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 this. the central project in terms of muni operations. the project is advancing the safety improvements along the track and we are seeking clarifications on the interplay between this project and the far east side connections project to try to seek acceleration of acceptable platforms on the avenue over the one that is currently there. supervisor avalos: i do appreciate going over the site, you took me there about a month and a half ago. based on that, we had those tracks along the walkway. those were shut down for a month

and the tracks were moved to create space and safety for pedestrians going through there. that was a big part of that effort by and raising awareness and it was really great to see. there was a little more space but there is a lot more to do. when i look at the improvements being made to the grignard, that is something that affects the whole city. so, i look at that allocation as something that is mostly for the whole city. also, boarding areas for people that occupy this land. an area that is in critical need of increased safety measures for pedestrians. i am worried that it is an accident waiting tappan. >> thank you very much. clearly, this was the case where

it was a regionally significant transit hub that required a great deal of correlation. >> share of the lows, when i first started working at the authority back after lincoln's assassination, i remember raising an issue guererro street and being lectured for someone who had been here for a long time and that in san francisco, every street was a residential street and things could not be categorized in an antiseptic way. this is a neighborhood where, as you say, it is home to one of the most important rail facilities in the city, but it also has one of the highest writer should figures in the city. people that are transit users. huge numbers.

it is not reasonable to subject them to the kinds of safety concerns that you and i observed with the mayor on that block. it is great that actions have already happened to move that into the interim measure while we get the other what we're done. but other improvements need to be made in that area for the rest of the neighborhood. so that it is not just the neighborhood serving as a maintenance staging area for the rest of the city, who can take advantage of the writ service that is there. that is the connection between land use in transportation. we are connected to making sure that that is the example of how it can be done. >> thank you. the last two comments on contact 60, the location listed on page

158, this is for construction of a project that was primarily funded in the design phase, including locations throughout the city that are getting done at the same time. what i wanted to highlight about this and its relationship to another project we are hoping to fund is the boulevard traffic signals project. contracts 60 originally included design that was shifted to the sunset boulevard traffic signals project, funded by the federal highway safety improvement program grant. including signals on federal funds and transportation bills. the mta starts their project in july. the funding for contract 60 includes several sources, including cameras from the prior

signal contract, as well as savings from a swap that be brokered in 2008 related to the bicycle pedestrian program funds in the golden gate park area. the last thing i will draw your attention to is that there are something like half a dozen project requests that were submitted incomplete. i think that i large number of those are coming to you next month and i are of interest to a lot of folks. there is the department of public works 19th avenue landscaping project to not lose a federal earmark. there will be another project for the safety director, posting speed limit signs around schools and city centers. intersection improvements, reopening a crosswalk, and the

enterprise asset management system project. but one piece of good news we have been seeing in the construction changes that resulted in significant savings, the 19th avenue signal upgrade project, phases one and two, it was done at the 5050 arrangement. the bottom line is that the city has been returned $3.2 million. those funds will come back and some of the projects that i mentioned will benefit from those cost savings. >> thank you. commissioner? >> if you could briefly show us the mission details in geneva? i think that that one is in desperate need of care and want to work together on it. >> this came out of a committee

transportation plan authority meeting. supervisor avalos: plans were in place by the excelsior action group a couple of years ago to do some improvements, switching the bus stop from one side to the other, but nothing has happened since then. i thought that something was in place. >> i am not prepared to talk in detail, but i can send you any information we have. yes, that intersection, there are three that were going to be constructed at that intersection. the other major improvement is the career right hand turning lanes for a pedestrian area in the northwest corner. those are the three or four major improvements, including moving overhead lines and upgrading the pedestrian signals

at the intersection. but they are pretty comprehensive. >> good to hear. if there is anything else that can be tackled in the process, especially on the southeast side of geneva, it could use a lot of work. we will make sure that happens. supervisor campos: thank you, commissioner. supervisor wiener: if i could just make a request, since we will be voting on the next month, between now and then could you provide a breakdown, listing the projects materials. i am going through it, it is sometimes very hard to tell and not intuitive. i want to make sure that we have that that would be taken into consideration as well. >> i would be happy to provide that for you.

in the meantime, if you have any curiosity about a specific project, it is deposited inside. but we will summarize it. the very first page. >> status for each project. a summary would be terrific. thank you. supervisor campos: two quick questions on two separate things. i suppose that you have an updated allocation requests that will incorporate some of these projects in the intersection improvements. i just wanted to say that for the 19th cabinet item, that is an item that has been a long time in coming. having been watching 19th avenue for quite some time, we have 80,000 vehicles that pass by each day. southern the people do not think about is that it crosses through

the residential areas. for all sorts of reasons we have also heard from bgh about the fact that there is a lot of high-level particulate matter admitted because of the high level of vehicles. people might say -- why would we foot landscaping as a part of that? it is sort of a process of saying that landscaping will help with traffic calming and the public health issues that you have been so many vehicles passing through the area. i do know that it is something that has been long in coming. we had to make sure that we reduce the speeds and got people not to park on the sidewalks. to strike the land -- the lanes and get transit approval. i am glad to see that this is possibly something that will be coming up. the question that i did have was on the holmes. it sounds like an interesting idea, particularly because it looks like there is a thought

around how to create neighborhood walkable areas that do not necessarily have the high speeds of vehicles that prevent people from enjoying the area. i wondered if anyone who was developing that idea could speak more about it and the ideal conditions on which it would be created >> absolutely. -- created. >> absolutely. thank you, commissioner. you have clearly highlighted the advantages of the home fund, which is to make it clear to people in the neighborhood that this is a place to expect people, particularly children. there are selections of the area that reflect a confluence of a perfect storm for this