in the after condition, this is alternative 2b, how it would look. as you can see, the off ramp would come to macalla road. there's the nimitz house on the right side. there's the new on-ramp. much more safe acceleration and deceleration distance on the right side. and then what you're seeing on the left is what caltransis proposing for the new eastbound on-ramp, which is part of the bay bridge project. let's hope this works for alternative 4. doesn't look like it's going to work. yeah. ok.

once again, alternative 2b. and we'll give it one last shot here for the next alternative. this is a much improved condition from what we see today

out there, the final product. my apologies it doesn't look like it's going to work. the diagram does have double the number of columns. it starts on the coast guard side of the island, traverses to the east, comes underneath the bridge, and then comes up to meet in the westbound direction. my apologies for not being able to get that to work there. let's move on in terms of the discussion. the cultural resources and historic properties. this is a very important discussion for us to understand. we are right there in the middle of the historic property, senior officers quarters, historic district courters one, 10/267. we've began to great lengths to

look at every prudent and feasible alternative to minimize the impact to the historic district. these are prudent and feasible. we went to great lengths in terms of redesigning -- not redesigning but looking at concepts to try to avoid impacts. but we got to a point where with the recognition, the caltransand highway administration, there will be impacts. we need to mitigate those. we have come up with an agreement with the state historic preservation office. we have an agreement in place that we are executing right now which calls for, in essence, the relocation under alternative 2b of buildings 10 and 267 which are located right there on macalla road. and as part of the project, we will be relocating it to the clipper cove area, down where treasure island and macalla road

meet. and it looks like a much better, quite frankly, setting for the building to be potentially used in the future. as part of the redevelopment. as i indicated brief wh previou. we went through a 45-day comment period. all the letters received were positive. in particular, the u.s. departments of interior who reviewed and approved the 4f document that was part of the draft, eireis. basically wrote a no comment letter which from an environmental planning standpoint is one of the best letters you can ever get from the department of interior. usepa also acknowledged that they had no objection to the project. the navy, the coast guard, in particular, have been involved in the project since day one for the last three years. they're all very supportive. we had a public hearing held in march and took public comment in. not a lot of public controversy here. i think everyone recognizes this is an important safety project

that, quite frankly, needs to be built here. the sooner the better. in april, the project development team made up of transportation authority staff, caltrans, federal highway administration, the coast guard, and the treasure island development authority, we all unanimously selected alternative 2b. this shows an overview of the costs for the project, roughly a total cost of just unde under $100 million, $94 million, $95 million range. we do have funding for this project. happy to report that we have program funding from the highway bridge program, federal funds, as well as the local seismic bridge retrofit account. any and all local match will come through the treasure island development authority as part of the project. the next steps, happy to report, the final eireis and recorded

decision is anticipated this fall, sometimes in the september, october time frame. so we anticipate being back here in front of you with an approval of the final document in that time frame, potentially august or september. we want -- we are on schedule for complete design early this year, early 2012. our intent is to move forward with the preferred alternative here for approval, and then intend moving forward with relocation package for the historic buildings and the spring of 2012. and then begin the ramp construction nearly 2013. i think everyone should recognize that in terms of the construction timing, it's really dependent on making sure that we work and are working with caltransin terms of the timing and making sure we, in no way, interfere with the seismic bridge opening project that they have which is anticipated in the fall of 2013. so we're hoping we can actually start construction in early 2013 and then complete that approximately within about a

year and a half, two-year period, and open up the new ramps about a year and a half after they open up the new bridge. and finally, the recommendation for adoption of alternative 2b as the locally preferred alternative. open to any questions you might have. chairman chu: thank you. a question on the cost component you laid out on slide 19. the capital cost o of $70.5 million which i think responds to your slide nine figures. on p top of that, the right of way cost, and construction. are those three costs the same for alternative 2b versus alternative 4? >> no. they're significantly different for alternative 4. i apologize for not bringing those numbers here. but the total cost is approximately $50 million higher for alternative 4. and the challenge that we have, too, quite frankly, is being able to if we had to -- if that were the alternative chosen is to get the funding for it. but everyone degrees, in particular caltrans, the bay

bridge, in making sure we tie this ramp in so it doesn't impact their new structure on what's called the single anchor suspension. we all agree the location of these ramps, alternative 2b is superior. chairman chu: thank you. why don't we open this item up for public comment at this time. i've got one speaker card, francisco decosta. and if there are other members who wish to speak on item 7, please do line up as well. >> let me address one particular issue when we're evaluating the presentation. i'm going to, because of limited time, i'm going to just focus on the cultural. so the gentleman points out that there are two buildings, maybe landmark, historic, that have to be removed. not a mention of [indiscernible]

brought to my attention by an examiner, reporter, john upton in which i'm following from a position because i represent the first people on this matter it means nothing at all if the department of interior or the national parks service write a letter and say they have nothing to comment. they did the same on the field until we found a shell mound, and then there was plenty to comment. what i'm saying is, we do need the bridge, we do need to address what is relevant through our contemporary civilization and the mess that we have created by creating so many vehicles and polluting the air and so on and so forth. but it's only right to have a check list.

[ tone] and they have to be addressed some of us are not sending in our comments when it comes to the environmental impact studies into the federal system or the environmental impact report. we have to watch. and we have to point out and represent. [tone] we have to be educate sod that -- educated so they can answer relevant questions. thank you very much. chairman chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on item 4? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to send this item forward and to adopt alternative 2b as the preferred alternative. can we do that without objection? ok. thank you.

item 5. >> recommending programming $579,000 in san francisco safe routes to school capital funds to the san francisco municipal transportation agency for the sunset elementary school and a.p.giannini middle school. >> good morning. i'll do a brief presentation. we also have staff members here to help speak to the project and answer any questions. by way of background, the metropolitan transportation commission programmed to the bay area counties. 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