be removed or added back, there will be a net loss. in terms -- supervisor chu: in terms of moving forward, i have concern over losing that many parking spots. i understand that there's a need for greater bicycle access in the area. what about the concourse of authority and the loss of that many parking spaces? the capital committee and your entire board yet? >> we go before them in late october. prior to that, the subcommittee of the parks commission. we are continuing to look at

parking mitigation, continuing to get back parking throughout the park, working closely with staff to the point of agreement on design. the other part of this, the reason why so many parking spaces are lost, we are pursuing the design and are trying to stay true to it. there may be some compromise design where we do not have as many impacts. pursuing all of those options, that is one reason the fund the buyout has come from those bodies. we will love have the money to go forward with that design unless we get approval.

that kind of discussion happening at the authority meeting will have to decide. supervisor chu: in terms of conditioning the release of the funding to the point where there is by-in, what if we do not get to that place? how will that work? >> to clarify, mta already has construction funding at this point until we have evidence of another the sign with the approval from the concourse authority. against that, we can release the funds.

supervisor chu: if the authority or the commission did not approve of the project moving forward? >> yes, they might have to go back. to gain approval. supervisor chu: i would reiterate my strong desire to see our organization, given where we are seeing the golden gate park, park to see those two facilities out there, there are so many people out there, the parking garages are already pretty full in addition to the spaces. it is a concern for me for that many spaces being lost. so if you could see if there is a way where we can make this work for all the other entities. >> we agree. absolutely, a lot of those institutions thrive because of people coming in from outside the city. it is important have a good experience when they come to the park. right in front of the museum is a loss of 25 basis.

so the balance is happening much further along the corridor. 25 spaces is still quite meaningful to those groups, and we are sensitive to that commissioner campos: commissioner wiener? commissioner wiener: thank you. i just want to stress the importance of trying to find replacement parking. i have been very supportive of this project. i think it is a perfect project in terms of greater access towards the spine of the park, a terrific project. i supported health the saturdays. definitely supportive of these kinds of efforts. i will also say, not just from outside the city, but there are numerous parts of the city that are not accessible to golden gate park by transit. it will either take you forever

to get there, you have to make two connections. even if you are a accessible, taking the n judah, the park is still huge. depending on where you are going to, it may not be successful, particularly to families, seniors. transit is not always an option. whenever i am in a hurry and i need to drive to the park instead of taking transit, i sometimes just do not go because it is so horrific on a busy weekend day to find parking. sometimes you just cannot do it and you have to turn around and leave. i think this project should be completed and it will be a strong addition. there is so much opportunity to find other parking and other parts of the park. i just wanted to stress the importance of making a very robust effort there. commissioner campos: colleagues,

any other questions? if i may make a quick follow-up. in terms of outreach to the neighboring communities that will be impacted -- and i am very supportive of these projects. besides the interaction with the relevant agencies and have talked about, is there any other effort in mind to do not reach to those neighborhoods, communities? >> i am going to let someone from the sfmta address what has been done. >> as part of the outreach, we both made in mailing to everyone on the golden gate park -- rec and park golden gate park interest list, in addition to the supervisor's office. we also use the planning department's web page to find out all of the contacts, neighborhood groups in the area. we are particularly concerned

about the larger groups, like par, inner sunset neighborhood. we made additional steps to reach out to them. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? i different project, on folsom st., letting people know that they may be impacted, wondering what efforts have been done, will be taken, going forward? >> folsom was coming out of the planning department's mission streetscape program. there were a lot of things from the planning department reaching out on the designs from the project. that is why our project is looking at 13th to 19th. it is a time-into other things going on from 19th and further out. there have been a lot of effort

from our office and from the community. commissioner campos: just not sure to the extent the bike lanes was an emphasis there. it would be helpful to provide more information. i know most people would welcome that but, i know i am thrilled to see this happening, but it would be good to provide more specific information. >> the project manager did reference to me that they did meet with the community. there was some concern about some of the parking changes. they lost four spaces in the project between 13th to 19th mostly because of the extending of bus zones. since we are a multi-modal agency, we are trying to improve transit for bicycles and pedestrians. the private manager informed me that they did meet with residents and discussed those

losses and came away with a compromise, an agreement with the residents. commissioner campos: thank you. why don't we open it up to public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? >> good morning. sf bicycle coalition. we support all three of these allocations. in part by part. the civic center is maxed out for the parking parade. that is a symptom of success. we have to find better ways to bring more bike parking forward. let's try to get that facility at the bar. polls on is a repaving opportunity. we are becoming smarter. we are multiple -- doing multiple things at once. mta should be congratulated for hopping onto the opportunity. jfk drive, yes, we are lucky to

have a great champion in the chair of the rec and parks commission, who is yet another recent convert to bicycling. we hear he bikes everywhere, every day. that will not be enough to break it -- bring that support. but i will say the s.f. bicycle ocean has been helping the sfmta and other coalitions to make sure that everyone knows about this, that everyone is welcome to participate, get their voices heard. i am proud of the work that we have done with the mta and letting everyone know the process going on. the problem with jfk, the east and the golden gate park, is not that there is not enough parking, is that we are not managing it well. this is true all over the city. they're often the case is, we cannot tell people that ucsf garage is mostly empty. the polo grounds are mostly empty and there are troubled that will take you around. to make this and other projects

succeed, we have to become smarter and more energetic about managing the parking we have. we have plenty of parking near the east end of the part. we are eager to help mta, the institutions, rec and park, and other folks make better use in -- make better use of that parking, and get them comfortably an inconveniently from their car to where they want to go. there is a solution to that. that is part how -- of how we succeed, not just with this chip cakejfk facility. golden gate park is no place to have and equivocated crummy bike experience. it is the gem of our park system. a family should be able to have a wonderful time there and should be able to get there from their home, anywhere in the city. do not compromise. let's not have a crummy, scary

bicycle experience for the sake of 54100 spaces. there are spaces nearby. we just need to help people find them commissioner campos. commissioner campos: thank you. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. motion by commissioner avalos. second by david chiu. commissioner carmen chu? commissioner chu: i will be supporting the allegation with the caveat that the money will be reserved until proper approval of the concourse a party and the rec and parks commission. i appreciate the comments made on the importance of having a great experience, but i think, as supervisor weener mentioned, there is a need to make sure that we have access for folks who may not able to get to golden gate park very easily, folks who have families, seniors who might be disabled. we definitely want to make sure that we are looking at all sites

when moving forward with the project. comparable supporting at this time, given there is a caveat that those funds are there. commissioner campos: can we take that without objection? without objection. please call item seven. >> item 7. update on the san francisco transportation plan. this is an information item. >> principal transportation planner of the traditional party. i will be presenting this item. you should have a copy of the presentation in front of you. there are copies available for the public if people would like them. quickly, the transportation plan is our 25-year out of a transportation goals and writer is in san francisco and really helps to frame our investment strategy and prioritize our limited resources and limited street space. it is not specific to any type of transportation or anyone transit operator but is meant to be a comprehensive look and all

aspects of land-based service transportation in the city. it also incorporates the land use changes that we expect in the community plans, looking at the change in the expected trend based on how we expect to grow. when we look at the baseline, incorporates the land use changes as well as the other projects we know will be happening in the future. even though we are investing in our transportation system between growth in the city and passage of time, we do expect to see about 800,000 additional troops in san francisco between now and 2035. many of those will be new car trips. we are looking here at the sharing in our trip-making, our mode share. 59% automobile by 2035. that is a slight change by

today. in the future, rather, but not a significant change, and something that we will be tracking as we move forward. the couple of substantial increases that i want to call out to you. because of the changes in the land-use patterns as well as transportation patterns, we can expect to see significant increases in car trips coming across the bay bridge. about 300,000 new auto trips in the city equates to all of the trip making across the bay bridge and golden gate bridge today, but specifically on the bay bridge, we can expect to see it will% increase. we can also expect to see a substantial increase in the car trips to the south bay. on transit, the increases are even more substantial, so we will need to figure out what types of projects and investments and programs we can make to improve the situation going forward.

moving along to our baseline summary, there are many metrics that we are tracking. these are just a few top line metrics of you want to share with people. i am now on slide 7 for those of you following along. these are just a few that give us a topline picture of what we can expect in the future, if we grow and invest as expected. the non-auto mode share, a first snapshot at how we are doing in terms of our transit first policy, how many trips are being made by this transit first mode. as i mentioned, we do not expect to see a significant change, moving forward. transit hours, transit lines are expected to double in congestion. a 21% increase in delay. also, trips requiring a transfer, looking at the simplicity of your trip, we

expect to see an increase there. transit operating fees. when we look at travel times, a lot of people ask us to look at how we can close the travel time gap. whether you are a motorists traveling in peak or off-peak time, or if you are a transit rider, how long it takes for you to get somewhere by trans during peak compared to driving. we expect to see a widening of that honor to transit gap. we will be presenting a variety of metrics, and we will always present the one that are getting worse it, in red, the ones that are a neutral, and cray, and hopefully, in the case of things getting better, in green. unfortunately, because of the failure of growth and because of the investment policy, planned to import, we expect to see things stay about the same or getting somewhat worse in some markets. we do have four goal areas, looking at moving towards the

new plan and priority that we may want to consider. four goal areas that we would like to focus on. we do not anticipate focusing on just any one area, but the idea is, together, all of these calls will help us get to sustainability. in each of these areas, however, but what to understand what it would take to achieve a key goal of our mandate in that area. economy, equity, and barred, and infrastructure. -- environment, and infrastructure. in the case of economy, we want to look at the change in travel times, could you travel times specifically to sanfrancisco, strengthening our economic competitiveness. how can we grow and not see an increase in that travel time? when we look at livability, trying to achieve our transit first goal of having more of our trips the more non-auto trips.

but transit, walking, biking be more than 50% of the total. and how do we reduce our greenhouse emissions? how do we achieve a good state of repair? so for all of these different goals, we looked at different projects that were based on not only agency some metals, but also public some metals from the most recent round of projects. we tried to understand how these different projects may address the different goals that we have in each of these areas, objective areas, as well as the specific metric we are looking at. across the board you can see a lot of them are aimed at improvements in the southern parts of the city because this is a new development area. we expect to see a lot more travel into that area, and also getting to and from downtown, because of the level of growth in the area. on this next slide, this is a lot of information.

i encourage you to review the information on the website to take a close look at this. this is the performance of these as the original scenarios. we anticipate that we could achieve the commute travel time, the economic goal, but we have some concerns about the greenhouse gas emissions reductions for the help the environment in areas, as well as the achieving our livability goal. part of the concern is, anyone of these aspirational some areas would cost between $5 billion and $20 billion to deliver. so what we're asking, during our upcoming round of the average, how aggressive should we be in achieving these goals, what are the sorts of ways that people would like to see us work toward these goals? also, are they the right goals? some of them are specific mandates, some are policy changes so we would like to get feedback from people on how we might prioritize potential new

revenue sources. still to come, we have a couple of other things. we're not just looking and optimization of tricks in each goal area. we have different types of trepidation analyses, coordination we're doing with other efforts. in each of these coal areas, -- goal areas, we have been hearing could movement. looking at how traffic circulates in the core area. specifically, two of coming papers on institutional constraints and opportunities as well as subjected revenue and potential revenue sources. the next step would be to get feedback on the samaras and others in areas, in order to create a prioritization of projects, to create a financially constrained scenario.

all this would culminate with a draft plan that we would present for public feedback. just a plug of our outreach activities, which are going on now. the focus will be understanding the expected trend and the baseline, as well as getting feedback on how to prioritize the different projects and programs that we have currently shared with people, as well as getting feedback on new projects that we may have missed. in addition, we have a school transportation service. as you know, a lot of people are concerned about school transportation, specifically about how to get people to and from school by alternative modes. in this case, we do focus on getting your middle school and high schooler to take transit to school and what types of changes you would like to see. we also have some focus groups on school transportation. we have some webinars and we have released a second call for projects for people to tell us where we may have missed a mark,

or to present a new idea, with responses due at the middle of next month. commissioner campos: i know we are about to lose our quorum, so if we have any questions, no? why don't we open it up to any public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. in terms of going forth with this item, i know it will come back to the committee. any idea what the time line for that would be, when we would hear this again? >> later this fall, we expect to hear some feedback on the second call for projects. november, december. commissioner wiener: one quick comment. at the mtc meeting, we will be voting on it. i assume we will be doing an awful for the original cast tax. at the committee meeting, i made a comment to mtc staff.

into that polling, is incredibly important mtc has feedback from each county in terms of what are the projects that need to happen, so when they are pulling on issues in san francisco and what sells and what does not sell, what has support and what does not, it is based on the needs of that county. so that we cannot go craft a ballot measure and then go to the g-8 but the mta says we need this, but then the mtc never pulls on that. so i want to urge them to work together on the pulse of we know what would have support. >> jose moscovich. rest assured. we will be participating as much as we are allowed to make sure that point, the people will be aware of the need here. however, i do not know if the people will be aware of the

complete need. one of the important things about the presentation you heard today is the chart about the state of good repair, which is the full life cycle. not just the project, but the operations and maintenance. for an older, mature system like ours, that is a key issue, an issue that needs to be dealt with in any quest for a new revenue source. as you know, the situation we have today is not sustainable. commissioner wiener: absolutely. i love women get these presentations, because it is so important. it is just one of these things that is slipping away in terms of having the funding to avoid a transportation disaster for several decades. the gas tax is going to be a key part of that. >> it is an opportunity. i can anticipate a fight, in terms of congestion, returns of

source, all of the normal discussions we have in the region when a new source of funding is proposed. we will be at the forefront of those discussions with your support. commissioner campos: commissioner chiu. commissioner chu: i do appreciate that you will be reaching out to the different schools. we had been hearing about the middle and high school kids about their transportation needs, in particular, how they move from lincoln high school. i do hope that you reach out to the administrators as well as parent groups. >> we definitely will. commissioner campos: that concludes this item. please call item eight. >> item 8. introduction of new items. this is an information item. commissioner campos: is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. item nine. >> item 9 is public comment. commissioner campos: this is an opportunity for the public to

comment on anything that is not on the agenda but within the commission's jurisdiction. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item 10. adjournment. commissioner campos: meeting adjourned. thank you. >> hello. 9 judge terri l. jackson. the court is now recruiting prospective civil grand jurors. our goal is to develop a pool of candidates that is inclusive of all segments of our city's population. >> the jury conducts investigations and publishes findings and recommendations. these reports them become a key part of the civic dialog on how we can make san francisco a better place to live and work. >> i want to encourage anyone that is on the fence, is

considering participating as a grand jury member, to do so. >> so if you are interested in our local city government and would like to work with 18 other enthusiastic citizens committed to improving its operations, i encourage you to consider applying for service on the civil grand jury. >> for more information, visit the civil grand jury website at sfgov.org/courts or call