this is ace and i'm on the case. >> i know it's kind of hard -- >> could you state your name? >> walter paulson. >> ♪ they really want to meet you mr. ford want to meet you mr. ford and it takes along mr. ford they really want to see you really want to be with you really want to meet you ford and it takes a long in the bus oh, it comes so long oh come along they really want to see you ford want to be with you ford but it takes so long ♪ and

there's a fancy beer bottle. ♪ see, i was born revelling man trying to make the m.a.c. the best i can. and i saw some drinking in the back of a bus doing lots of graffiti and lots of stuff and they don't want to see them end up on the wrong side of the law and you'll text it over what you saw city i was born a rambling man trying to make the city the best i can and they're always having a good time on the back of the bus jam bling and doing lots of stuff make it better soon you can ♪ ♪ thanks. >> directors this is completion of public comment. moving on to your consent calendars. items on the consent calendars. a member of the board which is

to have an item considered separately. no members of public has indicated to have an item separate. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> as previously noted some of the items on the consent calendar have been removed having to do with the executive director and a successor. those items are off the agenda with regard to one matter on the agenda, the conference four conference with the real property gauche tor and i'm required to state in advance ha the properties have to do with 949 stockton street. 801 market street, the under ground eastment 1455,

discussions that people negotiating are cheryl wang and tom mccrist. the party's negotiating are norman c. chan, w.c. chang, barbecue situation. mintron and the language group incorporated, richies official small center, beverly c. sasss, . you have a member of the public who wishes to address you prior to your motion to go into closed session. >> ok. >> david filpel. two comments. i would remind you my position

at the central subway is a bad transit project. and we need not acquire this real property. with regard to item five in closed session, i note that this is an e. e.o. complaint. i know this is a former employee of the agency now former. it seems to nea and i don't know any of the specials of this that someone was responsible for the conduct that led to this complaint and proposed settlement and whoever that is should be held accountability if that person is still on staff and that person's an at-will employee they should be disciplined or terminated. we should not have employees in the city that are causing adverse circumstances in the workplace that lead to the e.e.o. complaint in my opinion and perhaps if you're going into closed session, that's something that you ask discuss.

thanks very much. >> ok. take care. >> it's -- moved to do so. >> second. >> s >> we are back in session, we voted yet immensely to settle the case. the board also discussed real- estate matters. to approve a few agreements, a loss of good will for the amount of $300,000. the amount of 25,000, $640. -- $25,640.

directors, it will be appropriate for a motion to disclose or not disclosed. . that concludes the business before you today. >> want to thank my colleagues for their patients, the meeting is adjourned. -- i want to thank my colleagues for their patience.

>> good morning. welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority. >> here. >> present. >> absent. >> commissioner kim absent. >> may have a motion to excuse

commissioners maher and cohen. >> she will come and i will go back to land use. >> ok. why don't we go ahead and excuse right now without objection. madam clerk, item number two. any discussion on minutes? any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. we will take this without objection. >> item passes.

>> would you please reads item three and four. >> chair's report and item four, executive director's report. >> i have a brief report today colleagues. this month was our leadership roundtable on the sustainable community strategy on may 5th held at the authority's offices. it was an opportunity for elected officials representing san francisco on the boards of the regional agencies to meet with management and provide feedback from the vision scenario which is an important first step in the process for developing sustainable community strategy and eventually the new regional transportation plan. i was joined for this event by commissioners scott wiener and david comps on who also represent us on the m.t.c.

we also have representatives from the mayor's office, housing and land use as well as management staff. we had a wagering of discussion about the direction of this planning effort for the bay area and had a chance to deliver a unified message. it was consist went discussions that took place at our own transportation authority board meetings. the amount of growth targeted would require major investments in transportation infrastructure and the region will have to make those commitments to san francisco. if the city is to commit to absorbing that growth and if the development of alternative development should be accompanied by discussion and how the funds are likely to be distributed to transportation projects. in other words we signal the city's willing tons accommodate

growth would be shaped by the region's willingness to reward us and other jurisdictions that do the right thing and that they should come in the form of more money to san francisco. this is a groundbreaking effort for the bay area. and i am looking to continue the policy discussion with all of you and with the regional area boards that represent other communities. the governor revised, the governor made revision of the fiscal 2011-12 state budget is now at $87 million increase in diesel fuel sales tax which goes into the state transit assistance program. a 27% increase of the amount originally estimated in the budget, translating into $31 million more for transit operators and $7.9 million for muni operations for fiscal

2011-2012. i hope to see it translate into more frequent and reliable service. this concludes my report. >> good morning general commissioners. my report is on your desk. i have a few things that i would like to highlight. first of all, a call for projects has been released for a total of about $430 million and we already applied for money in some categories and most visible, i think, a $10 million request for the project supposed to replace some earmarks that had to be redirected to the project but

that are now in limbo because of changes in the direction of the earmarks policy instituted by congress. and there is also $1.5 million earmark request or rather grant request from the transportation community and system preservation program to continue the e.i.r. on our condition pricing study. the fhwa has not given a timeline for when the grants will be announced. but we will be watching that closely. they have given us a very good piece of positive news on the presidio parkway, an authorization for up to $592 million in private activity bonds for the project that goes to complement the request that we had made for a loan. this is really a very strong indication about the strength

of the project and the level of commitment that the federal government feels that it has with this project. i am not going to repeat the chair's announcement about the funds but i will say that we will continue to advocate in sacramento for the transportation funds and for the distribution of funds according to prop 22 that was approved by voters last november. a significant amount of projects, market street project. we had a workshop a couple of weeks ago, last week actually, that brought more than 100 members of the public. it was a first workshop on the better market sheet project and another one planned for tonight from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. and

another one tomorrow at noon. good success on the back to work program. 54% of our staff back to work. we are making progress in terms of incorporating stakeholder input to the successor to the bay view neighborhood transportation plan that the authority did last year and the main focus of contact now are the community-based organizations that have some transportation related functions and social service providers as well. we submitted a letter of comments on the document for the extension of the f-line to fort mason. pointing out the need for some more transparency and the system impacts and especially impacts as far as muni service

and so on. i just remind you that the potential future allocation of funds to support this project, which is eligible for prop k, is dependant on the full funding plan. san francisco transportation plan will have a second round call for projects in july. we have been doing outreach on this. and i just anticipate that we will be back to nujuly with more information. further progress where the two teams are exchanging ideas, looking at three different alternatives. also a significant amount of activity where we met with land development interest and talked to them about the process so far and to talk about the calculations of fair share contributions from private sector to the projects

identified. this is a good time to be doing that as the various developments move towards the agreements with the local jurisdictions. finally i would like to announce the incorporation into our staff. our engineer has been a resident of the bay area since 2008, a degree from northeastern university in boston and masters degree from uc berkeley. he joins us after an internship where he worked on the central subway. he is knowledgeable about the big dig project in boston where he worked as an engineer for eight years. now that project's reputation has been cleaned up and the project is functioning quite well he is happy to talk to anybody about that because he used to give tours.

that concludes high report. we are happy to have him with us. >> welcome to the mta. welcome. colleagues, any comments or questions? seeing none? any public comment? >> item five adopt the proposed fiscal year 2011-12 annual budget and work program. >> any discussion on this item? seeing none, public comment. public comment is closed. roll call, please. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> absent. >> aye. >> aye. >> absent. >> aye. >> absent. >> prevails.

item six. >> adopt positions on state and federal legislation. this is an action item. >> discussion? seeing none, closed. public comment? public comment is closed. take this without objection? item seven please. >> adopt alternative 2b as the locally preferred alternative for the berba buena island ramps improvement project. >> discussion? none. public comment? none. take it without objection? so moved. >> program $579,000 in san francisco safe routes to the school capital funds to the san francisco municipal transportation agency for the sunset elementary school and

apgiannini middle school project. >> take it out obligation. so moved. >> approve local project screening criteria for the regional transportation plan. this is an action item. >> any comments or discussions? >> thank you mr. chair. to the executive director in terms of item number nine, i see from the memo and the attachments, i believe three and four, that the authority received over 200 projects from the public and over 100 proposals from the implementing agencies. question to you, how are we going to fund all of these needs given our limited resources and how do we prioritize? and i am especially concerned about investing in good projects that are fiscaly responsible and provide the bang for the buck we are looking for in terms of the dollars and supporting the long-term growth of the city as

we project that. >> thank you for the question. couple of different tracks here. first of all, we are doing this as part of the regional process for generating a regional transportation plan and there are certain methodologies we have to follow in order to stay consistent with the region. but those are still evolving. one of the questions that we have when we met last week is when are those rules going to real jell so we understand the type of criteria and money likely to flow through for our priorities in san francisco. it is still evolving. we are pressing for performance-based measures so that it is not just a cookie cutter based on population for the different counties, it is really based on bang for the

buck as you said. we have a lot of that here. we have the land use, the density, transit infrastructure that can support more pedestrian lifestyle. we think we can do well provided the rules are right. we have the support of all of the representatives on the regional body on. a separate track there is the san francisco transportation plan, the update of the plan in the city, that you adopt and that you bless when we get through the process. that has its own set of rules that are focused on creating not just bang for the buck but the highest leverage possible so we get state funds, regional funds and federal funds. when the all of that is said ask done we don't have enough

money to pay for all of the shigses made. not all of them are bang for the buck submissions. more things that duplicate stuff already being done and other things are advocacy but they don't have plans that exist. another set of categories need to be vetted against things like the neighborhood plans that this board already blessed and that was developed over time because we need to maintain consistens and he keep faith with the neighbors that have participated in those planning processes and come up with their own priorities to make sure that those are at least reflected in our own list and then reconcile priorities from one plan to another. not everything will make the list. it is a fairly complicated process. the best we can hope for is consistency among the city agencies that are providing comment on this on the

criteria. also transparency. when we see how far you can go down the list people will realize everybody is being treated fairly. >> i appreciate the comments and we look ford continue working with you to understand the priorities and evaluate them. it is something we very much need to do. so, thank you. >> thank you commissioner. >> thank you mr. chairman. through the chair i want to first of all, echo my sentiment that the issue of funding is a key issue.

the regional look at creating suddenable communities. i think they cannot occur or take place unless we have fund to support them. we are being asked to adopt that the principle that there should be a nexus between affordable housing and transportation. so, i certainly want the region to adopt this principle but i also think that it is important for san francisco itself to make sure that we lead by example and that we lead the way in that area. i want to know how staff believes we can invest in a way that encourages and promotes affordable housing production.

>> thanks for the question. there is a lot in that question. let me just briefly answer that one of the fundamental criteria that m.t.c. is pushing as part of this sustainable community strategy is the concept of the p.d.a., priority development area which are supposed to be areas where there is density supportive of transit and pedestrian trips and alternatives to the automobile. the entire bay area has been identifying where these p.d.a.'s are. thanks to have that we have a new acronym that we have to remember. and fundamentally a p.d.a. is an area of opportunity where there is more density and mix of the people that live there and more of a chance that there will be a mix of users of

different kinds of components of the transportation system and of course fewer single auto trips. there are local governments making stronger commitments. it is the right type of density and the right mix of people. the transportation field does not have enough money either. but that is the mechanism. you know getting the regional agencies to recognize the local jurisdictions areak