>> the meeting will come to order. good morning everyone. this is tuesday march 19, of

the plans and programs committee of transportation authority. to my right is the supervisor jim kim and supervisor and commissioner. our clerk is miss erica chang. can you give us announcements? >> there are no announcements. >> thank you, seeing no comments, let's open this up for comment. is there anyone from public who would like to speak? seeing none, let's close. can we prove the minutes without objection. >> this is an information item. >> looks like we have brian from the advisory committee.

>> yes. i apologize commissioners that our chair, our vice-chair couldn't make it. so you got me instead. we on our agenda have three of your action items all of this pass unanimously. we had no. 4 support our approval by county transportation study final report. we probably would have had more discussion on that had friend, still a member of our committee, but she isn't. she may yet show up here to talk about it today. we also had your item no. 5 which is a total of $960,000 in funds for 5 different projects, 3 for d p w, san francisco state and cal trans. we pass that had unanimously with minimal discussion and the last one we had was 2013 prop case strategic plan and 5 year

prioritization plan and pass that had with a minimum amount of discussion, although the 5 programs funded under 5 k lrt, cal train exception the driver replacement only the glert is not. we are disappointed to hear that. the majority of our discussion was not on your agenda was an update of pedestrian strategy of mpa director for sustainable streets gave a presentation. we are a little disappointed that as a committee that some safety measures like a lot of schools

can't be implemented in the near term because of sequel requirements. we wonder if that isn't counterproductive. that's an item on everyone's agenda now i'm sure. that's all we have. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions? thank you so much. this was an informational item. so thank you. let's open this up for public comment. anyone from the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is close. miss cheng please call item no. 4. >> this is an action item. >> thank you, before mr. fung speaks we are going to hear from mr. david campos. thank you mr. fung.

>> good morning, this is the transportation study final report. there is also an enclosure in your packet which is a final report and that final report has brief executive summary, feel free to use that to follow along as i go through my presentation. today i'm going to talk about the background on the study and i will touch on the project. these study projects are in the report but in the interest of time, i will talk about the interested step. this is reference to the southeast corner and border area of san mateo county where it meets san francisco. in this area there are multiple large development

projects being proposed which collectively add of to an amount of new growth and a collection of formal industrial sites to a very vibrant new neighborhood. because the area is a lot vacate and formally industrial area the transportation system is lacking. the two questions that the county study has focused on are one, what are those major transportation investments that are needed to support this square and 2, how do we share the cost among all the partners involved and how do we implement these projects. there are studies on the san francisco side as well as the

san mateo county. there are also private developers looking to develop these sites and of course the over all community. so the study included ways to incorporate input from each of these stake holders groups throughout the process. we didn't start from scratch. there are a number of transportation i am improvements that had been proposed in the area. some by the developments themselves, some of them are projects, some of them are roadway i mprovements. some are closer and some further away. the first task of the city is to look at what are the subset projects that are of interest so that all partners will join us in this project. the study applies a series of screening and test to make shir there is first of all enough connection

to the new development and second of all enough benefits to both sides of the county line. we are able to draw upon the model that the authority makes and where the trips are going and coming from and going to. so if a candidate project made it through that list of screens, then it became what we call a priority project. this slide, next slide shows the projects that made it through that set of test. it's a list of about $480 million worth of projects. handful of major capital investments, a transit line, a reconfiguration of 101 interstate counter point, an extension of a new local road, the geneva extension and

reconfiguration of the cal trans station. first there are several really intertwined together. it's hard to implement one without the other and then the second noted that geographically some of these projects are located on the bridge of bay land which is part of land that is being proposed for development but for which no decision has been made yet so we don't know what will be built there from a land use per expect perspective and some final key aspects. we acknowledge that this is in isly ly necessarily a snapshot in time and continuous to be made on the land use side. the second major question that the study worked to answer was the question of given the list of projects how do we share the

projects, what are our contribution amounts from the land use distribution and the transportation agency and the private side as well. to answer your question, the study used the cost participation framework to have a basis for this conversation. we drew on the model to give us insight to where trips are going and coming from and going to in the future and what the growth is in the future. they approach being that if there is a trip on the network in the future that comes from one of these new developments, that development would take responsibility for and if there is a trip on the network that comes outside of those developments then the public agencies would take responsibility for that trip. if we go through the area and tally up the trip contribution in this study area and trace them back to the development

and the land uses around, we are able to get trip percentages and if we apply that to the $480 million project cost then we start to see the percentages that's get an attributed and what we see in our calculation is a public share of about one-third. that will be shared between san mateo and san francisco jurisdiction and private share of about 2 thirds. that will be divide among the land use proposal. note this document does not represent a commitment to a particular and exact funding amount. rather it's not the intention. the intention is to provide that technical bays on basis to which to have conversation on future collaboration. so the report discusses some of the requirements and invokation

from various strategies and collaboration into the cost sharing. for instance with respect to the funding strategies, we can pay as we go, meaning we built the projects as we are able to assemble the fund or if we are able to lineup funding commitments and like i said, this document does not represent actual commitment, but if we are able to line them up we are better able to take advantage of them collectively and increasing federal loan programs that would allow us to reduce cash flow in any given year and maybe spread oit the payments among a longer time period. i want to talk briefly about the interest solution that this study created as well. some of the developments are ready to move forward today. particularly in san francisco.

another have not yet had land use decisions made or approvals provided so they are not yet ready to move forward. there will be some time p erred period where the development will be online but not all of them. there will be some demand but not the full demand. the idea to the solution is that subset to the priority list could still fill the needs in the interim but a much capital lower cost. finally some next steps we know that we want to advance some individual projects on our priority list including that geneva transit line. the next item on your agenda today actually includes the question for prop k funds to serve as a local match for a graph that we recently received from the transportation of cal trans to

do a study to look at a new east west bus line. we also know that the city of bris bane is looking to move forward with additional design work with the geneva avenue exchange. as you want to monitor the project as it arrives, we may need to refine and revisit some of the by county projects as it continues to evolve and land use decisions are made. that concludes my presentation. an item we are looking for the final improvement. i'm happy to answer questions. >> thank you, i think this really highlights the transportation authority and bringing together private and public and the community participation is very strong in

seeing this process. commissioner campos. >> thank you mr. chairman, i know we are joined by the authority as well. thank you for an excellent presentation. i just had a couple questions. what does it mean to approve this plan? what is the commitment by making this approval. i know that it's $480 million, did you does it mean that we are commit to that amount and what is the difference between san francisco and san mateo. >> to answer this question this is not a commitment to a $480

million project list. the in investment is to look into what the needed in this area and how we can fund then. the technical participation framework that allows us to talk with our partners about what are appropriate levels of contribution from each party. i think the message here is that as a transportation agency, if we are interested in supporting these investments in this area we have to think about the products in this list in addition to the rest of citywide priorities as we take a look at our priorities citywide. with respect to the second question about the breakdown between the partners, i will direct you to the final reports executive summary which

shows the percentages on page 7 of 78. it shows san francisco percentage of about 19 percent. bris baen about 11 percent and daley city about 3 percent. >> thank you, i just had a question about public involvement specifically one of the challenges that we are dealing with now with regards to the masonic boulevard project what was the it was an approved and there was a huge community process in the area and i'm getting significant number of e-mails and phone calls about the outreach efforts. so i am concerned when making any sort of improvement to a specific plan that the outreach was sufficient and just wanted to know the details of the outreach because it

talks about specifically what you have done, but not necessarily how you did it? >> sure, throughout our process we visited existing community groups. we hosted a workshop that allowed the community to come and see the proposed project, transportation project. we've also been partnering with the land use agencies in the area as the land developments have been going through their outreach processes they have had meetings and created citizen advisory committees and given them presentations on the transportation side of things. and also for the individual projects that we have identified, we do expect that each of the those projects will have projects of their own as they continue to development the transit fees ability is the next step. in creating an

advisory committee that will be appointed from some members of san mateo and san francisco county. >> has there been mail, door to door outreach. because i know in many cases specifically with the masonic boulevard project the complaint was that people were not receiving anything in the mail and not everyone in the neighborhood directly involved with community groups and there is also a language barrier, i'm sure, so i just wanted to know what were the effort around being very aggressive about the outreach. >> we did do mailings and flyers. >> can you go back to the mailings? how was the mail decided in terms of the outreach?

>> you mean -- >> the notifications that might have been sent in the mail, were they sent to everybody within the area. how was that decided. i just want to know specifics. >> it was a big area. we had to hit the radius. if you go to the map it covers a wide range. we tried to focus on the neighborhoods that would be most affected by the project for instance the alignment of the new bus line, the location of the interchange and the new local road. so we targeted to where the projects would be proposed. >> deputy for planning. this is already just an opportunity to remind us that this is a policy level planning and not a project level effort the way the masonic effort was to develop a particular

implementation project. i think the appropriate amount of outreach is you can never do enough but we did do multilevel language outreach to different groups. as in any specific capital projects you will have detailed project outreach where it's more door to door and direct flyering. >> this is the first step and i do understand that and i want to make sure we don't run into the same situation. i know this plan is under way for the past 4 years. i want to make sure we cover all of our basis. >> thank you. >> we have our chair, john avls. >> can you elaborate on the geneva transit project