island vs coming into the city. >> there is an eastern dock on treasure island at the scene to allow docks to be put in there. we are trying to speak with officials to see how that might work. then that might determine how the side make. >> i just wanted to be more specific -- in terms of -- you do not control where people will be disbursed to. weather is a system where you can come up with a plan -- and it may be free -- maybe you have to pay for the viewing area. you have so many people in the blue area, green area. so you plan the dispersion, rather than letting it happen and not knowing what the congestion will be. it seems to me, if there is any thinking along the lines, make

sure that people go online or whatever -- you get a ticket. it is free, but you go to this area. so you know how many people to expect, so you have some control at least rather than having everyone go to the same spot and be congested. >> that kind of thinking needs to be big into the environmental review. we need to figure out how to mitigate those impacts. that thinking is in process. you brought up using the internet. one of the things we are excited about is time to get a different pieces of data so that people can go from one place to say christie field has this, but it is crowded, so i would rather go to appear 29 and walked up to fisherman's wharf. -- pier 29 and walked up to fisherman's wharf.

i think there are a lot of opportunities, but it requires us figure out what those strategies are and getting them in place in time. >> any other questions or comments? on average, how many people are we expecting per day? >> right now, we have some refined production that really range from the 300,000's on a peak day, 50,000 for a non-peak week day. we are continuing to refine those in the environmental review process, but that is the ballpark we are seeing >> great. -- seeing. >> great. just to put that in perspective, the x games, we had about 300,000 people coming in and day, and that was through art.

of course, for the giants parade we saw multiples of that. >> thank you. it looks like a lot of work have gone into this plan and i look forward to the next version. to promote support a little bit more. also, in the people plan, we do really want to see the water taxi program take up as well. we did not talk about it much today. it is still in its infancy. but if there was ever a motivating factor for that, it would be now. of course, we would need to interlay that with all of these vessels coming in, but it does speak to mike's opening point. an opportunity put into place, things that are long lasting. >> am i correct that we will have another water taxi landing open by then? >> i think it is a little later.

the exploritorium opens in 2013, but i believe the landing is trailing that. they are ahead of schedule, though, so anything could happen. >> item 10. new business. is there any public comment on new business? no public comment? >> item 11. public comment. >> is there any public comment on public comment? seeing none. corrine? you have to say something.

>> yee haw. >> i do not think there is a commission in the country that begs for public comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is corrine woods. i would highly recommend that you not only read the people plan, if you have not already, but on the oewd web site, you can click on --what is it called? the status update is very useful. it actually shows what written -- people have written in about. it would be very helpful for you to add, between now and the end of may. they have covered a lot of bases. but i think you will find, given

your experience and knowledge of the city, as commissioner lazarus has, when she needs to get home from work across the green line, we really need everything written down, at this point. as they move forward, there is a check mark next to something that maybe they had not thought about. i know you guys will be able to add tremendous value to that. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? >> my name is toby levine. i am the co-chair of the central waterfront advisory group. this all is fascinating, of

course. but i think one of the things that this young man -- that his staff does -- really provide an outline for the public. the public is often very unhappy about this and that. the tremendous benefits that are going to occur in the long run because of this. everyone knows we are right to have a cruise ship terminal, this and that. but these changes in public transportation can have a huge impact. think about the changes for fort mason. this is actually a decent transportation coming in there. think about if the hospital gets built on van ness ave. right now, van ness transportation, although they have nice buses, they did not come very often. maybe there will be changes to support the hospital.

it would be created to have these kinds of lists, and it would help to answer some of the people that complain all the time, are naysayers in the project. i do believe we will benefit enormously. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? >> if i could just make a comment before we conclude. i just want to throw a in mywelcome to commissioner ho. thrilled to have you on board. having known you for so many years, it is great to interact with you in this role. >> ok. i now move that we adjourn in memory of morena soy.

>> meeting adjourned at 5:04 p.m. >> 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.