the funds were distributed based on school enrollment. san francisco and the transportation authority as the management agency for san francisco received just over $1 million for the funds. in july of 2010, resolution 1108, the authority board programmed $500,000 of those funds, so half of those funds to the san francisco safe routes school and education and outreach program which seeks to provide pedestrian, bike safety classes at 15 public elementary schools throughout the city, along with several encouragement and outreach activities. i won't go into the details of that program. so that's the first half of these funds. this is the second half of the funds that are before you here today. the second half we reserve for capital project. we release the call for projects on january 20, by the march 8 deadline, received one application. from the sunset elementary and a.p.giannini school.

a walking audit, when engineers and other staff go out with the principals and teachers and do a walk around the school and identify the issues around the school. so the project before you today, as i said, is in front of sunset elementary and a.p. giannini middle school between 37th avenue and 41st avenue. you'll see in the packet a design of the improvements. essentially it's traffic calming improvements and pedestrian enhancements along that area of the roadway. the current schedule of the project is currently in conceptual design, which should be completed by june of this year. m.t.a. is currently doing the public outreach component and bringing the conceptual design out to the public and going back to the p.t.a.'s at both schools and reviewing the designing project. the design should begin in july 2011 and should be completed by january 2012. construction should begin in the fall of 2012 and should be

completed by the fall of 2013. this item to come before the c.a.c. in march and the c.a.c. did defer the item, had some questions about the conceptual design. and we actually set up a separate meeting with one of the c.a.c. members and went through the conceptual design, recorded their concerns, which are detailed in your packet and in your staff report and m.t.a. will be taking those concerns in along with all the other concerns. so with that -- i also wanted to point out that the design portion of this project and the construction match portion will both be coming before this body, prop k allocation. the design portion of the project is actually part of the annual call item, an information item number eight today and coming for action next month to this body. so with that, i can answer any questions. chairman chu: thank you very much. why don't we open it up for

public comment first are there any members of the public who wish to comment on this item 5? >> good morning. i'm a community planner with the san francisco bicycle coalition. the san francisco bicycle coalition is a very proud member of the san francisco safe routes to school partnership. delivering pedestrian and bicycle safety education in our 15 schools across the city which includes sunset elementary. the sfnta's mow posal to improve pedestrians by installing calming devices will help address the school and community's concerns regarding street safety, particularly for the many children who are walking and biking to school. this project is of particular importance because there's three large schools adjacent to each other. and the proposed improvements will help to decrease traffic speeds, particularly on ortega street. this project will also help to increase driver awareness and improve pedestrian and bicycle

visibility. and improve overall safety for everybody who needs to get to and from our schools every single day. so thank you very much. the san francisco bike coalition strongly approves this. chairman chu: thank you. >> hello. i work in public health i actually coordinate the infrastructure safe route program. i also to voice our support for this project. sunset is one of our 15 schools that we are working in. and we are using the international model of the five e's. one of them being engineering. if we do all the other pieces, but without the capital improvement at our schools to help make it safer around the school to encourage families to walk and bike, it's a really critical piece so we really want to support that i want to point out that sunset elementary is losing its yellow school bus next year. so we want to make sure that we can provide some alternatives to

families at sunset elementary once they do lose that school bus service. and not only are there three schools on that block, there's also rec park site and a library that will be opening up pretty soon. so it's a little mini civic center so we support it. thank you. chairman chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. and i just want to thank the sfcta in working in conjunction with our m.t.a. on this project. this has been long a concern of mine as a district supervisor there. i think public commenters made it clear, we have an elementary school, a middle school, our actual largest branch library right in that same area in addition to the playground and west sunset area. in addition to that, we also have a private school right off of sunset boulevard, which, as you know is a six-lane roadway. and though you can't see it on this picture, there's actually a

slope on ortega that leads to some of the speeding that we do see along that area. so i just want to thank you. i know we've had a lot of fits and starts with applications for the safe route program that has been denied previously and we just kept on trying at it. so i just want to say thank you for your persistence to see this improvement come forward. commissioner after lose? avalos: thank you. i will be supportive of this item. i think it's great we're providing this infrastructure around our schools. and i would like to meet with m.t.a. or the staff to talk about similar ideas for district 11. particularly around balboa high school, ocean avenue, and that area. a lot of people walking. we need to coordinate better the infrom structure that goes -- infrastructure, pedestrian areas, as well as how we can make transit and our buses run effectively in those areas as well that are safer for kids as

they're going to school. so we can meet up afterward to schedule a time. that would be great. chairman chu: thank you, commissioner after lose. i would definitely be supportive of those efforts. i think anytime we're able to concentrate some of our efforts and attention on pedestrian safety, particularly around where we see high volumes of students, a lot of people who are moving to and from locations, i think is always a smart idea. >> think that would be a great thing to do. so we've got this item before us. can we take it without objection? thank you. >> item 6 recommend approval of local project screening criteria for the regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy. >> good morning, commissioners. this item starts on page 71 on your packet. i'm happy to report i think you've seen this every month, but this is the first action item you've been taking on the reegeianal transportation plan.

we're requesting a recommendation -- [no audio] sorry about that. we're requesting action -- a recommendation to approve two things. first is a local project screening criteria to govern the project for the regional transportation plan call for projects. this is on attachment five, page 107 off your packet. the second action is to approve funding principles to support our regional advocacy around this issue, which is attachment 7 or page 110 of your packet. just a little back groind. the regional transportation plan is a 25-year transportation plan for the region this year due to shhhh p375 there's a new component that addresses linking

the transportation. project needs to be near r.t.p. if they are seeking federal, state or legional funding over the next 25 years or are looking for any kind of a federal action of environmental approval, etc. more importantly through 2017. and the call for projects, the specific portion, feeds into a larger r.t.p. process that m.t.c. is undergoing right now, including a number of different needs assessments and things like that so this is really only a small tip of the iceberg of identifying the needs in the investment strategy. so m.t.c. issued a call for project on the 14th. we were responsible as the c.m.a. for san francisco for issuing the project, doing public outreach. and then identifying projects to fit within our discretionary funding target of $6.16 billion. we also did a number of cornation efforts -- coronation efforts. regional operators were allowed to apply directly. so this is really only san francisco projects before you

today. and the members of the public were also encouraged to submit projects but needed a public agency sponsoring order to move forward. we did a quite large amount of public outreach, which is described on page 78 of your packet. attended over 14 public meetings pa specifically in low-income and minority communities. utilized various social and electronic media such as e-mails and webpages, placed ads in newspapers. and then utilized the authority's regular board process. what we heard from members of the public was pretty expected. it was great support for transit, pedestrian, bicycling projects. received 200 ideas from the public. these are on page 80 or attachment 3 of the packet. we also heard demand for a roadway capacity reduction project. and not one request for roadway extension project for members of the public. what we heard from the public agencies were almost 100 ideas.

these were on page 97 of your packet or attachment 4. heard a lot of projects that were currently in the r.t.p. were proposed for inclusion in this one as well. also a number of new projects, which is not surprising giving the number of planning processes that have happened since the last r.t.p., things like the transit effectiveness project, various development plans. and then many projects that can be bundled into programmatic categories so there's no two projects can be in the r.t.p. first the individual or named project. these are projects that enhanced capacity and need to be analyzed for air quality purposes. and then projects in programmatic category that are bundled together into broader categories, pedestrian improvements, bicycle improvements. and that way it allows us to not have to decide today about 2017 and gives us a little flexibility. we try bundle projects as much as possible. so what we're requesting from you today is approval of the local projects screening criteria that would determine what projects we submit to this

kind of big picture, large list of projects coming from san francisco. i should note that we already had to, given the quick time line of the process, had to submit a draft, staff recommended project list. but m.t.c. is going to be allowing us to revise that based on your feedback through the end of may. and the project also includes both the projects and the programmatic categories. so the project screening criteria, the main thing we want to do here is not prevent projects from moving forward that need to be in the r.t.p. so with that, the screening criteria are pretty basic. project that support the r.t.p. polls that are appropriate for submission that have planned status that are ready to go. and then projects that, again, either expand capacity or regionally are significant. and then have an appropriate cost estimate. and projects basically fell into three categories.

either considered for the r.t.p., they met the screening criteria, and considered for the san francisco transportation plan which means they are usually not quite there. and then projects to not consider it at all. these are just some examples of those projects. so to move forward in the r.t.p., projects that are currently in the r.t.p., projects that are proposed new projects, such as better -- these are submitted by members of the public and agencies. and then the programmatic categories which include bicycle and pedestrian projects, non-expansion transit projects, and other projects, should also say that this includes not just a bicycling here, pedestrian improvement there. it also includes really large projects that focus on safety. so things like the improvements of the balboa park station, major dollar items, very important projects, but can be handled programmatically because they don't expend capacity. projects not considered for the r.t.p., longer range projects.

kind of next phase of transit expansion priorities. and then policy changes that are necessarily in there. and then projects not under consideration either because they conflict with city policy or aren't really transportation projects. so just to set the context, as i said before, this isn't only a very small piece of the overall process that m.t.c. is going through, they're also soliciting rehab and maintenance needs from transit, local streets and roads and highways, as well as considering project priorities submitted directly by regional transit operators. so while we've been doing the call for projects, as we move forward, we have been -- we will continue to do regional coordination efforts advocating for our project priorities, identifying corridor strategies so how do we coordinate with san mateo, alameda county and operators in those corridors, ensuring that transit service is looked at so we don't overload

the transit system in the project prior advertisation process -- prioritization process. advocating for safety funding. there's not a source for that. and ensuring adequate support for system maintenance and preservation needs. just to give you a flavor of what those needs are you can see local street structures estimated over $800 million shortfall in the next 25 years. and for transit operators, up to a $36 billion short fall so very significant numbers. that's r.t.p. can hopefully help address. chairman chu: one second. commissioner avalos? commissioner avalos: has there ever been any regional pedestrian safety funding? >> yes. in the 2030r.t.p. there was a regional bicycle and pedestrian program that could fund bicycle projects as well as pedestrian projects. and the last r.t.p. they made it just the regional bicycle program. so they eliminated eligibility

of pedestrian projects so we think it's important to have a dedicated pedestrian safety source of funds. the second part of the action is approval of funding principles to support this kind of ongoing regional advocacy. this is on page 110 of your packet as attachment 7. the policies are pretty general and i think intuitive to help advance san francisco's priorities in the process. the first is transportation investment policy discussions should begin now. m.t.c., this is really one of the most important things about this process, so we should have as long a period to discuss them and discuss ideas and priorities as possible. regional investments should also have the strong system demand, development areas, and affordable housing production. these are all key components of m.t.c.'s goals for the r.t.p. and therefore it makes sense that regional investment should be directed towards projects and jurisdiction that are supporting

those goals. also, project performance should play a key role in investment decision. the advocacy should include in the r.t.p., should include for new revenue. so in order to accomplish what we want to, we really need to focus on growing the pie and building a case to the public that the pie needs to get bigger. and then finally, the transportation funds should really be used on transportation. so non-transportation projects that support transportation should still identify non-transportation revenue. and this is the last slide. the schedule in where we are. may 17. we're at the program's committee. the next step is submitting after board approval of the screening criteria, submitting the final san francisco priorities to m.t.c. by the end of may. then twee may and july, m.t.c. doll a project performance evaluation on everything that was submitted. and then starting in the fall, we'll start talking about investment priorities at the

regional level. and i think we'll be coming back to you maybe not every month but quite frequently to talk about how things are going and how you can key into the process. so with that, i'm happy to answer any questions. >> just wanted to add a quick closing mark. thank you for your parks. this is a very rich topic. but thankfully one that comes up only once every four years. to recap for the benefit of those watching, because you can get lost in the acronyms, why should we care about the plan? first of all, the place where san francisco decides upon its local priorities is the san francisco transportation plan. so strategically, with our blinders on, the regional transportation plan is most significant in terms of the regional funding investment policies that will come out of it. what programs are established as mentioning the need for pedestrian safety funding. because m.t.c. gets a whole bunch of money from the state and regional level and divides

that into a series of programs which effectively determines what kinds of projects can get funded that discussion happens in the fall. and in the second, very closely linked parted of that, is within all of that regional discretionary money, deciding how much of that gets directed to the various jurisdictions in the bay area. and we think there's a really good opportunity for a bigger share of that funding to get directed at places like san francisco that are growing in the right ways, and smart growth, accepting affordable housing and so forth. so that's a lot of what our advocacy is directed towards. and i wanted to acknowledge amber for outstanding work on this. it's very complicated. you have to be in the weaves of sponsors, helping them fill out forms, explaining the strategic policy approach to this. and i want to thank our intern as well. chairman chu: thank you. commissioner avalos? commissioner avalos: thank you. i asked a draft to look at priority development areas. i'm sure we're able to get the

ball rolling. i don't know if it's for the november ballot, this november, but really there has to be a really strong community process on coming together on what that's going look like. and so the t.a., i think, would be essentially part of that. regional government, i think, needs to be part of that as well. i serve and have had many sb375 discussions, practically every meeting we have is about that. but housing folks and community groups as well to be part of it. it could be something we do in november of 2012 or some time next year, but i really feel that san francisco is far ahead of the curve in terms of rsb375 strategy. we have identified our priority development areas. we just need to find the funding. and if we're able to provide our own sense of funding here that's going to bring in other funding elsewhere from other sources around the state and federal so fasources. >> good morning, madam chair, commissioners. [indiscernible] i really appreciate your comment, commissioner avalos.

i'd like to point out the direct connection with one of the principles that were just presented, i think in attachment 7. the idea that not all priorities, development areas, are created equal. that there are jurisdictions which do exactly what you're attempting to do, make a commitment to the investment that needs to be made on the land use side, to then make the land use pattern and the settlement pattern much more viable for service by transit and much more efficient in terms of the pedestrian trips and so on. because it has a significant impact on this region's ability to meet the sb375 target and also the cost of transportation in general, the societal cost of transportation. it's have a important thing to do. it's very clear to me that not every jurisdiction is acting with the same level of responsibility. regardless, i'm not taking a position of whether the bond -- the point is there is an attempt

to providing investment. and one of the points that we make in our recommended principles is the nontransportation aspects need to be funded with nontransportation revenues. this can't be a zero sum gain, you put it in housing being and wind up with not enough infrastructure anyway. commissioner avalos: and one can leverage the other. >> absolutely. chairman chu: thank you very much. if there are no questions at this time, why don't we open the item for public comments. are there members of the public who wish to speak to item 6? >> my name is francisco decosta. let me address the first issue. here in san francisco, we want good transportation. and i'll talk about a local issue. and then i'll connect it with

the regional issue. if we take the third street light rail, we start at fourth and king and end in the middle of norway and visitation valley, having spent $700 million, a line that does not do justice to thousands of people. one of you representatives who lives and represents district 11 knows that if this line was connected to the balboa station it could reduce millions of vehicles from another sector of san francisco and help brisbane, south san francisco going down. so the m.t.c., i used to attend their meetings, should evaluate

projects such as that 700 million third street light rail that is doing a lot of disservice to thousands [tone] of san franciscoans. san franciscoans are interested in quality of life issues. and so we need roads that do not have large holes where cars get stuck. we have a $300 million backlog on our roads. those are the things we use daily. originalally -- originally we all should work so that we have -- [tone] less cars on our roads. am i given two minutes? thank you very much. i'm the only one for public comment here, and i'm given two minutes. chairman chu: thank you. >> the rest is in writing. and i think my comments will not

be very favorable. chairman chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on item 6? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion on this item? ok. we've got a motion to send this item forward with recommendation. without objection. thank you. >> item 7, recommend appropriation of $55,000 in prop k funds with condition for the u.s. 101 scandal stick interchange project study report, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution. >> good morning. this item begins on page 113 of your packets. there are maps and aerial photographs. this is an appropriation request in the amount of $55,000. the funds would be used for the u.s. 101 candlestick interchange reconfiguration project. this interchange is located

partially in san mateo county and partially in san francisco county. the improvements would enhance circulation for vehicles, transit pedestrians, and bicyclists. the funds would be used specifically for what's called a project study report which is a conceptual feasibility stage document that's required by the state department of transportation, caltrans, for any project that's proposed on the state highway system. the steps after this stage include environmental clearance, engineering design, and finally construction. the city of brisbane, which is where the interchange is partially located, is serving as the lead agency for this stage of work. and the estimated cost of the stage of work is about $720,000. the p.s.r. is currently at about 80% complete. however, caltransrecently began to require reimbursement for the staff time that caltransstaff spend providing oversight on projects such as these.

the cost estimate for that caltransoversight is $110,000. so there's a gap of $110,000 in the project now. that grew. before now, the project has been funded by private developer contributions two developers in particular, in the amount of $610,000. so for this $110,000 gap, $55,000 has been provided by our counterparts in san mateo county, the san mateo county transportation authority that leaves $55,000, which is the subject of this request. the project itself for full construction has not been fully funded yet. in fact, that's a question that the authority is currently engaged in the stud dwroi try to answer -- study to try to answer. it's called the bycounty transportation study. ear wailing to build some interagency, cooperation and

agreement, on a full list of by bicounty investments and provide a funding strategy for these investments. the candlestick interchange project is one of the projects on this list so there's interest in both sides of the county line in seeing this project move forward. in its april meeting, the c.a.c. made a recommendation on this appropriation, also asked staff to explore ways to more actively involve the community in this and other bi-county projects. and the staff is following up on that request at the moment. that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. chairman chu: thank you very much. why don't we open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to comment on number 7? the one card i have is francisco decosta. >> earlier i had made some comments when the representative from the citizens advisory committee to the san francisco county transportation authority

gave his presentation. as you representatives know, there's going to be about 10,500 homes planned in this area linked to lenar and over -- [indiscernible] and then there are thousands of other units that are going to be built in brisbane and further down south.again, as i was telle last time, millions of supply. if you go right now and see the roads, they need repairs. but this is the thing, even if they are facts, as they are, again and again