we have a question from supervisor cohen. commissioner? supervisor cohen: thank you very much. good morning to my fellow commissioners. good morning. i have a follow-up question on and the local issues section that specifically relates to what your talking about. i was a little unclear. are you telling me that the transportation authority is pulling out of supporting transportation around that area and you will be yielding to the mayor's office of budget? >> no, quite the contrary. we have a long-term commitment already made to the completion of the station at the end of the third street line. that is essentially pending assignment that we have on that. that is at the subject of a long-term process and study.

it is also linked to the bi- county study to try to sort out transportation in the entire southeast corner of the county and its connection to development opportunities south of the county line. we have a longstanding commitment to do the right infrastructure investment from the sources we have but also to team up with the jurisdictions in san mateo county to be about to essentially an advocate for all of the improvements along the 101 corridor that are necessary, to make sure that development at scj;age ;pcl and all -- at schlage lock, also including candlestick and others, are achievable and that we have infrastructure with another piece of the city that has the appropriate about the

transit service. it does not begin to look like a suburb. a car-driven suburb. we have a full commitment to that. the glitch in the current picture we have is with the disappearance of the redevelopment agency, we do not have a concrete development plan anymore for the schlage lock site. so we're building transit and building walkable infrastructure, and then we do not have anything happening there. so we are, i believe, but a vector of advocacy to make something happen at schlage lock and to make something happen that is good and includes affordable housing and the amount of density that is necessary to make that area turn into a real neighborhood anin sn francisco. supervisor cohen: perfect. are you aware of any movement on the state level? you talk about how the

redevelopment project area is not able to qualify for ifv dollars. is there a movement afoot to begin to get the schlage lock and other redevelopment project areas designated and qualified for ifd financing? >> yes, commissioner, although i would characterize it as embryonic at this point. we are not the only area or a municipality in california that has been left hanging by the -- especially, the suddeness of the change with redevelopment. there is a forming a coalition, especially urban core jurisdictions like san francisco, oakland, to some extent san jose, and some of the older cities in southern california. they are looking for an opening legislatively to try to find some relief. supervisor cohen: my specific

question is, are our legislators actually moving to introduce that legislation? >> yes, there is a movement underway. i do not know, however, that we will see a successful bill this session. if nothing else, because only so many ways to deal with this issue of the capture of the value of land development, and the governor has sent over a strong signal in the way he has treated the redevelopment movement. so there is the distinct threat that the governor would not sign a bill this session. so i believe what needs to be done is quite a bit of discussion and negotiation on how a bill like that would be characterized so that it would be acceptable to the governor. that is my assessment right now. that is why i am not giving it a really strong likelihood of having this session. it may still happen, but i would

think that this is a two-year process. supervisor cohen: to piggyback off something you said earlier, the previous plan for the southeast sector of san francisco was largely moved and governed by the redevelopment agency. that agency is no longer. i want to let you know that i am going to be calling a hearing to bring together multiple departments to begin to discuss what exactly this plan is going to be. as of right now, it is piecemeal. you have the mayor's office of housing doing something over here. you have the ta doing some of over here. we need to begin to have a coordinated conversation, looking at all of our resources we have available. i would hope that you and staff would be about to participate. >> supervisor cohen, we would welcome the leadership you could bring to the table on a topic like that in your district. it would be very needed and positive. supervisor cohen: one last

thing. last saturday at the bayview opera house, there was a very thoughtful conversation led by your team and a few of the planners discussing the future of transportation in the southeast part of the city. i want to compliment your team. it was a healthy turnout and very diverse. one of the issues that mr. da costa raises is about the community not being informed. judging by what i saw in the opera house for several hours, it was a good cross-section. so you're getting better. >> thank you, commissioner. on the issue of information, there is information available on our website, the ntc website, the mou, and high-speed rail. of course, the entire business plan was approved on the california high speed rail authority, and that is available on their website. these are public documents.

the entire emphasis of approving a business plan is that it now will be reviewed by the entire legislature for an approval needed in the next mother of two. so while there is a lot of arcane detail in it, the public does have the opportunity to access all of that online right now. so i would suggest that people who are interested in that, simply google california high speed rail authority, and they will find the document on the site. and the ntc will have the mou that captures the regional agreement. supervisor cohen: also in this meeting, there was opportunity for contractors to learn more information on how to bid, where to bid on projects, particularly related to caltrain. >> that is a feature of our website as well. supervisor cohen: thank you very much. supervisor campos: thank you, commissioner. thank you to staff. we have a question from

supervisor mar. supervisor mar: thank you for the presentation. i wanted to ask about the van ness brt in the geary corridor bus rapid transit as well. looks like the transportation authority is suggesting the center running brt and working with the mta to bring that forward on may 15 and to the ta on may 22 as well. my district, richmond, but i think district 5 are a justly awaiting the geary brt as well. i am wondering if you can reiterate the planning and the public outreach and the stakeholder outreach meetings and the public open houses that are coming up very soon with in district 5 and district one? >> absolutely, supervisor mar. thank you for pointing that out. there is absolutely information in the report about that as get a to shorten my report a little bit. but we do have public outrage --

outreach meetings planned for may and july in the neighborhoods to essentially look at not just the corridor in a general but the specific intersections at masonic and fillmore, which have been the source of a lot of debate, and they're the most difficult challenges that that project has. i would reiterate what i said earlier, the agreement on how to design and van ness will have a major impact, positive impact, on our ability to move geary forward. geary has had a very detailed analysis of issues like parking impacts and so on. and many of the issues have been addressed already. i believe that the extra time that it has taken us to come to agreement on van ness will be essentially -- it will be

capital that we can use to shorten the development period for geary. that is a tremendous benefit to the geary corridor. while it is definitely a little bit behind the van ness corridor, it becomes our next priority and probably a major regional priority for brt. i believe we're discussing this not just with mta but with the transportation commission as the next generation of priorities for the federal small start funding, because we think that, similar to van ness but perhaps even to a larger scale, the geary corridor has the ridership already in place, the largest ridership of in the corridor in san francisco, to really compete very effectively at the federal level. there are a few places in the country that could boast that kind of ridership, and those places would probably be applying for rail money already

appeared we can demonstrate the viability for brt for a corridor like that, and i think we will be very competitive for funding. you should expect that within the next nine to 10 months, some major breakthroughs in terms of the development of the environmental document for that project. supervisor mar: i know in the land use committee and with the board of supervisors, the california pacific medical center project of a it is helpful to have the van ness brt documents online brtvannessbrt.ort. gearybrt.org site as really good detailed information with project design. it is very useful. also has materials for a different language communities as well. thank you for the great work. supervisor campos: thank you, commissioner peter thank you, director. any member of the public who would like to speak on the executive director's report, please come forward.

thank you. >> again, mr. chair, the director touched on many topics, but i am going to talk about the southeast sector, which i have been falling since 1985. so we do not have a blueprint, whether conceptual or not, regarding the whole area. that is hunters point, candlestick point, the executive park, and the schlage lock company. but i can categorically state that nothing is happening at the schlage lock company, because there was an entity that had the money. this man is now taking refuge in china. so if the director does not know this, maybe he should go to some other entities that will tell you. he stole $800 million from taiwan and is now taking refuge in china. maybe that would be some sort of information to the director, and he can follow up on that. having said that, the people of

the southeast sector, when it comes to transportation, have been fooled before. i have mentioned again and again, we had the third street light rail that ends in the middle of nowhere visitation valley. but right now, if you look at mta and they want to cut the 56 muni bus. we had to fight for it. the only bus that goes to executive park. what i am is saying is for the people to have a meaningful meeting, for you to bring all these agencies, is fine, but there should be a blueprint. [bell rings] right now, the real agency or a body dealing with all these issues is the successor to the san francisco read about the agency. and i have been attending all those meetings. they themselves do not have their act together. because, you know, properties are transferred. the have to report to the state finance office. it is very complicated.

so i do not know how by having this hearing, the public will be -- [bell rings] the public will be in line. we have to have a blueprint. supervisor campos: thank you. >> thank you very much. public comment is now close. please call item number 5. >> item 5, adopt positions on state and federal legislation, an action item. >supervisor campos: thank you. this came from our finance committee. on this item, where specifically adopting a position of support on ab 57, 1780, 1915, sb 1189, and we're also clarifying our opposition to sb 1545. yes, commissioner wiener. supervisor wiener: thank you. ab 57, of course we have been

engaging in regional negotiations around governance for some time. we now have a regional consensus on ab 57 as a modified with the exception of bcdc which is not in support. other than that, we have broad, a regional consensus on this bill. so we decided to formally support this. in addition to the senate bill, i am for getting the number related to the mtc headquarters -- supervisor campos: 1545. supervisor wiener: 1545, thank you. that would interfere with the ability to move to san francisco. mtc has already purchased the building. i believe the city disagreed with the senator on this. so i think it is important for us to oppose, and we did make that modification in committee.

thank you. supervisor campos: thank you, commissioner peter thank you to your staff for their work. any member of the public who would like to speak on item 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. let's have brokaw on item 5. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. supervisor chiu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor wiener: aye. >> item passes. supervisor campos: item 6. >> authorize the executive director to execute a memorandum of agreement with the san francisco municipal transportation agency and planning department in an amount not to exceed $81,000 for the 19th avenue transit corridor investment study and authorize the executive director to negotiate terms. this is an action item.

supervisor campos: any member of the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. same house, call? safehouse, col. item number 7. >> item 7, authorizing the executive director to execute a memorandum of agreement with the san francisco municipal transportation agency in an amount not to exceed $65,000 for the balboa park station areas circulation study and authorize the executive director to negotiate terms and conditions. action item. supervisor campos: is there any member of the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public, disclosed. same house, call? safehouse kasam call. item passes. item number 8. >> award a two-year consulting contract with an option to extend for an additional one- time spent to parsons brinckerhoff in an amount not to exceed $400,000 for on-call modeling and technology services and authorize the executive director to negotiate terms and

conditions. action item. supervisor campos: colleagues? public comment. any member who would like to speak on item eight, please come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. safehouse kasam colorado? safehouse, col. item passes. >> item number 9, allocate $2,484,200 in prop k funds with conditions to the san francisco municipal transportation agency and $358,625 in prop k funds to the department of public works for two request. subject to be attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules. and in the new signals and size five-year prioritization program. action item. supervisor campos: before we take questions, i would like to give the chair of the committee an opportunity to say anything. ok. in terms of questions, commissioner carmen chu supervisor chu: thank you very

much. i just want updated information about the 34th avenue and lincoln intersection. we have seen a lot of comments from surrounding neighbors about that intersection, so i would like an update. thank you. supervisor campos: great. let's open it up to public comment. any member of the public who would like to speak on item number nine, please come forward. >> mr. chair, at plans and programs i spoke about this issue. i have also sent an e-mail to your office to look at the traffic signal at san bruno and stockton. i have heard from the mta director. he is on the ball regarding this issue. but we still need a process where we have a list of all the projects that are in the pipeline so that we can follow- up. we keep making promises here, but we need some sort of

accountability and transparency. as was mentioned in plans and programs, not all the districts are treated fairly regarding this issue. so maybe someone can look into that. thank you very much. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. da costa. next speaker. >> the broadway project is another example, along with masonic, that demonstrates an inconsistency in the street tree policy. we're planting new trees, but at the same time we're really wishing dpw trees to property owners because of lack of funding. i believe that there should be -- a review. and the diligent responsibility should consider all relevant information. also to be informed and understand the complete financial consequences of a policy and proposals as they

relate to the city financial condition. consider the bottom of the financial icebergs for maintenance. in five years, how will the capital project that we are now approving going to be maintained by public works or the property owner. this has been a known funding problem for several years. in june 2008, this article talks about the planning department trying to develop a funding mechanism for street tree maintenance. in march of 2009, understaffed department struggle to upkeep trees. and it was also known five to eight years ago when representatives from public works declined money from the transportation authority to plant new trees because they did not have sufficient money to maintain trees. [bell rings] i request that you consider

this, discuss it, and evaluated the impact of this decision and all other projects that involve street trees, because we're not properly maintaining the ease. on the one hand, you're taking the money and planting the trees. on the other hand, public works is relinquishing control of the trees. there seems to be a division of policy here. [bell rings] supervisor campos: thank you very much, sir. anybody else that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. this is an action item. we can take this same house, same call. thank you. item number 10. >> allocate -- item 10, support the draft plan bay area transportation investment strategy. this is an action item. supervisor campos: colleagues? let's open it up to public comment. any member who would like to speak on item number 10? seeing none, public comment is

closed. colleagues, safehouse kasam colorado? safehouse kasam call. >> item 11, authorize the executive director to execute with conditions a memorandum of understanding with the california high speed rail authority, metropolitan transportation commission, and six other local entities to establish a funding framework for an early investment strategy for a blended system on the peninsula corridor. supervisor campos: thank you. colleagues? public comment? and seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, safehouse, same call? same house, same call. item 12. >> item 12, update on authority projects in the district's two and 10, and information item. supervisor campos: thank you. this is an informational items to talk about county transportation authority projects that are taking place in districts the two and 10. we can turn it over to our chief

deputy. good morning. >> [inaudible] supervisor campos: hold on the double-microphone. >> thank you. deputy director of planning. "highlights. -- a quick highlights. district's two and 10, and we have staff from multiple agencies here to answer questions. next month, we will do presentations on the district's three and nine. for the benefit of those watching, there is a lot of information. the overall goals are to make the board and public aware of funded and prioritize projects going on at the district level. also to shine a spotlight on those projects with the fund deadlines associated with federal, state or regional discretionary grants. obviously, we do not want to lose any funds for our projects. before you at your desk, you

should have two sets of tables, one for each district. in both cases, the first table are prop k funded projects. the second table is everything else, many of which are on both the prop k list and the everything else list. including local match. the last thing is most of the fund deadlines are associated with the non-prop k grants. district two, we have been trying to make a number of changes. i appreciate your changed -- your patience. these will get more and more user-friendly. we had a suggestion from supervisor cohen:'s office to make it more eligible. this does not include the major capital projects capitaldoyle drive, which was touched on. this is mostly the smaller stuff that can be delivered faster to the residents of your district. district two, we will start with

the highlights of authority-led efforts going on. >> thank you. good morning. deputy for planning. i have two slides on our brt projects that we are working together with mta on. as it has been reported, of van ness and geary are both highly competitive in the region as well as in the national small program. we continue to see van ness performing well in terms of cost effectiveness and the other typical measures, as well as in the federal program we are up to about $55 million of planned federal funding for this project. we're still in the environmental stage. the graphic to the left refers to the draft eir which came out last fall. we had a lot of comments in strong support for brt, as well as comments that they would like to see strong center-running options advance. the two staffs of our agencies

have agreed on staff recommendation for center brt with right-side boarding. it would require standard vehicles, both the trolley at motor coach available. the project would reduce left turns as well. we will be coming back to you in may with a full staff report. upcoming outreach is quite significant. there is a lot of interest in this. staff recommendation, we have already been to spur. we will be at the commission of the environment on monday. we have our authority cac next wednesday, and van ness the following week. we're meeting with stakeholders up and down the corridor and injuring multi-lingual outreach so there will be quite understanding of this upcoming policy action. plans and programs will be meeting on may 15. the mta board will consider the decision on the same day the board meeting.

and the authority board will consider it at the may 22 meeting. following that decision, we would then incorporate the lta should it be in the final eir/eis. the schedule is to release the document in the fall so we can deliver the project by 2016, with construction starting in 2015 and opening day in 2016. as mentioned, there is a strong relationship between the van ness and geary projects. there this signature corridors, along with the market street, the countywide plan. geary also has been making good progress. we will be conducting a cac meeting with the geary brt cac in the next few weeks in may. then we will be posting the actual upcoming outreach event update to that website. we're still finalizing locations. i apologize to do not have details are confirmed the locations yet. but we're trying to ensure that

there is an opportunity to learn about the project in each of the four major segments. so we will have meetings in the downtown area, east of the van ness. and another set of meetings in the fillmore area. richmond as well. there will be a focus on the major nodes in each of these four segments. a potential option to fill the underpass. the masonic intersection which is very complex. in the western terminus will be engaging with washington high school and the school community on that part of the corridor. we are available, and we will be making the rounds to the various community groups and ensuring multi-lingual access and materials. the draft eis/eir would continue falling this round of outreach. we hope in the spring of 2013, and that maintains our schedule