any other members of the public who would like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. if we can hear from a staff on some of the discussions on the alternatives and the preferred alternative report has in terms of a discussion around pedestrian amenities and focus on some aspects that would be important to seniors as well? >> thank you for the questions and the great public comment. the lpa report talks about features common to all the alternatives. the pedestrian features like lighting, and implementation of the countdown signal, even eliminating the left-hand turns , the those are really all part of the alternatives. we think that because the left

turns are limited, it will make it easier at have less conflict for left-turning vehicles. in terms of that, we know level boarding and a loaf for buses and we're trying to attempt to make the platforms level with the buses so there is less stepping up into the bus, people can step or rolled a stroller or and wheelchair straight across. we know that the consolidation is an issue for seniors. we did a lot of prioritization to make sure their center around key transit routes. we took into account things like a grade of the street and land usage to limit that. we are working so that right now it is two blocks or two and a

half blocks -- four blocks is the maximum. it would be an additional block and a half for someone to walk if they were in between the stations and we were working with communities to limit how far they would need to walk. in terms of any other specific comments from the public, we know that new york has implemented some features, including a dedicated lained only collection and they have seen significant travel time savings in the running time of the buses. they are able to move quicker and it is a significant benefit and a key component. if you take little bits and pieces, when everything is

together, we have a new mode of transportation. we think we will get the performance of a rail-like experience at a lower cost. it has been rated the least expensive project in the nation. it is a cost-effective project. supervisor farrell: this is not necessarily directed at staff, but i'm the one who proposed continuing this. i received a number of concerned letters and e-mail from neighborhood groups in my district. some individuals -- i see george here and i asked for time because i had not been briefed by staff on the final program. since then, i want to thank the staff for coming in meeting with me a number of times and

answering questions. with anything we do, nothing is perfect and at this time, i am comfortable moving this forward the way it is. the one thing to be clear about what i would focus on was the neighborhood effects. i have expressed this of is you create the issue, how is going to affect the arterial around van ness -- there are a lot of concerns, valid concerns about how this will affect their daily lives and i have talked long and hard with staff and i think them to get more statistics out there. i am in the process of setting up meetings with the number of neighborhood groups to talk about these issues to talk about how things will be affected and

talk about some of the mitigation potentials i have talked to staff that i think will have a real effect and will be meaningful in district 2. commissioner tim mentioned the left turn issues. the thoroughfare downtown is an issue i would like to see addressed. the coordination efforts -- that is going to be tough but coordination is a big deal, certainly as we hear about that, but i would like to thank staff for taking the time to truly talk through a lot of these issues and be able to respond to the neighborhood groups -- nothing is perfect but a lot of the things i have heard over the

last month has got me more comfortable where we are. i am happy to make a motion to move this forward. >> second. supervisor avalos: we have a motion and a second. without objection, we will move that forward. thank you. thank you very much for your presentation. let's go on to item no. 6. >> recommendation for allocation of 12 million preferred $46,818 in proposition k funds with the conditions for nine annual requests. >> good morning, commissioners. on the transportation planner. item #6 begins on page 46 of your package. in addition, each project request form can be found in the enclosure to the packet which

you also have. we received nine applications to the annual call for projects requesting a little over $12 million. project sponsors are able to request funds at any time of the year if the sponsor can demonstrate need and readiness. the demonstration is to bring the projects to the board as soon as we can, allowing them to include the funding in their budgets and allows sponsors to have time to beef up staffing or other resources and have that in place. page 51 -- 52 through 56 provide more in-depth prescriptions on the issues that may be of interest to the committee. the paratransit project would fund projects at mta and is the

only operation project. it would help to repair to under 47 sidewalk locations in the next fiscal year. the bicycle greenway funds the facilities city-wide and i want to note staff recommendation does include a deliverable to provide an evaluation, ethnology and budget for these. the original project -- the funding for his staff would involve -- based on discussion on how the locations were chosen, i would like to note that npa has performed a suitability announcement with the highest likelihood of project success. there are 11 different factors, including slope and proximity to

transit options. the capital improvements at the caltrans station facility would be used for improvements in the short term to remain accessibility options at the station and the bike study would identify improvements at that same facility in a mid to long- term time frame. tree planting and maintenance funds would be used to plant 375 trees in currently in the tree basins and members requested additional information on how the agency plans to proceed with notifying adjacent property owners and we plan to hear an update of that procedure. >> a question on the tree maintenance program. would that include some of the

medians where we have the small shrubs? there is this part of the street that has been for a number of years of waiting around to get funding to do greenery work in the median. >> the project is just for trees. i can follow-up west staff for have them address that issue. supervisor cohen: i have a question on the trees -- we are planning -- planting the trees -- any indication of the time line of commitment? >> maintenance is for five years. supervisor cohen: what happens after that? who owns them and maintain some?

>> i will take a crack and then defer -- the establishment pay is usually three to five years and that involves weekly watering, so it is much more labor intensive and then that planting itself, so it is the most expensive time in a tree's life. the industry standard -- they are on a 10-12 year cycle. one of the things the representative might be able to shed some light on is one of the areas i am concerned about is we all agree we live in an urban city and can use more trees. but we are also finding that trees once the city relinquishes ownership goes to property owners or -- and property owners

are not able to adequately afford to maintain these trees. i have been dealing with a couple of situations in a southeastern neighborhood where property owners trim the trees in an effort to keep them maintain and received fines. we are talking about a $6,500 fine. unbelievable. very heavy for a neighbor trying to do their part. i'm looking for a better understanding -- we're planting more trees that have no money to maintain them. there is also the process where they are relinquishing maintenance of trees to people. before we start planting more trees, maybe we should figure out how we're going to manage the ones we have.

maybe you can answer that. >> the tree plantings are in the and the basin to reduce the trash that collects in the basin and the blight that can be collected -- this is what will be funded on the planting side. >> them from the department of public works, urban forestry division. the funding before you today would be to just plant the existing and the tree basins. dtw is responsible for establishing this trees and ensuring they survive. for the last several years, they have not focused on planting new locations, simply focus on trees that have died or have had to be removed for some reason.

i want to emphasize two things -- the relinquishment of trees is something we have undertaken very reluctantly. but due to successive years of budget cuts, the p.w. is not able to perform the maintenance required on these trees. the industry standard is three to five years so unfortunately, the department has been failing in our responsibility to maintain the streets. two-thirds of property owners have maintenance responsibility for their trees. for those property owners, they have basically been getting the benefit of this city performing that work for them. already two-thirds of property owners have that maintenance responsibility. dtw is actively looking for alternatives to this program and with the planning department, we have a study looking at

financing strategy and it would be our preference to be responsible for maintaining all of the trees in the city and identifying new locations and have a robust tree maintenance program. but unless and until we have long-term financing in place, the department cannot continue to do it. >> here we are, going to be approving green tree planting, $1.1 million with the funds requested. we are planting trees and it's almost like we are creating problems for ourselves 15 years from now moving into the future. i am curious to know if there is any kind of thought around the number of trees planted it times the life span of the tree times the cost of maintaining the tree and making sure we are not

slanting too many trees to where our future budget he will not be able to maintain? >> we have looked at the numbers and that's the basis for the long term strategy we are investigating. to clarify, that $1.1 million is not all for tree planting. it is split between establishment and maintenance. a larger share is going to maintenance because we need to maintain the trees that we have. we're focused only on planting the existing and the basin. they are collecting garbage and they're used to be a tree there that provides benefits for the city so it is important to recognize that these trees are green infrastructure. they clean the air and provide safer walking in fireman's for pedestrians and are a number of benefits the trees provide.

we cannot leave these existing basins and the and so a portion of the money is allocated toward replacing the trees and getting them established which is the largest investment in that tree. the -- in many cases, and only needs to be performed every several years so it is less of the maintenance requirements. supervisor avalos: thank you. continue. >> the last project is the clean transportation program which would fund one year of the program that includes community benefits program, the emergency ride home program and regional ride share. i can take any comments or questions and we have staff on hand from the project sponsors to take your comments and questions.

>> -- supervisor avalos: any comments or questions? let's go to public comment. >> let me advise you on one main thing you heard today. if trees are handed over to the owners for maintenance, the city has to have some sort of letter where the owners have authorization to maintain their trees. with that authorization should come whenever that curtails. let me bring it to your attention -- we had a 400 mature trees on a parcel eight. without a permit, this city and county of san francisco had

somebody cut those trees. we have various departments in this city like the department of the environment, other people who talk about a carbon footprint of this city. but i represent the first people of this area and i can have some say about trees. we need trees here. we need to put our priorities -- if you talk about a carbon), we have to make moneys available. we have 80 billion in this city -- there are filthy rich people in this city. if we talk about private enterprise and having stakeholders who are private, we need to garner some support so our trees are taken care of. this mickey mouse business of planting trees and having

arbitrary timetables to maintain them, handing them over in a nonchalant manner should stop and you supervisors as representatives can mandate some of the suggestions i brought before you. thank you very much. [tone] supervisor avalos: next speaker please. >> i'm with the san francisco bicycle coalition. we are in support of lot of things in this proposal. i will not speak to the trees at all. the original bight share pilot, we are excited that very soon we will have some bite share bikes out, but it is hard work of finding a place to put the man staff need support to get the pilot launched so we are in support of that. the bike facility is a huge success and we are very much in support of expanding that

facility the bicycle greenways are great. we just want to help mta make this an operational thing. let's be doing this routinely, optimizing signal timing for by traffic and finally, bike to work day -- each of you know personally how important bike to work day is as a way to show folks you can do it. every year, people who had never been on a bike before get on a bike and keep writing. in this a very powerful tool to convert people and show them how easy and pleasant it is to ride a bike. as i often tell commissioners, this may be the smartest and most efficient tdm.

i invite you to support the entire package. supervisor avalos: any other member of the public wishes speaker? we will close public comment. when we do talk about how we can invest in bike to work day, this past bike to work day in district 11, we met at geneva and naples street. a really great spot. 10 then and no women. if we are looking at how to make greater investments in cycling in transit, how can we make sure we are changing his biking to work from places further from downtown? that's a great goal to see how we are able to diversify folks biking from the parts of san francisco.

colleagues, any comments or questions? thank you. to remove this item ford with recommendations. we have a motion in the second and we will take that without objection. next item, please. >> item #7, recommend approval of the fiscal year 2012-2013 transportation fund for the clean air program of projects. >> this item begins on page 59 of your packet and there's a presentation you should have. for a quicker presentation, it's available in two ways -- the county and regional. the $4 or vehicle fee surcharge -- the program manager fund receives the other 40% and it is administered by other authorities, including the

center stage -- san francisco transportation authority. for fiscal year 12-13, annual revenues and cost savings from a recently completed or cancelled projects allows us to [unintelligible] one of the features of the program is that projects must need a certain threshold of $90,000 per ton of emissions produced and that is determined by the bay area air quality workshop. project priority types are included in the local expenditure criteria which this committee sought in february and was subsequently approved by the board.

as outlined in the local expenditure criteria, we look at emissions reduced, program diversity, and the past track record. in terms of project delivery, we evaluate projects for its readiness by looking at the funding plan among other indicators to be delivered according to the use of funds deadlines. after screening, we arrive at the criteria. each of these projects -- the projects recommended and not recommended are on pages 67 through 69 of your packet. in terms of the projects recommended for funding, some of the more programmatic projects we have seen in funding cycles like the alternative fuel taxicab program -- i will provide a brief description of each of these you see on the slide and knows that they are included in your packet. we will be continuing the

benefits program for one year with specific outreach to employers with companies of 20 employers -- employees or fewer. the goal is to offer incentives and other than single occupant vehicles. the funds would match the funds which were heard in the previous agenda item in city general funds. for the short term projects, the funds to be used for the design, procurement, and installation of bike parking racks city-wide. these funds will be used to address the current backlog of bike parking rack requests. we will work with the authority to make sure it's in the distribution of these racks. the project will continue the program for all departments, including the purchase of 40 bikes -- the funds would match

the funds as heard in the previous agenda item. the presidio trail project would construct a gap closure past to the larger trail network. funds what leverage the federal grant and $600,000 in private donations to the golden gate national park conservancy. the program funded at the phase one of this project south of phase two. commute by bike aims to shift single occupancy trips to bicycle trips. this includes promotion of bike commuting at sites and development for providing bike parking to employees and an evaluation survey to determine program effectiveness. this program provides two years of funding for the project and supports the recent -- the

project will install just over 1 mile of by claims from the great highway to skyline boulevard. by reducing the number of lanes from three to two, this will match the development act funds. the bicycle route modification would pave the southwest corner of the ocean campus to install by paths and a new bike facility on leigh avenue right on campus. we recommend partially funding this project as it has exceeded the cost effectiveness threshold. who has the alternative taxicab project would provide funding to offset the purchase of 24 new certified or hybrid electric vehicles and five accessible compressed natural gas vehicles. we recommend partially funding this project.

it -- we can apply for funds one year from now to fund incentives for those not funded this year. we have a single project not recommended for funding -- the bay view community shuttle project which would provide operating funds for the hunters point community bus service. the scope of this project concluded the shuttle would run and stop at -- in the central part of the city. the authority funded a similar pilot service and that project has realized half of its riders ship and is not eligible for funds because it exceeds the cost effectiveness threshold. it focuses on first and