the project sponsor or congestion management agency to make a compelling case if the project is desired to continue to be included in the rtp. the result for san francisco, on a high performing side, we fare very well. out of 13 projects in the region that were identified as high performers, seven are in san francisco, including some of our local transit projects, van ness, of brt project, more regional projects, caltrain electrification, and also some of the pricing initiatives that san francisco is developing locally. with respect to low performers, there was just one project in san francisco. that is the historic streetcar expansion program. this project has two components to it. the first is building a turnaround at fourth and king

that would enable creation of a new line, e line, and would operate between fourth and came and to the fisherman's wharf. the second component is extending the f line from its current terminus to fort mason. mtc has said that project is at the cusp of a low performer. added benefit to cost ratio of 0.9, with a cup threshold of being one. there have also given cmas information about how to move forward from here. in particular, three criteria that we might use to make a compelling case as to why the project should continue to be considered for the rtp. we are confident that will not be an issue for this project. the project has a significant benefits to recreational and tourist trips, given the fishermen fourth area. the mtc model, there is a noted

limitation and not being able to represent visitor tourist trips very well. we have been working closely with the sfmta and the national parks service to whip together a letter that puts together our case to the mtc. we would also present that at the march planning committee meeting. other low performers -- there were 31 in the region. we are feeling pretty good about having only one in san francisco. they run the gamut from transit expansion to roadway expansion. a parallel effort to the performance assessment was an equity analysis. it can be paraphrased as some bad news, some good news. there was a scenario level looking at a set of transportation projects, if they are implemented, changing how future land use is distributed, what direction are we headed? one of the metrics they looked

at was the share of income spent on housing and transportation for low-income households. for this metric, the trend was a bit alarming. the share of income increases from 77% to 89% in the future. the purpose of doing the equity analysis at this phase in the process is that we can identify that issue, and as the planning effort moves forward, abag will come back with some strategies on how to mitigate that. the second component of the analysis was a project-level of an individual projects. today advance three equity measures that mtc has defined? and do they support a community of concern? with respect to that analysis, san francisco is looking very good. 80% of our projects are identified as ones that have strong equity outcomes and support community concerns.

that is good news as well. commissioner olague: can i have more detail with that? >> at the project level or scenario level? commissioner olague: to see that it was actually meeting the equity outcome. >> we can also forward to your office more information. they looked at three specific targets for equity. one was related to whether a particular project would help support housing and additional, affordable housing. the second was whether the project would reduce vehicle travel in the areas that have a high concentration of particulate matter. the third was whether it would have an impact on the low income household transportation costs, making it less expensive. those three targets, there was a reading of the their adverse

impact, minimal impact, moderate, or strong. in the case of the san francisco project, almost all of them came out at least with moderate or strong support. almost all of them serve a community of concern. commissioner olague: i would love to see that information. >commissioner avalos: commissioner kim? commissioner kim: i just wanted to follow up on commissioner olague's question. you say that they read each project their behalf -- each project that we have. >> what is the question? commissioner kim: i am asking you how they evaluate for the moderate, strong impact. >> i do not think i can give you a good answer, but i can get

back to you more on this methodology. it is something they just released to us on friday. commissioner kim: there are specific goals they want us to meet around a low income housing, a transit hubs. it is not that we are meeting the goal, it is that we are achieving a far better than any county. >> there are two statutory goals required as a result of senate bill 355. those relate to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% per capita by 2040. the second is to identify a strategy to house 100% of the region's housing in by income level. you are right. so far, in the planning process, there has not been a strategy identified to achieve either of those goals. it is not something that they break down by county. in addition to that, big picture, we cannot get the

individual transportation products that may go into the plan and say this one is not making things worse. this is information that can inform the policy makers in coming to the rtp investment strategy. >> to commissioner kim's question, you are correct. we are not necessarily meeting the goals today, but when you compare san francisco's situation with the region and you remembered transit share in the rest of the region is about 4%, and here is about 30%, higher than that at rush hour, and you look at the density that already exists in the city, then of course, we do better than the rest of the region by an order of magnitude. but also remember we are talking about samaras for a long-range plan. we are talking about the next 30 years. it is not about achieving these things tomorrow. what helps the city is a

requirement for affordable housing where there is submitted in amounts of development, particularly on the eastern side of the city. that brings of the correspondence between land use and transportation, planning, the same area where we provide affordable housing. that explains why products to better in other parts of the region. commissioner kim: i am aware we are doing better than other counties around transit, making sure we have a diversity of household incomes new transit hubs, but as commissioner olague mentioned, it would be nice to get the specifics. i know we may not need a pro rated goal each year, a goal that want to reach by 24 a, others will do better. but it is a good idea of where we are at. >> 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.

collects hello, i am director of the city human services agency. we're here today to celebrate an effort that began in 2009 with the passage of the stimulus act by congress has introduced by the president. one of the components of that act was a robust says -- subsidized employment program that we call san francisco jobs now. through that effort, over 17 months, we employ over 4,000