the project presented today is the same as what she would have seen in a september. this is a quick selmer -- summary. the two red are the projects that will be presented today. the current request is the masonic avenue streetscape antiquity project. in may of 2011 there was an option called the boulevard option. with curb lighting and a raised cycle track along the project,

there is an addendum to the bicycle plant eir. the final draft will be available by june of 2012. public review of this document would be between the final release and the mta meeting, set to take place sometime in the summer of 2012. the overall design for this project, the sf mta continues to work on the overall project. we have included in the recommendation section of this request updates on the full project plans and schedule. the estimated dates of this project, as it moves forward. supervisor campos: before you continue, commissioner? supervisor wiener: masonic,

there would be no on street parking on either side? >> let me confirm that really quickly. supervisor wiener: there would no longer be any street parking, whatsoever? >> i am with at the san francisco municipal transportation agency. -- i am with the san francisco municipal transportation agency. supervisor wiener: how many spots are there? >> 150. supervisor wiener: the folks that live there are in favor of removing that parking? >> it was approved at one of the local public hearings. supervisor wiener: how many

people with her? >> between 75 and 100. -- how many people were there? >> between 75 and 100. supervisor wiener: is there anyone here that can speak to that? >> i do not think so. supervisor wiener: it caught my attention that that is a fairly large stretch of roadway. >> it is a difficult stretch to park on. it is not an attractive place to park right now. depending on the side of the street you are parked on. the boulevard option was a direct result of engagement with the community. supervisor wiener: was there a petition in the area? >> no. supervisor wiener: [unintelligible]

>> down at fulton, there was a supermarket and a corner store that we worked with. supervisor wiener: ok, thank you. supervisor avalos: on masonic, many of the streets are perpendicular. id is more or less a major street that cars go down. it is thought that parking would be essential to make that happen. >> that is right. supervisor campos: great. thank you. please continue. >> $94,000 in funds for the construction of a cycle track, located on the southern side of cargo way.

there are several existing traffic circles for that segment. requested funds equal almost one-third of the construction costs. 70,000 from the grant, as this segment occupies the greenway, with $185,000 being construction management. the work associated in february of 2012 showed last one month or two. full project completion is estimated to be march of 2012. supervisor campos: colleagues, any additional questions from state -- for staff?

thank you very much. would any member of the public like to speak on this item? please come forward. >> good morning, mr. chair. commissioners. we are very supportive of both of these requests. masonic avenue is a great example of a complete street. this is a rare case where a community came together, repeatedly -- hundreds of people, actually, participated in the planning process. this is a good example of how a city agencies can work together. this was not just thrashing along, but it was a real partnership. this is by route -- bike route 55. many in the city already regard it as a bike route.

staff recommended looking at the federal review. there is federal money floating around. not as much as there used to be, but it breaks my heart when i see a call for projects. you probably knew that this was part of the bay trail greenway. a really nice update to the trail. putting a separate and comfortable bike way along the trail, visiting the south these waterfront, harris and park, what research that is. both of these are great examples of how the city can work together. supervisor campos: next speaker, please.

>> let me talk as the director of environmental justice advocacy. first and foremost, we need to pay attention to some empirical data. any way you look at it, no data regarding [unintelligible] the ongoing contamination sites [unintelligible] san francisco county transportation authority knows

that we are across the street. there is a pathway. supervisors, you need to ask the right questions. there are other people involved in this project. how many millions of people travel on that for a fair? from the various industries and types of operations? you can say whatever you want to say. it was next to the old power plant for 60 years. over 120 tons of pollution was dumped on the side.

there may need to be report of how clean that contaminated area it is. we need bicycling and restoration facilities in areas where there is proof that the air is clean. proof that the soil is clean. that type of empirical data that you have allows the public to go sailing in the area, building houses on a superfund site, so on and so forth. you take the money and you go with of the flow, that is on view. -- on you. those that live in the area speak the truth. you have to ask the right

questions to make good stuff happened. fine-tuning or moral compass. thank you very much. supervisor campos: is there any other member of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing no one, public, and disclosed. -- public comment is closed. supervisor wiener: if you look at the materials, it says the elimination of parking in the area, but it does not make clear the seven block or eight blocks stretch in the packet. this may be an amazing project. i am a huge fan of st. scaping.

but the elimination of all on street parking for eight blocks on a significant thoroughfare is definitely significant. i am not saying that i am opposed, but i do have concerns. usually we get these things the day before. it is not my district. i am sure that there was a process, but i could see moving this forward within eight blocks worth of parking. supervisor campos: if we move this forward, is still more opportunity to get more information from the full authority board. >> exactly, chairman.

first of all, i want to point out that i have the same reaction. [unintelligible] there was a specific set of circumstances there. the prohibition of parking makes the convenience factor for the residents along the street much less significant. this is a significant elimination of parking. i suggest we have an opportunity, next week, to look at what you requested earlier. asking members of the community

to be at a board meeting. we can hear from them as well. supervisor wiener: i am happy to move this forward, the understanding that we will get more information before the full commission hearing. there are other ways to get information. i do not think it was spelled out clearly enough in the packet. >> fair enough. we will provide the extra, additional information to you. supervisor chu: i think that when you remove a significant number of parking spaces, it should be something that is thoroughly reviewed. i just want to know what that process was and how intensively involved of the community was.

other pieces in the district, where we talked to the community, the meeting may have been attended by a few people or infrequently engaged. there is probably a difference in how many people were involved or not. is there some kind time constraint on this project that we should be aware of? >> i will let staff answer that. we have had no complaints or problems from the neighborhood. i do not know that a label would make a huge difference to the project. >> i just know that they were hoping to start sooner, rather than later, on january 12. i do not know if that is anything meaningful to the

documentation in the process. what i can do is get some information before the next full board meeting. supervisor chu: i suppose that if the issue is the mta trying to start the environmental process in january, even if the item is continued, it would not hurt as long as we make action before january. if that is the case, i know that supervisor wiener would be ok with moving forward. allowing for additional public comment. supervisor avalos: i would rather not the latest and am wondering if there is a way to move it to the full board. we can call it to the full board and here it there. but you think that this is the

way that we need to go in terms of promoting livable streets and recycling in san francisco. it is not a part of san francisco that typically gets a lot parking. the parking is on the streets that are perpendicular to masonic. and there are no businesses there. just institutions. there are not a lot of places where there are neighborhood- serving businesses there. >> in terms of procedure, it would not be the first time that you have taken an item and passed it along to the board for clarification. as we discussed earlier, we will have more information before the

board meeting. we can have more discussion at the board meeting. there is additional information that can clearly be provided. i seem to recall some amount has been completely recovered by restriking streets for ample parking. when we do this on erie, it was a perfect way to deal with these concerns. as the commissioner mentioned, there is not much activity going on. from that standpoint, this is an easier picture to deal with. it is a considerable removal of

spaces. the next time that you have an idea like this, when there is information for the committee that is more so -- settled. part of the issue is that you are not hearing from constituents about parking problems. but for us, it is a little awkward. the agency is doing its job. you should not have to worry about it. supervisor chu: the issue with this item is that we have not heard much from people complaining about this. in other items, we have heard people who are not in support. but on this one, i have not heard anyone. the restriction being -- move your car in the morning, but no

one is parking there any ways. if there was extra time, it did not seem to hurt to allow for additional public comment. i think that if we could send it out without recommendation at this time, so that we could hear more about public process, that might be something that is ideal. supervisor chiu: i have heard from folks in this area that support this project. there is a lot of interest. i would like to move this out of committee. supervisor wiener: i am fine moving it out without recommendation, getting more information before the full authority meeting. at that point, we can pass it or not.

there are a lot of positives in this project. that would be my take. supervisor campos: we have a motion from commissioner of a los -- avalos. let me say that i do support the project and i think it is important to keep it moving forward. i also think that the fact that we have not heard anything from mr. [unintelligible] is a good sign. if we can take that motion, without objection? thank you very much. please call item no. 5. >> item #5. recommend approval of san francisco's one bay area block grant advocacy principles. this is an action item. >> good morning. i will be presenting this item, which begins on page 59 of your packet. we will present a general

update on the regional transportation plan and, also, seek your action on recommending bay area advocacy principles. we have been to the committee at least twice so far in the planning cycle. once at the beginning of the presentation, which was the region being trapped in this planning process. the second time was when san francisco submitted our integrity project -- the entire the project -- and tientirity project. the result of senate bill 375, transportation and housing

planning, which were linked together through the funding process. in the past there was a regional transportation plan created by the metropolitan commission. is an important plan, guiding the investments of the discretionary revenue coming into the region. there are about $68 billion expected to come into the region over the next 28 years. on the housing side, the other regional agencies associated with bay area governments have created the regional housing needs allocation arena, giving the city within the region a share by income level that must be planned for in their housing element. these planning processes have been brought together for a land use element called the

debatable community strategy. it must meet two requirements. one, it must achieve the great house guest production target, by 2035 in the bay area. two, identifying strategies for housing by income level. where are we in the prague -- process? there was the revision scenario, back in the winter. it was the first cut of what a bay area program might look like. in the second phase, alternative scenarios. the difference this that we are actually looking at constraints in terms of how much grove we expect to happen in 25 years and

in terms of how much funding we expect to allocate to different transportation projects. this is the phase that we are in now. we will talk about it over the next couple of slides. we are keeping our eye on moving towards the decision from may of next year. that area includes a land use element that also has the reno. $68 billion in discretionary revenue is to assist transportation projects and programs. more on the scenarios -- the alternative scenarios on the land use side have one thing in common. they all have the same amount of gross projected into the region , 770,000 housing units and 1 million jobs.

ranging, sort of, from the most extreme to the least extreme. the core scenario is the most extreme, with 207,000 jobs projected by 2014. these scenarios will be matched by transport policies. transportation networks are not yet finalized, but they are out in draft form. all of the projects are listed in one of the different networks as a refresher for the type of projects we submitted. i think that the electrification of cal train reminds you of what we are looking at.

that works include regional policy initiatives, like electric vehicle acceleration, technology, telecommunications policy, that sort of thing. the core concentration is also a model for upgrading levels to consider how we might plan for additional units. the reason that the transportation networks are still in that form, mca is about to compete in the detailed project assessment program for every single thing submitted to the region. it will be available in november. the final selection will find them pachinko -- pushing go in terms of our greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

travel times, savings, that sort of thing. this slide represents our initial response to the alternative scenarios. a pretty significant coordination with our counterparts agency. i forgot to mention in the beginning, steve from the planning department is here. this also represents some of my public input in terms of public events responding to this process so far. the first is concern over low level of growth in san francisco. reflecting about 3700 units per year. over the next 25 years, our average over the last three years is again hundred units. the highest year on record is 3400. it is not that this is

impossible, but if what we know about transportation funding is available, and how much we have accepted into affordable housing or other communities, it is a lot. in terms of underestimating the level needed for these growth scenarios, core concentration has been an area of for all of the san francisco transportation projects. they are necessary to accommodate the level of growth in the immediate area. third, we think that we can focus more growth along the bark and caltrans corridor. taking on growth is ok, but it is more the other cities