i'm really honored to learn more and with the prif leblgs would be great for all of us. thank you. no other comments, roll call, please. congratulations and thank you. >> item f, the board members report. seeing none. i do want to just again congratulate everyone swoern in this past weekend.

we all can probably dot oath off the top of our head, the swaering in the new board member, welcome to the board. we hope you come back. we had a district attorney swoern in on sunday and new mayor swoern in this afternoon. we'll have a city assessor swoern in tomorrow. a lot of new officers and leaders coming in to san francisco. i just want to remind all of our leaders the efforts we have been making to continue to build a really strok pant nership. i look forward to meeting with leaders to ensure san francisco

has a fair base at the table and partnership and support is strongly built. >> they are calling me now to say, we are in. if there are no other board reports, then we have item t. >> i did want to report on the meeting of the school of the arts. i am interested in pursuing and thinking about the future of 135 ms. we had a brainstorming section on monday. earlier today, commissioner yi and i visited sherman elementary school to look there' mazing strategy bringing new excitement among the students and teachings. >> it really can be a model.

the group would like to pilot their program it was a very informative visit. at this time, before we go to item t, we are going to resource this meeting and we'll be coming back to do a report back on closed session items and then we'll be honoring several folks. we'll recess this item and this. we are resuming the meeting.his. we are on item t, about revealing the items from closed session. the approval of the expulsion of one high school student was there. the suspended expulsion

agreement with one high school student. existing litigation in the claim against the district, the board by a votes of six ayes approved a settlement. and the was the termination of a classified employee. another was authorizing litigation against phase to insurance services, phase two systems, and others. there were negotiations of 6 ayes regarding the paraprofessional retirement plan. there was classified personnel

actions, and item z is adjournment, and we will be adjourning in several memories. adam was a mathematics teacher who died after suffering a heart attack. he was only 40 years old and in good health. he was a phenomenal teacher and a good leader in the struggle for social justice. he only started teaching at that school in august, but already, he was a core part of that community. adam was also a pioneer in some work, and in late september, he taught a pre-out to class, -- pre-algebra class. also, a teacher at thurgood marshall high school who passed away during winter break on december 19. he worked at another high school and then marshall after about one closed. she was devoted to the students

and a beloved and respected faculty member. she had no idea of the extent of her illness. she was suffering from a rare form of leukemia that presented itself as the flu. the principal will always remember her jokes, which always made her popular at the end of your dinners, and lastly, we would like to honor christina tichenor green, the 9-year-old third-grade student in tucson -- to honor christina taylor green. all of those killed on january 8 in a horrible act of violence, so we are adjourning on behalf of all of these wonderful people, and our condolences go to their families. meeting adjourned.

captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- supervisor campos: good morning. happy new year to all of you. welcome to the january 11, 2011 transportation plans and programs committee. we have been joined by the committee vice chair, commissioner chu, and the newly appointed commissioner wiener. we welcome commissioners chiu and avalos, who are en route.

madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> item #2, approval of minutes of the december 7, 2010 meeting. supervisor campos: we need a motion. can we take that without objection? is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing no one, public comment is closed. we have a motion from commissioner chu. madam clerk, please call in #3. >> citizens advisory committee report, information item. supervisor campos: thank you. good morning. >> there is no report today due to the holiday schedule. there was no meeting in december and they reported to you at the

last meeting. for the benefit of those watching, there will be up coming vacancies next month. we will elect the annual chair and vice chair at the january meeting. supervisor campos: great. any member of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing no one, public comment is closed. madam clerk, item no. 4. >> item #4. recommend allocation of $35,000 in prop k funds, with conditions, to the department of public works for construction of a bus bulb at balboa street and 37th avenue, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule. this is an action item. supervisor campos: good morning. >> good morning. this item begins on page 11 of your packet. $35,000 in prop k funds will help the department of public works fully fund the bus on the northeast corner of 37th avenue and bigelow street.

public works already has funds for the southwest corner. for the benefit of those watching, it is widening the sidewalk at the transit stop. primarily it is a safety issue. in this case it is also intended to serve as a traffic calming measures for vehicles making right turns. this is good leveraging for prop k funds. part of the larger balboa street skate improvement project, $2.5 million funded by about half of a million sources. the biggest of which are a safety mark -- safety earmarked that we received for work like this and prop k funds with over $800,000 that the board previously allocated for the

street in the area. the larger project from 34th to 39th on balboa street, you have seen this project before. approved by the privatization program for the bus transit category. initially the transportation agency was the sponsor. in order to achieve construction efficiency they have agreed to let public works sponsor the project. advertise that the end of the month as part of a larger streetscape effort in an attempt to complete construction in december with most of it done in the summer to avoid conflicts with nearby schools. several around the community of reach district supervisors are on board. i would be happy to answer any questions. i would make note that we have the project manager here if you have any questions. supervisor campos: colleagues, questions for staff? i have a couple of questions.

are there any similar requests that we can expect in the near future? >> i do not think that we have any on back. -- deck. supervisor campos: how did we get to this specific request? how was the process through which you determined when to ask for this kind of funding? why not here through other places? >> good question. this project was a list of projects included in the five- year privatization program with large projects like the bus stop transit projects as well as small tps type improvements like this one. in terms of timing, this would make two sponsors that can come to the authority to make a

response for a project. the main criteria that we look at besides eligibility is that the project is fully funded and ready to go. we do not have funds sitting around. this was a criticism a while ago. public works tried to position us for the jobs on main street. anticipating another stimulus bill from the federal government. that did not materialize. we have switched gears. supervisor campos: is there anyone from dpw that can provide more information on that? >> in terms of the timing? supervisor campos: the process. >> the other sources are the face to earmark prop k through the general fund. supervisor campos: welcome to the transit programs committee. >> happy new year to you. i think that i would just add to maria's comments that the balboa

street project was already moving forward. mta already has a possible calming project, so the timing is right to combine with the streetscape project. i am not sure if that -- supervisor campos: are there any similar requests you see coming our way? >> in terms of larger projects? i am not sure about the bus bowls, those are mostly in the traffic calming mta projects. we did receive federal grants for four projects that were recently program. second street, marina, green, and -- why am i blanking on the last one? we also received a grant that

lasted through the fiscal year. those are so loved the projects. supervisor campos: any questions, colleagues? is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing no one, public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion? supervisor chu: i actually had a quick question for dpw. i know that in terms of the projects you have been working on, there is one on 19th avenue. is that something you could provide to our office? >> good morning, my name is mary [unintelligible] dpw. the only update that i have is that there is still discussions in terms of the radius and design of the bus bowl. it is sort of pending. supervisor chu: the waiting is

for venice to finish before 19th avenue? >> the idea is that the venice project will take precedence over the bus bowl design. that is likely to occur in the spring. supervisor chu: thank you. i see the executive director of the transportation authority wanted to chime in. good morning. >> let me take a second to welcome -- welcome commissioner wiener to the board as well. i wanted to speak to your question about process, emphasizing the fact that even these small allocations are not simply floating out there. they are part of the five-year program that this committee reviews and approves of a periodic basis. you may recall that there was an entire slew of them over the last nine months.

each one has listings of projects. this was one of those in that particular category, the only distinction that we would make is that it was originally listed as mta and is now being done by dpw. that is the clearest picture of the process that we have. a five-year look at what those projects are. in each of the 22 categories, vehicle safety, traffic signals, etc., you get to see those ahead of time. obviously there are variations, but it is an organized process to get you to an outlook for a five-year product. as far as the commissioners comment on 19th avenue, there is more information that our deputy for planning can provide on that. supervisor campos: thank you. good morning.

>> good morning. [unintelligible] deputy for planning. we are leading the project as the dpw mentioned. we are holding off on further negotiations of the design exceptions to reach agreement with caltrans until we have resolved similar questions and we hope to resolve those very soon, as they mentioned earlier. supervisor campos: this is an action item. if we could have a motion? can that be taken without objection? thank you. madam clerk, please call item no. 5. >> item #5. update on the development of the bay area's first sustainable communities strategy. supervisor campos: this is an information item? >> that is right. [unintelligible] again. i am pleased to present this on your memo, page 33.

what is the sustainable community strategy? it begins through the reference of senate bill 375 passed in 2008. landmark legislation that required california communities to plan land use transportation environmental issues in an environmental fashion. very much targeting greenhouse gas emissions policy in california, very innovative and pioneering and is being watched closely on a national level. this legislation requires the creation of a new transportation plan and a sustainable community strategy with regional housing allocation in the same process. this slide talks more about each of the goals of the sustainable community strategy, a regional planning process. reducing greenhouse gas

emissions. in the bay area we have a goal of 15% reduction by 2035. this actually will result in a net production of greenhouse gas emissions on an absolute basis by 2035. we are hoping that future [unintelligible] will continue to make inroads into that goal. the second point is that the strategy to hide the strategy at all income levels is a specific mandate of the legislation. the income coming from the valley should be avoided, providing enough housing at all income levels to reduce housing demand. thirdly, it needs to be consistent with rotp. it does encompass $200 billion of transportation investments that are reallocated every three to four years. all of these need to be coordinated in a single process. the regional housing allocation

is another process that typically has been happening in parallel but not necessarily in coordination with rtp, requiring everything to be done at the same time. the allocation process is started at the state level, the association of government with each jurisdiction. san francisco has always done their fair share of providing planning and affordable housing, particularly the lowest income housing. this process is really a way for us to all link housing with transportation. particularly using the transportation investment as an incentive to bring other communities into the fold. you can see that i have highlighted policy questions. how well does this incentivize local planning for housing, especially affordable housing?

with regards to the rptp, because there is $200 billion of investment, it does get decided every few years. connecting them in our view is a major opportunity and regional staff as a acknowledged that while it will be difficult as it is the first time it has been done, business as usual has not been to link the policies. updated every few years, the condition management agency ordinates on behalf of san francisco with different modes, operators, and agencies participating in the process. our plan update is the major input into the rtp on behalf of san francisco, dovetailing the process this year. the rtp must identify a 25 year constrained program of projects. the policy question is to what extent mtc will be directed

discretionary transportation funding towards projects that support scs goals unaccommodating growth of housing, reducing ghg's. there are four major stages on the next slide. the first is the stage that we are in right now. you will see this as a separate handout, the schedules on your desk. what would we be like with unconstrained funding? if money were no object and other constraints were not really to be considered? what would that look like for the region? up next spring there will be a detail that learned from that initial scenario about how close we can get to those goals with specific housing projects that are financially constrained on

the transportation side, what would those scenarios look like? in the fall this will remote -- this will lead to the preferred scs scenario feeding right into the rtp environmental review with final integration getting done next year. mtc hopes to adopt the combined scs in april of 2013. focusing for a moment on the initial vision scenario, next slide, this will reflect jurisdictional input into the process on where they expect to grow and what kind of growth they expect to implement. where should the growth be? if there is not enough growth based on voluntary funding, we will go ahead and distribute the rest of the growth. development areas in san francisco like the eastern neighborhoods and a bit to the south, last time around when we added up the growth with local

jurisdictions, it only added up to 50% of the need in the region. where does the rest of the 50% of the housing go? the staff will take an initial pass at that, distributing growth where they think it should be most sustainably be placed. the initial visions scenario will show much how much, -- will show how much travel results in this with greenhouse gas limited as a result of the initial vision. what did we learn about this in terms of transportation performance member -- transportation performance measures and the other things we are trying to achieve? in sampras's dropping -- in san francisco we plan to add 170,000 new population, 150,000 new jobs in the eastern neighborhoods primarily. this is a planning department graphic that will show where

these new households are expected to go by 2035. job growth expected this year in the city, san francisco is a in a great position to plan the redevelopment agency for the entire city family, doing a great job planning for growth. we have a great look at what growth should look like but now we need other resources. the funding to carry infrastructure, to maintain and build up streets and roads. the next slide talks about the detailed scenarios. identifying specific projects that basically compete for funding. mtcaddac has given us a call for projects, something we are planning on getting more information on in the march and april time crime -- time frame. specific projects that we would like to submit to the regional

association, doubling as the countywide plan called for projects. an opportunity to bring up all of those projects to be identified again with test planning and identifying new projects for the committee to the authority is leading our input into the scs, the overall coordination. chair mirkarimi has been been two meetings of department heads and other elected officials, including representatives of the mtc and air district. i understand you will be considering their own roles as to who their liaison will be to those organizations. it is a banner year for mtc, abag, and other organizations on this initiative. the planning commission will be meeting in january to give their input. there is a regular staff level

-- directors working group planned. in terms of public outrage, we have mentioned this. -- out of reach, we have mentioned this. we anticipate doing town halls to get the word out and get people involved so they understand what this regional plan is about, how it relates to their county-wide plan and neighborhoods. here is a snapshot which tells the story of our advocacy. in terms of population, san francisco accounts for about 11% of the region. we account for 16% of the region's employment. however, portrait and, we account for 17%. however, when you contrast that with the amount of funding we received in the region, in the

last our tepee, we had 9% of the local streets and roads money. we had 50% of the region's transit money compared to 68% of the trip ends that we carry. from a strictly numbers basis, we are letting them know that we are doing more than our fair share in terms of growth. we expect the region will support san francisco in terms of providing for transportation, not only infrastructure but new maintenance funds. here are some of the major message is we have been sending to the region. we have been sending letters to several agencies and department heads. maintenance resources need to be prioritized for jurisdiction to are currently carry the bulk of the department's trips. we also want to make sure the