in item #6, the update on the central subway. let me say that item number for past. as i recall, unanimously. it was not controversial. although there were a number of questions this -- discussed regarding the timing of the bicycle improvements. but this citizens advisory committee recommended this particular action, for your consideration. item number five, the recommended approval of the san francisco bay area block grant advocacy principles, was not on our last agenda. there is work to do, particularly updating the progress of that. the last item on your agenda is the update on the subway project.

let me say that a number of questions were raised during our meeting on this item. many of them had to do with the recent grand jury report that has been made public. three of the questions, actually, came up during and before the meeting. i not only want to relate those to you, but staff and consultants have been very thorough in their response to the citizens advisory committee. we want to commend you for that transparency and factual discussion. the third question released by the committee during the staff report on this information item, first, what is the estimated cost of the cancellation of the

central subway project? what is the estimate for redesigning the project? thirdly, we wanted to know how the phones were used. and how it served as a portion of the local match for the federal news funds in two. staff has been provided by the cac with a response to these questions. i wanted to share them for the purpose of putting them on the record. the cost of the central city subway project is at approximately $215 million. the estimated cost of displaying the project, and i assume that all of these are pursuant to comments in the report, $348

billion. essentially, the value of the third street, phase one library on this project, about 648, if i understand this correctly. the total, local match, and i think i am looking at this wall, 2,226,000 -- looking at this wrong, 2,226,000. we have submitted this information for your consideration. yet we continue to look for better ways, throughout our meetings, and we will be back to you after our next meeting but some of those. supervisor campos: thank you. supervisor avalos: i really

appreciate cac's work on all of these items. i am just curious, is it your belief that these were actions that the cac would recommend? >> to answer that question, it was strictly information on the part of the committee members. there was controversy on the committee on around what was anticipated to be a cost associated with the recommendations that appeared. recommendations from a grand jury. there was no recommendation behind the cac that this item be dropped in any way, nor should

the city backed down from the amendments made on this project. it had been a public vote of prop k implementation with residents voting on the item. supervisor avalos: the position was taken in the grand jury report as well? >> no position was taken in the grand jury report. staff will provide additional information to members of. -- members. i would not want to prejudge, but i find it unlikely. >supervisor campos: thank you very much. is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this item?

if so, please come forward. you each have three minutes. >> supervisors, my name is francisco dicostra. i was at a meeting sometime ago when there was not a representative from the cac. i had made some comments. to the best of my recollection, there were three or four times that this happened. after i spoke, other comments were made. some by a supervisor who is sitting right there. some by others. commenting on, and someone makes some comments, just because you have the authority to put down a comment.

having said that, it person coming here to deliver a from the cac rarely substitutes for someone else. you stated that. especially when it comes to big projects, we need, through accountability and transparency, either the san francisco government transportation authority needs to find out whether the citizens advisory committee has the right of representation -- for other people who are in the know about transportation issues and environmental reports. other data is linked with transportation. they could give that input. i have been following the project. more or less, it was supposed to

cost $900 million. suddenly, it will cost $1.6 billion. it is very good to represent, but what i am looking at for the citizens of san francisco is to leave the ship. there is a big difference between being a representative and being a leader. when statements are made about huge sums of money, we do not want people paying from the constituents. we vote for you. they could meet -- good leader knows their way, shows the way, and goes away. some representatives are in the pockets of big developers. if you read the newspaper, there was some mention about so and so

and so and so, talking about this. i am saying that the cac is not aware of that, they should be made aware of that. [tone] supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak? seeing no one, public item -- public comment is closed. clerk, please call the next item. >> item #4. recommend allocation of $135,000 in prop k funds, with conditions, to the san francisco municipal transportation agency for two requests, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules. this is an action item. >> this item begins on page 19 of your packet. both of the projects being described this morning are included in the amended prioritization program category, which you heard at the september

meeting. 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 ha