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 day 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, within a couple of weeks they have portals. we have to address that first. before we come up with a bigger plan for the causeway. all of this will not happen because of funding. even though we talk about it well, talk about it being dead without finances, you know what is happening on treasure island.

let us first fix our roads that are there so that the people that would travel on them can get their safety concerns addressed. i hope that the thousands and millions of dollars given to you regionally, you will first address the safety of the constituents of the region. we now have thousands of people taking the roads inside rather than using the highway. thank you very much. supervisor campos: thank you. and the other speakers on item number 7? the item is closed. we have a motion to approve this item. ok, that will be done without objection. item number eight, please. >> item #8. fiscal year 2011/12 prop k annual call for projects. >> thank you to your -- thank

you for your patience and to the sponsors that are here. this item begins on page 161 of your packet. what you have before you is the annual call for prop k projects. sponsors can make requests for prop k funding at any time during the year, when the projects are ready to go. the fiscal year starts on july 1. this also reminds me that it is a problematic category, like street resurfacing. request need to be consistent with privatisation programs. specifically number of things designed to increase transparency about the process. there is a methodology for the project without by the budget.

where the requests are not consistent, sponsors need to provide justification for this change and explain what happened to projects but were delayed. this item is accompanied by a closure in your agenda packet. if i can the jet -- put your attention on the attachment 1 on page 156. i will highlight a few of the items here. we bring the annual call request before you twice. given the volume of the events for answering questions about these items, based on the requests that we have there are five categories with all of the prop k funding. street resurfacing, a public sidewalk repair, and

maintenance. this is the only request that you will see for the entire fiscal year. we also work on helping providing a share for the capital program. that request, typically the scene in september. it comes from the capital improvement category. every other category of expenditure plans, next month i will be able to bring you a table showing exactly what is left. i will come back to the green light rail project at the end. i wanted to mention that on page 56 uc, as mentioned in the prior item, a match for school construction for school projects. to keep us on our toes, there

are three or four different flavors. i also wanted to take note that the implementation project is a project working on the mayor's pedestrian directive and staff basically has a comprehensive approach to reduce speeds and put pedestrians first over vehicles and so forth. i am excited to see this move forward to see how well that it works. on bicycle parking requests, $125,000, before the june california transportation commission meeting we are working to seek allocations out for $235,000 in federal transportation enhancement funds

for parking and focusing on public facilities like libraries and schools based on the public and others calling for parking throughout the city. the very last package here is a pedestrian improvements project, a commitment to allocate to remain consistent with cash flow assumptions. leveraging is shown as zero, but abbott -- actually leveraging is very good. in this case the federal transit administration is allowing the design for phase to match the construction phase, matching a regional political community grant that we supported. leslie, there is a green light rail center tracker project. i know that the commissioner is very familiar with