traffic and managing it and people and so on and so forth. and so i guess, this is not just with this particular it seems to be consistent with a lot of discussions that we have around transportation and in terms of where the bodies are going to come from and how it is going to be paid for and are we incorporating that into some of the things that we are looking at as it relate to transportation? in this particular area, i want to know, what you have done and what your thoughts are around that and how to move forward and incorporate it into some of the things that you seem to suggest in your plans. >> what we hear again about this area, is how difficult it is to try to do a one size fits all plan. and there are members one day and not there the next and how

with the funding of pcos and people know when there are no giant's game, and so the ability to sustain the base level of service and float that extra event level is a financial concern, it requires having drivers that are assigned for these calendar events. and the ability to coordinate when there is demand, what we do through the transportation, tdm is a big part of what we talk about is set up agreements with these sponsors america's cup taught us a lot of lessons. what we did have is a combination of people on call

knowing when they are supposed to be running buses and which need to be up and running, and if it not well maintained it will not do well. to know when it will be completed and the vacation schedules and so then the cost of that extra service and because that is expensive. and so you will hear from liz, about the financial strategies. you are correct in knowing that there are revenue and there are requirements of the project sponsors themself and through the transportation and demand and management programs that look at sustaining the extra resource and the management and the buses and the street cars and those development agreements and you will see that in some of the water front assessment categories of strategies, we want to analyze even before the eir. >> and i guess that my bigger certain is the fact that it is not that i don't want these events to happen, i think that

they are great for san francisco. i just deal with the back lash in my district where the resources are taken away and so when we talk about, for example, there is the eir that will have to be done for the warrior's stadium, i want to understand the impacts as it relates to just the area, but also, how we are going to impact the rest of the city and our resources because we are not doing it what i believe the right way now, so what is going to convince me that we have a different strategy to do it the right way in the future? so that the neighborhoods are not significantly impacted as in some cases they have been as a result of some of these events. and so i just wanted to make sure that i put that on your radar. >> if this is the beginning of many conversations like that, the very first is a big eir and we talk with the studio wall 330, and the giant mission ro ject and we know that there is a lot of going on with pier 70

and we are working on now to come up with something this spring and i welcome the chance to come back and talk about what we learned and the tratgies are and what can we do with america's cup and what are we doing now with the giants that will enhance, and especially working with the neighbors, because no one feels the impacts more not just the people who live there but the people in the cal train, because all of the street cars are cued up and therefore they have missed a train. and so i will be happy to continue this conversation and we are kicking off the planning studies and i want to make sure that i do not hold up liz and she will answer the questions as well. just a remainder, that we are under the time constraints because we will be coming up against our board meeting as well f we can keep our questions and comments brief but ask them, that would be great.

commissioner mar? >> let me thank him to asking it in a very direct way and i did want to say that the chronicle did a great article looking at the america's cup plan that mr. albert spent significant amounts of analysis and work on and that the water front that you are presenting to us and the key points that he made that i would like some answers to our how many money that you or the city has to eat when there is 49ers games and giant's games and how that is recouped by the city and as you said it is not just the switch back, and in commissioner's tang's district but, it is also physical therapy loss of the number of buses in the richmond district and the out lying areas and the warriors, hotel and condo development and how that is going to impact the transit, in addition to the existing giants, and the mission rock and current

transit needs. and i know that the spokesperson for the warriors is quoted in the article, and saying that they are willing to pay their fair share and i am just wondering if you are starting to come to more of a financial understanding of what that fair share would be for a number of the entities and it sure seems that the transit impact fees are not enough to cover the huge impacts on commissioner kim's district right now. >> so, thank you, chair. we are not at the point of analysis yet, because mostly, of the analysis is made of the projects is started and that will come out of what is out of the first draft eir and what we have done is lined up the strategies and to inform the analysis and so with that will come the model results that show how much trip generation comes out of each and how much that trip is the responsibility of this projector one down the street or father down the water front and then, i think that what liz can outline is the

fair share strategy. we work on the fiscal assessment at the end of the project, and before it is certificated the mta board want to see what the financial challenges of operating the system needed to sustain the development would be. labor, fuel, and service planning and all of that. it is premature. >> and i wanted to ask the brief questions and i apologize if you covered this already, in terms of doing that analysis, are you doing it only in the context of this projector other projects that are proposed in the area. >> the benefit is to look at both of the benefit and how it is part of the network of

projects that is why we threw the boundary and that is when liz explains how she is doing the fish allocation and she will tie that relationship together. >> we will transition to item 12 and we are seeking approval for the scope of work and specifically for the transportation authority's role supporting the sfmta led projects in the next phase. phase two page 127 of the packet and will hopefully address the points that have surfaced.

as it kicked off that the transportation authority would have a significant role in supporting it especially if we got into the technical analysis of the strategies which is the phase that we are now upon and when that effort kicked off last year, the approach was that as we got close to phase two, we would get down into the details of how to scope that work. meanwhile, there is a lot of commissioner interest from several of you and we have heard that outlined in commissioner kim's opening programs and commissioner or vice chair weiner's remarks and there is a three-pronged context of reasons we are pursuing this work. so based on that, we have developed the scope that you see on page 130 of your packet. this kas developed with the agency and as well as the requesting commissioners and this time line, is useful and just showing a process, and you

just heard from peter albert about the phase one of the work that has been under way and was really focused on identifying a list of potential strategies, that might be available to address the transportation impacts created by the developments. ask as that phase is coming to conclusion, we have been scoping the next phase that comes into more detail. >> and so the scope will be that the transportation authority will be the water front assessment. and a note about the timing, this is off of the environmental impact report for the arena and we were waiting for the most recent design, 3.0 that gives us more clarity on what the proposed project is and so that we can analyze the impact. that the work will be complete before the impact report is

published and to finish the work in the spring and now i will talk about the meat of what we will be doing. we will look at existing condition and we will two years in the future and a 2020 and 2040 horizon year and we will look at two land use scenario and one is our base line plans move forward and no additional land use is planned or moves forward on the water front and the scenarios where the three developments are also approved to move forward. >> and four, each of those scenarios, we would look at a set of corridors, that are expected to be most impacted, by the developments, and we have identified, both local transit and regional transit corridors shown here. as well as local roadways and

freeway ramps that would also be looked at in the context of the analysis. and with this corridor approach. and then, the analysis would nen proceed in five steps and, we would start by doing a efficiency analysis to understand what would be happening in those corridors and how many trips are expected and what are the deficiencies with respect to the capacity, capacity, mobility and flexibility. and we would then, scream, that the inventory of strategis that have been developed to figure out which of those strategies will respond to the deficiencies addressed and we will also add strategies needed that are not needed to address the issues and we would move into the more rigorous evaluation to determine the effectiveness of strategies and those that are determined to be the most effective would go through a round of revision and

finally the cost sharing framework, i think is of great interest that the idea here is that we would use the khafl demand model as well as additional technical analysis to understand, given this set of transportation strategis that we think that we need and how much of the benefit of them is going to be specific to the three development areas and how much is addressing and underlying existing transportation condition, that can thing be a useful tool to understand, and form the subsequent conversations that the city will be having with the developers about what goes into the development agreement. >> i will close just talking about schedule and budget. we expect to kick this work off as soon as we get a blessing from you on the scope and we expect to enter into a memorandum of agreement with a budget and we would shoot to finish this work, in advance of the publication of the draft

ier. >> that concludes my presentation and i am happy to answer any questions and the that cans we are seeking is approve amount of the scope of work for the water front transportation assessment and our involvement in the phase two of that work. >> thank you, for your presentation. and colleagues, any questions? commissioner kim? >> i am going to try to be brief and i know that the folks in the audience want to speak in public comment and i want their input to be given. and you had or it had been alluded to earlier that the price and whether you will examine that as one position option as to how we can kind of go slow throughout the neighborhood and also actually generate the revenue and funding that is needed in this neighborhood and across the city. >> and we have scoped for a scenario to look at benefits and pricing and so we will have that information available. >> right. >> and i think that it is important for the sick of the public and i know that i mentioned this to you before

and it will be able to deviate how this is different from what smfta has done and because we don't want the message to seem like we are studying everything to death and when is the action going to happen? and how is this assessment and study, different scope of what peter and they are conducting. >> i mean that i would characterize this as not different than the water front transportation assessment but just what is carried out in partnership between the two agencies in the second phase of work. what has been done is generate a really extensive list of strategis that could mitigate the impacts. what has not been done is the technical. and so we will do that work in partnership with fmta and plugging into what they have and the intent is not to have one study published that says different things and the other one over there and we are working in partnership. >> thank you.

>> thank you, and if there are no other questions from the commission we will go on to public comment. and i do have a number of cards which i will read and if you come up and line up on the side by the windows by the television set. alice rogers. and rady ladel and john perish. and patrick vaentino and jamie whitiker. >> come forward. >> thank you, for hearing me again, chairman and commissioners alice rogers again, i live in the neighborhood and i also live in the neighborhood. i emailed you all and i don't know if you have yet gotten to my e-mail yesterday about a few additions that i would like to scope for this type of work and in one, i want to be sure that

the air quality assessment does a major filter that is being considered as you analyze the technical and as you do your technical analysis. and in task two, on the local roadway, connecters, i would like to be sure that second street, fifth street, folsom street and beal street and brown street are included. and the regional freeway corridors i would like to be sure that this street, harrison street, and freemont street off-ramps are included. and the bryant street, harrison street and folsom street on-ramps are included and that you also be sure to include the evaluation of the bay bridge carrying capacity and i am afraid that it is far beyond what it can carry now. and on task three on your screening strategies related to

the golden state warrior's , and if you can differentiate between the basketball games and family events. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> my name is katie ladel and i am the president of the south beach neighborhood association and i have lived in the neighborhood for many years and first of all before i get into my main message, miss bryson's presentation and i do notice that on the stake holder list that the neighborhood is not there and i find that unforgivible, i think that we are number one as far as stake holders go. the main reason that i am here today and i am not going to look at my notes is to tell you that we need now, we need help today and i am not here with the warriors or anything in the future, i am just telling you that right now, where i live at main and harrison, i can look

out at the streets almost every single afternoon and evening and see the idling cars on harrison, main and beal and bryant waiting to get on to the bay bridge, i can tell you as i am looking out the window and if i look at my sil there is a black dust as there is throughout my condo because we already know that our neighborhood is the most polluted in the city. i would like to ask for help from the dph to look at that pollution and to understand where we are now. and what is going to be added because i am really worried and i am breathing this stuff as are all of my neighbors, and so, where is the transportation, if you look at mission bay, and ring hill in particular, we are almost bereft, in the public transportation, i had to go to jury duty and i have to walk up to second street to get a ten or a 12. and i am a senior but i am in good condition, but will i always be? no. we need buses and public

transportation, and we need help and we need it now not in the future. >> thank you. >> could i ask a follow up question, did anyone contact you to sort of get your feedback on what the terms of this scope of this work should be? >> not our neighborhood, association. and we are by the way registered with the planning department. >> okay, thank you. >> the signs that the water front transportation and the area and fisherman's wharf and they want to be and (inaudible) who knows, and (inaudible) also the... (inaudible) and the big

experience, (inaudible). the people are nice and the scenery are wonderful. >> thank you i have a few other cards. >> larbon and tory and jessica lovejoy. >> this is john perish, and 200 brannon and i serve on the home

owner's association and you did call my name previously. >> i want to thank mr. albert for the work that he is doing and looking at the broader picture my concern is mainly the 3032 area and because of the impact and if you look at and we have heard a lot about the bridge traffic and it is enormous and we have also got all of the traffic of the commuter traffic trying to get to the airport or the south bay that choke up all of the streets from 8th street all wait down to the embarcadero and so it seems illogical to me that you would put a huge impact project directly at the epi center of the problem and that, and this is a problem that already has the extra impact of the giants on the weekend. and it just seems illogical and then to start from that premise and go to a transportation system and adding capacity to a

system where you are driving to put peak on peak capacity is a very inefficient way to allocate resources and so i know that it is a beautiful spot and i know why, professional team, or business people would want to make a huge entertaining complex there, and it is just the wrong location on the number of people transiting the area. and the number of people living in the area. and it is just too much, thank you. >> >> thank you very much, next speaker, please? >> i want to use the computer overhead and i am going to try to rip through a lot of points in two minutes i have my presentation available on-line at clean air pledge.com.

there is no candy coating the negative community of health of building arena. >> tom refused to support... that would have given the arena, and does give the arena, the ability to be a proper use of public trust lands, and i believe that tom amiano did not support it because he knows that arena would increase the traffic congestion and increase air pollution and result in more asthma attacks in our kids and premature deaths, caused by air pollution from vehicles. i don't believe that any of you support the death penalties of those committing the crimes and you are asked to support killing innocent children by asking to build an arena at peers 3032, and you have seen all of the stuff and 40 percent of the air pollution is from cars and what is already

approved and not counting the arena is going to add 412 more car trips in san francisco and south of mission bay will be 35,000 and that leads to over saturated grid locked streets and more conflict of pedestrian and bikes we need a 20 percent reduction in auto traffic, not adding 500 parking spots on the embarcadero, why is this a big deal? the world health organization last month classified air pollution as a car carsinogen. and it is the hot spot because of the bph and in june we learned that in south market the kids go to the hospital, two and a half times more than the city average for asthma. >> get the department of public health involved, thank you. >> thank you very much.

>> and next speaker please? >> 30-32 and i am in support of the project and specific to today's question at land, the scoping of the water front, transportation assessment and what i am requesting is that we look at this through the lens of public transit and too often when we are evaluating the transit options and we give a great rate to autos first. and i think that we can be successful and i think that we can solve some of the problems just addressed, by changing people's behavior. and we can do that by improving the public transit systems so long as we evaluate each and every one of these options. we give, we give priority to those, that are involved, public transit and non-auto and bikes and etc. and, have one of the greatest opportunities coming before and yous a greatest challenge as well. and with all of these projects

along the water front, and just as the example of the warrior and converging in one spot, and assessment and the results that come from that, and we can see, a better way of moving people along the water front and i hope that with that we can change the behavior of the folks who choose to get in their cars and, many folks can decide not to get in their cars and make another choice, we are seeing a lot of people participate in this process whether they are for or against any of these development and making great comments of the cacs, and so i would have and i am optimistic that this assessment will actually produce some pretty good results, and this is probably an odd comment to make, but sometimes congestion is a good thing, because it causes us to make different choices that put us in a better position, something that we should have done 50 years ago. >> next speaker please?

>> good afternoon, commissioners my name is bruce aged and i am a board member and transportation rep for the south beach mission hill neighborhood association and i want to start off with a few over arching comments and i support and applaud all of the agencies, the pier, 30-32 and the public who are involved in the participation of the water front transportation assess sxment whether you are opposed to the projected developments and i think that we can agree that the transportation along the water front has significant challenge and needs to be addressed. i am confident that between the tep and the water front transportation assessment, the improvements will be identified to meet the needs of today, and additional transportation to support the growth and however i believe that there are two challenges. and without repeating all of the comments earlier today, first to identify and secure funding to cover what is needed, to maintain its support

and current levels, cover to bring it up to repair and enhancement and identified through the various transportation initiatives included in the wta second i am concerned with the long lead times required to construct the infrastructure in the prokurment of the vehicles, the light rail and buses and etc. to meet these demands. two specific minutes, first regarding scope, i am going to show an overhead here. >> so taking a look here, on task two, to include looking at the corridor and the folsom currently provided by 12 folsom and the cut backs from 2009 to the embarcadero to the second street and the proposed elimination of the one seat ride and to the hill and the mission and then second, regarding timing and many of

the tep service improvements have been incorporated. and hopefully they can be prioritized and moved forward. >> thank you. >> i have one more card, rebecca evans. >> and anyone else that would like to comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is jackie sacks and i have heard this and i am familiar with thit em and i agree with the problems that you are having, is that you have got the id of the gentleman that spoke before me regarding the fixing of the transit as we have it now. as far as the proposed warrior's stadium, got defeated in the last election and i read in