we will provide that information. commissioner olague: the reason i raise that, in the past, when issues a transit-oriented development projects have come before certain bodies, the equity issue is not really emphasized. there are no goals relating to abag numbers, any of the above. just wondering, again, the methodology. what commissioner kim raised. that is where i have concerns, when we say we are meeting these equity goals, i am not clear what that really means. i know there have been some projects in certain districts that have captured more on the affordability level. i am not sure how some of these projects relate to the workforce, workforce needs.

that sort of thing. i know we have 315 locally. the issue of equity, as it relates to sustainable communities strategies is, i think, made at this point. i would like to see more specificity, as i mentioned, around that. even just including that word, what does equity mean? i just have some questions. thank you. >> ok. >> i am sensitive to the time. i will go through this quickly. we will be back before you next month and the following month because we are getting into the exciting part where the water is actually boiling on the rtp process. i also want to credit liz and william for spending too many nights working on this, as well as our project sponsors.

this has been an effort with the entire city family, and today, dpw, and so forth. i will talk briefly about project priorities. for those of you who have not been following the rtp process, it is a many-headed beast. it is establishing the long range vision, as the executive director alluded to, but also serves administrative functions. in some ways, this project was is precisely that. rtp is a gatekeeper. in order to be audible to compete for state or federal funds, to get a decision such as and eir, your decision is to be consistent. our focus would working with product sponsors is to make sure in this rtp to any project that meets state or federal funding or needs a federal decision before the next update is in this rtp. at least your prick phases. i should clarify. in terms of san francisco, establishing our long-range

priorities happened to the transportation countywide process. we have spoken about that before. in october, we last came to this committee talking about a call for product of the issue for artificially high targets. it was a $6 billion target that we put together. that is in your packet, page 116. this slide summarizes it. in a nutshell, this is one of those administrative functions. any project need to be in the rtp in the next five years, we wanted to make sure it was there. so far, we have been successful in that. if you look at the project list in your packet, pages 130, 131. 130 is a list of programs. the majority of the projects

are street rehab. did not need to be looked at individually. on 180, there is a list of shorter projects and programs that need to be looked at individually. mtc sets criteria based on federal law, capacity, something that needs to be called out individually. we had this initial large target of $6 billion. we recently got a fiscally constrain target of $1.3 billion. the fund sources up there. state regional improvement program funds, tradition enhancements, surface transportation programs mitigation quality, and assume the role of our sales tax. this rtp goes to 2014. two things. mtc is calling these discretionary funds, private

county discretionary. the county its first say on how to use them. all of these funds have to come back to us anyway except for the max funds appear this is also a tiny piece of the discretionary funds. there is about $60 billion in discretionary funds. mtc is asking us to make a fiscally constrained list of products without having all of the public pieces. we are missing some big funding sources. $16 billion in transit formula funds will use primarily for rehab of bart and caltrain, $14 billion in honor the veterans affairs that mtc is assuming. another $2.7 billion in new bridge tolls. we have no idea how these will be directed to investment in the region transportation plan, but we want to be advocating that we get our fair share. with the good spirit and collaboration of our project

sponsors, at a phasing of projects and assumptions about getting future new starts and small start funds for future expansion projects. we have been able to keep our list of regional projects in the rtp. we have often taken a stance. we have identified some regional projects that we think are important. growing local money at them with the idea that mtc will add regional discretion on money so they can be included in rtp. we have included transit operators and our sister congestion management agencies in this. that is evolving. it involves things like enabling potential crossovers at some key places. we know the inner core of the bart system is at capacity. we know where the constraints are.

but there are changes made, that they allow bart to turn around trains during peak time. it is a product that is not well defined at all, and this is something that we are advocating for. we want to at least see funds for further feasibility studies and scoping of the project. we also came to this committee a few months ago about the one bay area block grant. he should be familiar with the second street discussion last month. this encompasses the transportation for livable communities, safe routes to schools, local streets and roads, regional bike program. this body will have the opportunity to decide how much funding from the block grant to spend on each of those four programs. we would be done about $30 million from the program. i will not go into any details except to note, in january, and

to see released our revision of the program in response to a large volume of comments received throughout the region. in line with commissioner kim's projects, we are and out liar. they try to get consensus on the regionally elected bodies. that is difficult. here we are making a lot of comments on the framework. there is still a great deal of resistance about some of the requirements in there. by and large, the revised framework will stay pretty much as it is. what it does is innovative. but it does not benefit san francisco. it links transportation funds to the land use item, particularly to the production and planning processes for the housing. i want to thank our mtc commissioner and commissioner avalos. abag did change their allocation formula to more heavily with the production and planning for low- income housing, which benefited

us directly, but is also an important recognition. commissioner avalos: i did not realize there were anti the placement -- there was anti despite the language removed. >> good point. it was originally included as a policy suggestion. we suggested that this be a mandatory policy. mtc has taken it out of the revision in january. i know that this was discussed at a joint committee. mtc commissioners and others asked that this be added back, so there is an opportunity to do that over the next couple of months. commissioner kim: what does it mean, the removal of the affordable housing production policies? >> the original framework. it was about four policies. in order to be eligible to receive funds through the block

grant, a jurisdiction would have to be two of the four policies. mtc and abag was getting a lot of push back from others who felt like they had a week influence of the land use side. unfortunately, that is what we try to incentivize. they eliminated the requirement and left just these two policy requirements. jurisdictions in order to be eligible have to have been certified housing element and be complete with a street project. commissioner kim: what we specifically pushing for, what was incorporated in obag, do demanded that we have to meet a certain number previously? >> of what we're advocating for, as a prerequisite to these funds, and jurisdictions have in place some anti-displacement

policies so that we do not see negative a fax from something we're trying to do. provide housing. there was pushed back from that from the region and we are advocating that that be added back to the final framework. that is something that we'll have to work with commission at avalos and mtc commissioners to get back in. commissioner kim: thank you. >> this is an exciting time frame. we have today -- we have to make a compelling presentation to the joint committee on the historic streetcar expansion project. that would be on march 9. we are confident we will get an exception on that. the time line is extremely tight. we do not have the full picture. we are waiting for mtc to release drafts and investment for the entire spectrum of regional funds, what projects will receive that funding. particularly important for the regional projects, multi-county projects, and other big county projects. right now, the schedule is for

official adoption of the land use and transportation side in may, but we have less than two months to get there. with that, i would be happy to answer questions. commissioner avalos: 84 the presentation. we will go on to public comment. >> good morning again, andy thornton. there was lots of information there. for the one bay area grant, we will be coming back to spend money this spring. cycled two of a call for projects. there is one more thing that the s.f. bicycle coalition and regional advocates are asking for. we support the notion of delegating to the county's a block grant. here in san francisco, we are smart enough to do the right

thing and apply that sophisticated lea. let's stop still piping and bring multiple policy goals and stretched the money further. the one thing we are concerned about in terms of blending is the safe return to school. in the first cycle a couple of years ago there was $70 million in the original program. you know in san francisco we have begun a safe route program, a very successful, still young. we are only at 15 schools. we believe it is important to maintain that amount at $70 million. that will mean san francisco county gets about $700,000 -- actually, i think we will get $1.25 million. the short of this is, we are asking mtc representatives and abag to please ask mtc to restore safe routes to $17 million. we are fine with lending everything else, but safe routes

is different and young and special enough that we need to give them special protection to make sure it all go to safe routes. commissioner avalos: thank you. next speaker please. >> when the young lady spoke about equity, we had everybody jumping and asking questions because this city does not like to hear the truth. now, if in the southeast sector, which is the last frontier, we know there is a high incidence of cancer, asthma, and other chronic diseases. it is a requirement -- i will push for this at the mtc. i will push for this at a congressional hearing. you folks, if you dare to build so-called affordable housing on contaminated soil, and in an

area where the bay area air quality management district daily shows a report in excess of asbestos structures, this has to be reflected in our decision making. now, there are some agencies, because they are governed by state laws, which you have not read, and which the san francisco county transportation authority thinks it can hoodwink people in the southeast sector. we will bring them forward. discretion of equity has to be discussed in the community itself. city hall can discuss it and make some policies and think everything is ok, but we need to go to the community so that we can tell them exactly over a 20- year period how we are going to address quality of life issues. we need to keep this simple.

a lot has been said. a lot havs been diatribe, verbosity. we need to keep it simple. affordable housing needs to be built in an area that addresses quality of life issues. thank you. commissioner avalos: thank you, if there are no members of the public that would like to comment, we will close public comment next item. >> item 8. recommend adoption of the fiscal year 2012/2013 transportation fund for clean air local expenditure criteria. this is an action item. >> good morning. tfca come from a registration fee on motor vehicles. of the $4 collected, 60% goes to the bay area air quality management district. as the program manager for these funds, the authority develops the program and projects for

these 40% of funds returned to san francisco, which are about $700,000 a year. part of this process includes reviewing the local expenditure criteria. project eligibility in terms of project type and cost effectiveness criteria are largely determined by the air district and by the tfca legislation. local expenditure criteria presented today are similar to those used in the past several cycles and have worked well for other tfca programs. the tfca program is generally not oversubscribed and the authority's projects have tended to fund all other projects. with that, i can take questions on the tfca project or the item in front of you. commissioner avalos: thank you for your presentation. we can go on to public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed.

colleagues, this is an action item. without objection. next item. >> >> item 9. introduction of new items. >commissioner avalos: any new items? next comment. >> public comment. >commissioner avalos: seeing none, we will close public comment. >> item 10. adjournment. commissioner avalos: we are adjourned.

♪ meet cathy, who's lived most verywhere, from zanzibar to barclay square. but patty's only seen the sight, a girl can see from brooklyn heights, what a crazy pair! ♪ cathy: oh my, patty. did you find all your files? patty: finally! who knew it would be this much work when richard and i decided to retire! cathy: well, what are you going to do first? patty: we're heading down to brooklyn heights and start in on that social security paperwork. cathy: why would you do that? patty: what do you mean?

cathy: it's so much easier to log onto socialsecurity.gov and file online. patty: what if i need to know how much money i'll be getting? cathy: online. patty: what if our address changes? cathy: online. patty: what if i want medicare too? cathy: online. patty: so, how did you get so darn smart anyway? cathy: online! ♪ when cousins are two of a kind! ♪