms of the draft implementation strategy. It does provide for purchasing new vehicles.

And providing for preventive maintenance to ensure transit reliability.

It also funds transit facility expansion to accommodate additional rolling stock.

the second category of trends and reliability improvements are

more traditional capital programs, dedicated rights of

way as well as some improvements

to market street redesign, which is under way, but the thinking around that is under way now.

I should mention as well that this is a set of representative projects. This is a 20-year plan.

We understand the priorities and needs will shift over time. What we have done is establish a set of criteria that the project would have to meet in order to be eligible for this expenditures, and these are projects which modeled well May

serve as a sample set of projects we could work from going forward. the program does also allocate

funding to regional transit improvements. That is in recognition of the critical role that our regional

partners play in moving people within san francisco and to and

from san francisco, currently included in that category are

bart car renovation and

caltrain electrification.

A final category is demand for

projects and programs which were to shift mode share and

alleviate congestion and improve

transit reliability, transit travel times by shifting mode

share.

They also include parking demand and pricing programs. finally, there is a very small amount of funding which goes to recovering the city cost in

developing the eir for this program.

This slide provides the proposed rates as they stand today. Rates are established based on nexis studies.

None of them is set at 100%,

largely for the legal defense ability purposes, but also

because as part of the nexus

study, we also show connection to financial feasibility analysis. We were concerned that any at the proposed, especially

residential, would be a new fee,

not lead to residual land values. By reviewing financial feasibility as well as the nexus, we were able to set the fees at rates that we believe will be stayed -- sustain residual land value,

understanding that every project has its own characteristics and

this will not be 100% true for 100% of projects.

As we go forward, we will be --

because we will be coming back to this item after the environmental review is complete, we will refresh the financial feasibility to ensure we have caught up with economic conditions and have rates that

are still possible for people to carry.

As we have worked through this, and we have done a significant

amount of stakeholder outreach, but to interested parties as well as to supervisors and

other policymakers -- both to interested parties as well as supervisors and policy-makers,

the expenditure itself

allocates $40 million from the $1.4 billion that could be used for policy discounts, which allows the city to achieve

either policy goals or to encourage land use

characteristics that the city

feels are desirable by allowing for a fee waiver or reduction in terms of this program.

What is the considered to date in our discussions has been a potential discount for projects which billed less than the allowable maximum parking.

We have sums of districts that provide parking maximums.

Potential fee waivers for

businesses that the use vacant space up to 5000 square feet.

And a potential waiver of 100% for affordable housing. We have heard some other ideas as we have been speaking with supervisors and other policymakers. These have been the three that there' s been the most consensus around, but we' re still in the process of understanding which

of the policy -- what the policy programs look like and how they would be applied.

I talked already about financial feasibility.

Going into of limitation, the

program itself would mirror the city' s normal capital planning process.

We are proposing we have a

committee comprised of the mta,

transportation authority, and the planning department. This would allow us to make clear that we are collaborating on transportation planning between the two agencies and from the planning department perspective, that we are meeting

our regulatory requirements in terms of mitigating environmental impacts. Products would then be included in department of capital budgets and go through the normal review and approval process, both at

this board and the board of supervisors. We will every five years need to

refresh the nexus studies.

We will need to update the environmental review to ensure that our development assumptions are consistent with what we have actually seen happening and to make sure the expenditure

program and -- the extended program is performing in the way we anticipated.

As part of taking the entire expenditure program to the transportation authority board for their consideration in line with their five-year proposition

k programming process so that we

can see a comprehensive picture of transportation planning and transportation expenditures

over time, and because this program is so intertwined with

proposition k, we felt like it was important to have that collaborative process built in.

We are expecting somewhat of a

transition period because we will be introducing the ordinance in the near future.

In the meantime, we will have

projects coming forward for environmental review, so planning department staff will work closely with project sponsors to insure that they are

performing the review using the appropriate methodology.

Then, just in terms of the

timeline, we, as I mentioned, have been conducting stickler

outreach -- stakeholder

outreach.

We expect to have an ordinance introduced if not this month

than in March -- then in March. That would be the kick off point for the environmental review process, which we are fast

tracking for an 18-month time frame. Once that is completed, we will identify whether as a result of our analysis any changes are required to the program. If there are changes, we would

modify the ordinance accordingly and take that through the normal hearing process.

And I' m available for any questions.

Director brinkman:   thank you. While we have read the podium, this is an information item for us, not an action item, so can we take questions from the board first and then hear public comment? Would that be all right with everybody?

Director, this is one of those

things that is hard for people who are even policy people to

really grasp.

Could you, as a way of highlighting how important this is for us as an agency and as a

city, give us an example of what

kind of time or cost savings we could expect from a recent project going on, whether it be

a bicycle pedestrian project or

even a larger brt project or something? I want everyone to understand how important and the impact this could have. >> I could try.

one of the main drivers of the cost --

and you cannot answer this question until you send your answer out for environmental review.

-- >> you cannot answer this question until you send your answer out for environmental review.

>> one of the drivers of environmental review is transportation analysis.

That is for any transportation development project. There are other things. There are historic issues that can sometimes drive, but transportation is probably the

most significant driver, and as we have seen, somewhat ironically, that has created

cost and schedule extensions for

our own projects, even those that on the surface would

appear to be very clearly and parting positive environmental

impact to the city. The bike planned

-- plan

is perhaps the poster child for that.

We are starting an environmental impact report process for a

project that is really about speeding up transit, a very clearly environmentally

beneficial initiative, but

because we currently are under a

level of service methodology for

evaluating environmental impact,

an initiative like the tep is

subject to a full and requiring of a full environmental impact report. Those kind of things would go up

away under this major land development project that has

transportation issues as a

primary environmental impact .

We certainly in this agency would see clear and direct

benefit in time and cost and

implementing big transportation projects.

Director brinkman:   ok, thank you. that is good. Questions from the directors?

Director heinicke:   can we put you back on the spot?

Not that I have been doing this as long as some have, but there' s always complains about the ceqa process. There' s always calls to reform it at the state level.

Those go not very far, so i

commend you on what seems to be a sort of creative way to restructure here at the more

local level to meet our goals and still satisfy the state act.

The first question I had, and it May be from the timing that

director reiskin just give us,

but what implementation of the

plan possibly affect the tep and expedite it? Not the plan in our view, but maybe some of the revenue would

be available?

>> yes,

the revenues were very much constrained in how we could use revenues to meet the mitigation fee at an environmental requirements.

Those constraints dovetail very

well with the tep.

It will let benefit in terms of

its environmental review which is basically the whole environment system, as everything will be for another

year so, but the revenues

generated from this May well be

able to implement tep projects.

Director heinicke:   getting to a specific issue that is of interest to me, once this is all past and assuming it goes according to plan, the deal would be that transportation enhancements, things that would promote our transit first policy, which generally fall

under the plan and would not require specified review and the

associated delay.

You said there might be a line

which would crossover, and you gave the example of a bicycle

lane running 30 blocks somewhere. I realize that line is a little bit amorphous and it might be

unwise to test it too much now, but we talked earlier about the fact that we' re looking at a

steady for tax expansion, and I wonder if we were to undergo a

taxi expansion, with that fall under the old system, or could that, for environmental review

purposes, be expedited under this plan will not talking about? >> the current timeline we' re looking at for taxi expansion

would be ahead of the tsp, so we

would be under the old system, but we have begun discussions with the planning department to do some preliminary review of

what our environmental clearance might look like, and we think we

have a path that will not be extraordinarily long or expensive.

Director heinicke:   wonderful. Ok.

Is there a point at which it is

actually going to save us time

to wait on projects for the new system rather than proceeding under the old system?

>> I imagine we will come to a point in time where that is quite likely.

Director heinicke:   ok, and it might be useful to keep that time points in mind. >> I had not thought of that,

but it might be a bit of a gamble because there is an

approval process that it will have to go through.

once the eir is certified, the legislation will have to go through the board of supervisors, but if we were starting a 21-month and run

until 12 months after it this came into place, we might want to wait.

Director heinicke:   ok, that is very interesting. My final question is more of a

legal one, which is this is very creative and ensure steps have

been taken to make sure what

will be doing it this passes is sufficient under ceqa, but I know there' s a fair number of

folks in our legal community

who consider themselves ceqa proponents and might be accused of using ceqa to stop

developments they do not like for other reasons. how confident are we that this new plan would be able to

withstand project-specific

attacks from proponents saying that they have not really

satisfied ceqa and this is a gimmick to get around it?

>> we have gone through every effort within our nexis study to insure that what we are

proposing is very legally justifiable.

We feel like the nexis can really stand on its own. We will now be going through a

similar process with the environmental review, and the environmental review is not so much on the fee as much as it is on the change in methodology. We will go through a very complicated process to an extent with the impact would be with or

without the program and the expenditure plan so that we have

a big picture and the most indefensible product at the end of the day that we possibly can

have -- the most defensible product at the end of the day that we possibly can.

we have no guarantee that people will file against the program, but we are investing everything we can up front to make sure

that what we are putting up is truly legally defensible and

sound director heinicke:   not

asking for a guarantee that people will not filed, but if we

are saving a delay on the front and only to be delayed by losses

on the back end, it makes it difficult. I appreciate the vesture focusing on the real world impacts of this, but I wish you the best of luck.

This is a great reform and impressive in that someone is finally doing something about this rather than just throwing

up their hands and saying, "ceqa screws up everything."

>> I wanted to applaud staff for your creativity and all your camaraderie and everything you have done to come up with stuff like this.

It is policies like this that

really make me so proud and make me feel really good about being

in this position, to be able to

help you folks will want. This is the exact kind of creative approach we need to be

able to pursue the bolstering of our transit system, so I applaud

you for efforts so far. I'

d love to see more of this,

and I heard the word fast-track, and it got my attention.

i understand you are probably going as fast as possible on

this, but I wonder if it is not possible to go even faster, if

we were to address more

resources toward this particular

project in the interest of time and striking when the iron is

hot, and talking about a cool market right now.

Maybe it is striking when the

iron is cool. I' m wondering if there' s anything we can do to expedite

this because every month we do not have a policy like this in

place, we stand to lose -- who knows? Millions of dollars.

>> thank you, director, for your words of support.

The 18 months that I referenced is in comparison to an average

of 24 months, so we already feel like we had taken six months off of it by being as creative as we

can in terms of how we apply our resources. When it comes to environmental review, it is often not a question of having more people involved but simply grappling with the complexity of the issues at hand.

We have brought to bear as as we thought

necessary, and 18 months is our

best time frame we can offer. >> thank you. One more question I had about the waiver of the affordable

housing.

Is the affordable housing

requirement one-to-one still?

In this city for parking? No? >> I'm sorry, I don't know. >> ok. So I guess --

>> I don't think so, though.

my question is if we're waiving that fee, I'm wondering if there's not a more creative

approach we can take in terms of creating management alternatives for affordable housing, so that we don't make -- I understand that the

waiver, the intent to get away from charging fees for affordable housing is the hope or the intent to keep affordable housing from

becoming more expensive than it already is to develop in this city. But I think that we might even

be able to find more creative

solutions to even reduce the

cost even more through creative transportation demand

management alternatives and

thereby riri duesing the overallrequirement by reducing the overall amount of parking that's required or working to find some sort of alternative instead of just saying you're

affordable housing, you've got one-to-one at least, maybe more ratio of parking, whatever it might be. I'm hoping that you're taking some kind of creative approach to that as well. Thank you. >> director lee?

>> I just want to thank you for a great presentation. Real informative. Love seeing that creativity. Thank you very much.

>> director oka, anything?

>> yes. The amount of thought that went

into the development of this,

i'm looking forward to having

it as quickly implemented as possible. I don't know how fast we can go, but the faster the better for me.

>> and I just have two questions. I want to acknowledge the fact that our C.A.C. Did recommend

that there would be no 100% discounts. Based on what I know so far,

I'm tending to agree with that, because I don't agree with the graduated fee discount for projects that build less than the maximum allowed parking.

If they're in an area allowing

one-to-one and they choose to build.5, that's ignoring the fact -- correct me if I'm totally misunderstanding this

-- if they're still building .5, they're still having an impact on everything in that area that's having an area on the transit service.

And the 100% fee waivers for

affordable housing, again, I'd like to know more about that before we kind of move forward with the 100% fee.

i would prefer that it be tied to the number of parking spots that are going in as a way to

make it a bit more equitable.

On the funding slide, the funds that we collect -- and I see

it's broken down on where they

will be spent -- does it change the local mitigation impacts? For example, when a project

goes in, such as the new whole foods proposed on market, they're going to make a better pedestrians environment, is

that still part of this somehow, maybe in the -- where

is it, in the bike and

pedestrians programs under d? I'm looking at slide -- I think

I'm on 18, down on slide 18. I'm just concerned that if all

of this -- if this expenditure

plan is like this, where is the help for the residents in that neighborhood impacted by that

and maybe that's a question

that can't be answered off the bat, but maybe it can.

>> there's a variety of ways in which that's still addressed.

One is through the site design requirement. No matter what happens, the project is still going to have to be designed for its site

impact design, so there will be

a back-and-forth conversation about the specific impact to the neighbors, for example.

We also have the planning department consist lie applies conditions of approval, and those often include things like planting street trees or providing other pedestrians amenities, and that's part of

the normal process. Actually lives outside of the environmental review process. That's stell a mechanism that's available. Some of it is addressed through that. There is a shift, though -- I think you've accurately captured it conceptually.

There is a shift away from localized specific mitigation

programs to the city-wide program, because d what we've

been able to see is by providing this city-wide set of example peend tours, we have a

much greater impact on the actual -- expenditures, we have

a much greater impact on the actual system. Thank you. No other questions? Thank you very much, that was a great presentation and we all look forward to that one. That's very important to us. And I think -- oh, public

comment, sorry.

>> public comment.

>> good afternoon again, andy thornley with the san francisco bicycle coalition.

Very pleased to see this come

to you. The coalition is very supportive of this. As you heard, this is the latest in a long-running

conversation about reconciling our practice of ceqa with our city's wonderful adopted policies, and let's stop confounding those policies with a crazy practice of ceqa. We decided as a city quite a long time ago that we didn't

want to use L.O.S. And ceqa.

You saw that transportation

authority in 2003 initiate an S.A.R.

a couple of years ago later the board of supervisors unanimously resolved to ask the planning commission to stop

using L.O.S. In its practice of ceqa. So that has been decided. It's taken a long time to figure out how to get out from under ceqa and it looks like

this is at last going to be the way.

When next fall we, if all goes well, we bring an ordinance to the board of supervisors and

adopt it, it will have been 10 years. So it's kinds of nice that this item follows the california high speed rail item. Makes it seem like this is moving very quickly.

And all things considered, it May be.

As someone who professionally promotes the bicycle for everyday transportation for everybody, obviously this is a good thing. In my opinion it's good for pedestrians safety.

It's going to make transit projects cheaper and come to the ground sooner.

But you saw it's also going to generate some revenue. Not a tremendous amount, all things considered, but not an insignificant amount and it's

going to bring it irrationally to improving the transportation

system and really begin to, in a meaningful way, tie transportation and land use together. We have not done that well as a city.

We're starting to do that better. Here is a case of transportation and land use moving together in harmony.

So be patient, but be diligent.

This will get done. And the S.F. Bicycle coalition is very pleased and proud to be part of it, thank you. >> thank you.

>> sue vaughan, and then david.

>> oh, good afternoon again.

So I am a member of the mtmac, and when we had our meeting there was another motion that we had that did not pass an four of us voted for it. six voted against it.

The mpcac urges the board of directors and the board of supervisors to ensure that

imp honored by

having the T.S.P., this

presentation, provide for

mitigating projects -- mitigated transit projections where they occur and not rely

on a fee alone to mitigate aggregate delay impacts. I think I got that right.

So what that means is that we're saying, the four of us -- this is what it means for me,

is that I don't think the E.I.R., the transit analysis of the E.I.R. Should be eliminated. I do not think that's a good tradeoff. i think that needs to be kept in.

Ceqa is a good law and I don't want to see this gutted.

I don't want to see members of

the public lose an opportunity

to weigh in on the transit

impact of a project to their particular neighborhood, and

that's what this project is doing.

This is a good idea if you include the -- if you bring

back the transit impact analysis and require developers to do that. And if you don't, you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Ceqa is a good law, and it

needs to be respected.

thank you. >> david, an he's the last person who turned in a speaker card. >> I suspect we'll hear from mark solomon after me. David again.

The good news is that we have alicia beck with us. The last time she was here was

as acting C.F.O. After being budget director for some period of time and an analyst before that. So she continues to work over at the planning department. That's the good news. The bad news is I have huge

concerns about this proposed program and fee. I think the important thing

that I want to start with is

about fee-based mitigation.

my understanding is that the

overall purpose of ceqa is to

both analyze environmental impacts of a project and mitigate them, and to the

extent that they cannot be or

are not mitigated to adopt a statement of overriding consideration, as you did in

the last item with respect to the people plan.

But in this case, I think it's

important that fee-based

mitigation tie very closely to

the project and the impact

created and the fee and the

mitigation program to address those impacts.

The farther you get from a specific project and its impacts created, the more you

get to an area program. And this really is kind of

building on the M.O. And eastern neighborhoods concept that is working and with other

things that the T.A. Is up to, to more of a city-wide program.

You lose that connection such that you're creating impacts that you're not necessarily mitigating.

And some examples of those

impacts are the additional

delay and crowding to transit,

but also the additional riders

with the need for vehicle operators' facilities to provide the same level of service.

so I'm very interested in the details of this and how it plays out. I suspect it would not be either as good as staff is suggesting, or necessarily as bad as perhaps I'm fearing. >> thank you.

Edward mason. >> I'm glad to see that there

is some type of fee mitigation. I'll give you specific examples. In our neighborhood, within a block and a half of 24th and church street, within about the last five years.

There have been a net increase

of about 15 units that have

been shoehorned into the neighborhood. Some of these either through

depligs and suddenly a single-family residence is now

five units, or there's an

illegal garage that was for storage on a commercial basis that was demolished and therapy a residence was established in that, on the same unit, even though it required a variance, because it didn't have sufficient room to meet the planning code requirement. And the zoning administrator,

in two cases, came back to me basically saying even though these were on variances for

them to be constructed -- they were good for increasing the housing stock and people can take muni. And, of course, then the logical question is, well, if it's -- what's the cumulative effect in the neighborhood on taking muni?

So we had the old prop m that contributed muni, and now this is a way of doing it. But, again, I think there needs

to be a little bit of ceqa involvement in this to make sure that we don't go overboard on all the larger project. But I'm just giving you an

example of a small project within a block and a half of 15

additional housing units, which

multiplied by 2.1 or whatever, are additional people on muni

that require services. And they're not paying the

freight and the price of admission to sustain themselves in the neighborhood and

impacting us all, so we wind up subsidizing it, thank you.

>> thank you, Mr. Says son. -- mason. >> good afternoon, directors, mark solomon yet again. Fee is a good idea. Getting rid of L.O.S. Is a good idea. But tying the fee to mitigation has some problems. Here's why. We did the bike plan. The bike plan said certain segments delayed transit. so the bike plan was a good idea. P the bike plan mitigating transit was not a good idea. We managed to use the ceqa

process to make that work. We were wrong 10 years ago when

we started this out saying that L.O.S. And the bike plan had no impact. It was wrong. We had to learn from that. The idea of point source impacts has got to be mitigated or else you will end up in

court and you will lose, because we have to be sure you do not delay transit. This agency has to be the

guardian of speedy transit and the guardian against delays.

The other issue is H.E.G., which is the auto trip generation component, which ties to the parking charge.

per capita impacts on muni are crunched together. They have to be separated out.

If you have a building that

happens to have 300 resident,

those residents are going to be an impact on transit. That's got to be accounted for in some way. Does this take into account air quality? The original point of L.O.S. Was not as a social impact, but

it was that the land yachts burning leded fuel when this

was done under reagan actually generated air quality approximate. If you take a 20-year project with all of this new development, I'll bet you'll

find air quality impact there as well, greenhouse gas gases

and particulate. Does this new measure address this? I do not think. the ceqa part needs work. The planning department is regulatory, captured by developers, ammed they could

change the way they do E.I.R.'s to do it in-house, but it's all a consulting operation. That's why it takes 24 months. They could have a project together like the champ model and figure out what the transit

delay was, but we need to know

on complex systems what minor changes would have major impacts on, because no one can know that going into it, and a fee cannot predict it, thank you. >> thank up. No more public comment? Thank you very much. That was a very good presentation. We look forward to hearing more about this. I think this is going to be a really positive change. I believe our closed session

has been removed. >> Madam Chairman, closed session has been cancelled. So you've completed the business before you today. >> thanks, we are adjourned. Thank you.

>> do you have a sister in the audience?

>> no, my parents.

[Meeting adjourned at 7:15 P.M.