tv [untitled] March 28, 2013 4:30pm-5:00pm PDT
sometimes the parents are part of the problem. as a parents with children in a school i have been impacted on a private and public problem. i've worked somewhat with balboa but on the traffic division. i was assigned to a juvenile department for a while. >> i've been concerned that they have been involved themselves in managing their own traffic safety program vs. the city helping out and it seems to be difficult for the parents to
be able to do on a voluntary basis and were trying to get additional traffic guards. >> i attend all the meeting and the traffic issue was addressed. what we're trying to do is get a parent group together but again captain and i have been trying to get more enforcement. it's a large district so what we're going to try to do is get some traffic officers to help us with the enforcement. but we normally get requests from the scald and they will try to do random traffic enforcement
but i think we could do a larger scale. i was a pilot da the - the areas of a lot of the schools in our districts are it's even more difficult some of the districts that are for the larger projects and some of the other schools the collaboration will work well, and hopefully, will take away from the schools so we can put that money to work on larger projects >> are there any other speakers? >> my name is bert.
i left my copy of something i was the national bike summit easily this month. it uses a number of school districts as examples. i want to cover the other end that was alluded to. it's not so much the traffic it's dealing with traffic itself. i don't know if you're away aware but the book noted a study said that the morning traffic is related to driving students to school a huge amount. i note it the transportation plan for the excuse me. assigned to the schools is
handled by superintendent but it doesn't seem to cross over like secan does that looked at associate projects this seems to be a separate plan that relates only to students. with that i want to ask - point out that we really need to look at the traffic problem as a whole and the effect from sdurnl safety routes to school and was noted that a lot of the traffic nationally is from parents picking up and dropping off their kids. so with that purchase. i was a crossing guard >> can you finish your
statement. >> when i was a young child i was a crossing guard it was the most thrilling thing i ever had did and i think we should start a enlist students with the parents because their wonderful to see a young person holding the flag out it gets them involved in the process. i am open to questions. does anyone have any questions? >> it's a general question probably for city staff and that is well, i'll wait until after public comment. are there any other members that
wish to speak in. seeing none it's closed >> about a month ago the department was doing an outreach at my school it was about how to have alternatives to driving andlogically e anything's it was from a totally environmental prospective and just having this i was wondering if there's collaboration between our department and the department of the environment because that's a great way to merger resources. if that was part of the presentation i apologize it that's the case. i am familiar with that campaign and that's the representative from the st. environment that's
a format in which we all work i together and are able to target schools in multiple programs and also to do information sharing. but there are killer programs that will be studying those programs. >> i was thinking of it because that program is around trying to reduce car traffic and there are issues of cars piling up around our schools. people don't follow the rules exactly their drop off sites that are convenient but not the safety around the schools. i was curious. thank you
>> seeing no further comments or questions. i'm going to ask this committee if we can continue to the call of the chair. i think several of us are very interested and i'm looking forward to that so if we can have a motion to continue this motion to the chair. i believe we'll do that without opposition. thank you for s fta. madam call item 2 >> to hear the controls office and unified school district on the expenditure plan and reauthorization. >> when we had scheduled this item we had overlooked this is spring break week so many of the
members from the districts are not here for this presentation so we have a request to continue this to the next agenda. are there any comments or questions? >> can we have a motion to continue this to those chair. madam clerk are there any other items? >> no further items. >> the meeting is the time?
andals would like to recognize tang and i believe that commissioner chiu will be joining us as well. clerk of the board today is erica chang and also like to thank jessy larson and charles from sfgtv for broadcasting this meeting. >> any announcements? >> no announcements. all right. accident, thank you for joining us. would you please call the roll? >> you have done roll call and so i will call item number two, approve the minutes. >> any issues with the minutes? are there any members of the public that would like to speak? >> no, okay? seeing that there is no people that are wishing to speak, public comment will be closed. colleagues this xanax item is there a motion to provide? . >> a motion from commissioner
chiu. >> without objection, the motion passes. madam clerk, would you call item number three. >> the legislative updates and the action item. >> thank you very much. ethe staff, hello, hello. >> please, present. >> good morning, commissioners, anaa lofport, i would like to welcome commissioner tang to the committee and to the board and we look forward to working with you. this item begins on page 9 of your packet and also give brief remarks on the federal program before welcoming mark watts, the advocate from sacramento to speak. as we all know, the sequestration cuts have gone into effect at this point. we are looking to the march 27th into the end of the current sixth month continuing resolution and looking to what
will happen with another six months to fund it to the end of the federal fiscal year. the house has passed a 6 month bill, which locks in the funding levels for the sequestration cuts for the end of this physical year. the senate, we expect them to be releasing their six-month continuing resolution within the next couple of days. we have yet to see how much discretion this will give to the various different agencies on how the cuts are implemented across the various programs. the house has given flexibility to the department of defense only, we expect the senate to be more proud in its discretion. the senate has also released the federal fiscal year, 14, budget proposal and we are likely to see these levels of funding with the sequestration
cuts continuing through the next year, so we have to pay close attention to the impacts on transportation, again the highway trust funds accounts are protected from these cuts, but there is general fund support of highway trust funds activities including the new starts program, we are monitoring to see any potential impacts to central subway, for example. and whether the federal government, will be looking to get the older, new starts projects off the books and putting funding on those projects first, or whether they will be doing across the board, cuts to all of the new starts programs. so we are looking forward to hearing what has come out of washington, from the legislative conference this week. and also, continuing to monitor the activities with mta and other partners. at this point, i will welcome mark watts to speak to the legislative matrix. >> thank you. >> and good morning, commissioners. i thought that i would cover quickly some of the additions
to the matrix sense the last time that i appeared here the deadline has passed for the introduction of measures and they were close to 2,000 total bills introduced in both houses, so we spent the last couple of weeks, weeding through the bills and coming up with several that we want to bring to your attention and ask for your approval of physicians that were recommending oppose or support for. so the matrix is substantive and most of the bills are the ones that we would choose at this bill that we watch. a lot of them have not matured into the final bill that they will be heard or the final form that will be heard in, but several bills are noteworthy. the first two that i want to notice are two bills that we already took positions on. i want to call your attention to the fact that they have been schedule and identical bills and one in each house, ab 8 and sb eleven in the senate and the karl moyer program which is important for the high speed rail here for the blended service, in the bay areas, so
we are working actively to make sure that those bills keep moving forward. so those two are moving forward. the other bills i will call your attention to are the ones that we are recommending brand new positions on like your action on that at the conclusion. ab266, is a measure, it is on page 3 of your matrix. and we are recommending oppose, it would extend the hov lane access to 2025, that is currently schedule to conclude they end of 2014. i can that the view of the reservation is that is a long time to provide an incentive program for a captive number of vehicles and that could lead to congestion on hov facility and that is the reason that, we
recommend support and it is going to facilitate the movement of the high speed rail itself and allow it to go on a basis that will be caught up about the statute. and another recommendation is another support is ab 4, 93, that say measure on page 5 of the matrix that deals with continuing operatebility of the toll collection device and recommending support because that has long been a goal and a fact in california and this continues that. the next measure is one that deals with the public private partnership and ab749 and that so page 7 of the matrix and we are recommended oppose. what this does in the p3 law that the transportation authority in conjunction with cal transfollowed for the drive
project, there is in essence two state agencies that take a look at a public, private partnership application and one is the public investment, or the private investment, i forget, what it stands for, but it is a function of the transportation secretary's office. and it was a committee that was supposed to review, proposals and make comments. secondarily, the state transportation commission is empowered to authorize a public private partnership in lease and contract. this bill, highens the ability to actually act as an initial hurtle and they have a binding, and the binding ability to reject the public, private partnership proposal before it goes to the transportation commission, we think that is not what the original framers of the particular p3 law intended and it does add an extra burden to the process and we are recommending oppose to
that. ab 863 is another one that we are recommending oppose, it seems like it was a measure that we would support but page 7 details that this bill would allow for the delegation of nepa, the national, environmental act to caltransto administer for projects but that sounds like a stream lining but we had it approved for state highway programs and local highway programs and we found that the implementation of that was very unworkable, particularly for local projects. the state seemed to spend more energy on accelerating their projects at the expense of local projects and so we recommended and oppose at this point in time, until we can see some improvement in what they plan to put in the legislation.
and lastly, on the assembly side, ab842 is a measure that we have seen before, and it is on page 7 of the matrix and it would eliminate all further bond funding for the high speed rail program which will have the effect of initially shutting down the initial construction segment as well as the funding for blended service and connectivity projects that we are dependent upon in the bay area and in san francisco. so we recommended opposed to that measure. the previous measures all failed and we think that this one is destined for the same failure but we will have to see and work on it. >> two measures on the senate side that we are recommended support, first is sb 219. and it deals with extending the double fine zones on state routes, 1 and 101 in san francisco, indefinitely. and there has been a long history of first initiating the double fine zones and then
continuing them in law and this measure would permanently extend them. we recommend the support of page 12 on the matrix and we anticipate having some difficulty with the senate transportation committee, but we will be working with the author's office on this. and finally, sb 557, which is found on page 15 of the matrix, we are recommending support. this would cotify the high speed rails for north and south for the mlu and we think that it beneficial and recommend your support for those measures. those would be the action items in the matrix and the rest are previously approved positions or positions where we justified identified the bill and want to see if there are changes before we come back to the committee with a firm recommendation. i have two other observations outside of legislation that i thought that i would just pass on at the suggestion of staff,
one is you may have read about the action by the board of equalization to improve the increase in the state gas tax. and just to clarify what that action was in 2009, 10. the state legislature adopted legislation that basically converted of what used to be proposition 42, which was funded from the sales tax on gas into a pure, based funding source. and to accomplish that, they had to develop language that directed the board of equalization, to maintain the same level of gross revenues, that the combined base excise tax and ropcysing 42 would have generated. s so the action to approve a 3.5 percent hike in the gas tax is consistent with what would
have been the taxes that the motorists would have been paying without the tax swap and the board of equalization approval. in fact, in many ways, the board of equalization approval is almost ministerial in effect and nobody knows what would happen if they had would rejected it. that has happened and the money generates 3.5 percent and the tax is an additional 3.5 cents per gallon which is 500 million a year and it is dedicated to local streets and roads and to the state, preservation program. additionally cap and trade continues to be a focus in the capitol. the cap and trade second round of options was conducted in february, and generated a goes total between the stationary source and utilities of about close to a quarter of a billion
dollars and more than a quarter billion of dollars. the funds generated are returned to rate payers as rebates in the bills. and the funds derived from the stationary sources are the subject to an ongoing car. we will have a duty to come back in april with a proposed investment plan. there is a bit of a disconnect, the governor had presumed a billion dollars annual from that resource from the stationary source options and it looks like we will be closer to a half a billion in the current budget year, we are in. one city, the resources board finishes the suggested plan, it will be submitted to the governor and the governor will adopt a final program or project to be released in the may revise.
so we are close to the end game on seeing what kind of projects the governor to like to see, funded from this source. so that concludes my report and i would be glad to answer questions that you may have. >> thank you. >> colleagues do you have any questions? >> i had a question about you mentioned a little bit the transportation bill, you said that you anticipated a little, i don't know how you, i can't remember how you described it, but, intense conversation, maybe. >> on the karl moyer legislation? >> yes. >> senate transportation committee, has been skeptical on last year's measure that almost passed that was similar to this bill. there is two levels of skepticism and two levels that are funded in this measure, one is ab118 which provides funding for a range of alternative duel transportation and the other is
the karl moyer program, that is not the center of the interest of the senate transportation committee chair and staff, the other section, the ab118 there are constitutional questions have arisen about the source or the use of registration fees for some of the things that the energy commission has later made allocations for. that is going to be on the going focus for that bill in the transportation. i believe that the karl moyer portion is in good standing, and but it is also tied into the same bills, so that is going to be the trick, if there is a fatal flaw with the ab 118 funding, issues. will that effect the ability to move karl moyer program forward? that is what i was alluding to and i should have been more clear. >> any other questions, seeing none, let's open for public comment. any public comment? >> what? no public comment? >> no. okay. all right, public comment is
closed. >> and let's see, this is an informational action, item, so is there actions that anyone would like to take on this item? >> hello? >> might to move for the recommendation? >> yes. >> i didn't hear you. >> i will move the recommendations. >> thank you, supervisor chiu. thank you so much commissioner. without, we will take the recommendation and madam clerk, could you call item number four? >> recommended increase of the amount of the professional services krt with perkins and will by $395,000 to a total amount not-to-exceed $1555000 for planning urban design, conceptual engineering and out reach and environmental analysis services for better market street planning and environmental studsy authoritying the executive director to modify no one
material contract terms and conditions. >> good evening, deputy for planning, this item is a request to amend an existing consulting contract that the authority has with perk ins and will, on behalf of the team leading and the department of public works which is leading the better market street project. lindy here is will be providing a brief overview and the main part of the item. i would like to give you background, began in october of 2010, after the authorities received planning grants from the state and the region. the initial contract was in the amount of $990,000, to do the design, conceptual design and out reach. we did come back in march in 2012 as an increase in lice of new work that needed to be done and that work did, we did make progress, the city team did out reach, developed some initial concept designs and did out reach on those and have identified since then, the need to or the desire to look at one
more option which is an option on mission street to develop, complimentary facilities especially for the bicycle facility. this item begins on page 27 of your packet. and behind the memo on page 34, is a letter from the three directors of the mta. and sfmta dpw and planning department providing an overview of the options that are under development and under consideration. and this amendment here would allow for the development of mission street option to compliment the market street designs as an alternative or as a near term pilot. following the letter from the directors is a study time line and budget snapshot so that you have a full update on the project. at this point, let me turn it over to mindy to provide the main presentation. >>