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 last mile trips and shifting single occupancy vehicles to transit. the fiscal year 11-12 project could not be extended beyond the fight -- beyond the pilot phase. shuttles would not be eligible for future funding. the proposed shuttle include stops in a larger service area but does not reduce enough trips to meet the cost effectiveness threshold and therefore is ineligible for the project. we will work with the department of public health and the current shuttle operator to better understand the need to this project was intended to address

and help identify ways to meet those needs. supervisor cohen: we have a problem here. i understand the data represents that there is low rider ship and my gut tells me it's -- it's does not necessarily mean the demand is not there. i'm interested in hearing some of your ideas on how you plan to assess where the shortcomings are that will speak to this problem. i also want to know how this is going to defer from this transportation program.

>> each year, they changed the rules and they sit on past experience to make it more targeted to things targeted at reducing vehicle emissions. one part is the writer ship which we have spoken to any other part that has proven to be more significant is converting trips from automobiles that are long trips. you get more credit for reducing that miles of travel. this is targeted very locally and that's a big factor in why it doesn't meet the cost- effective specials. our efforts are more focused on is there some other way to meet the need or some other funding source?

there are only too discretionary funds that can fund the operations. the other is the lifeline program. with that one, there are two pots of money. only transit operators are eligible. hear, that would be that 98. we anticipate we would bring member requests looking to fund evening and weekend service on a number of routes that run through the community's like the bus registration project. we came a few months ago -- they have to be a focus on employment-related trips. it's not a satisfactory answer but our hands are tied in terms of spending.

>> leo you and a committee of the briefing on the mobility study. what is exciting is we are taking a look comprehensively at this. so any one organization, we have employers running half and the shuttles. does not mean demand is not there or the need is not there, but it is difficult for a single organization to meet the needs of a diverse population. we are working with the department of public health and a number of organizations in this area to see whether individual products -- projects my people to share services and look at a new model pattern on something we see happening already with the mission and other folks providing services on an individual basis, collaborating and sharing services in terms of how they might be will to combine research and funding we are

focusing on the heels own which is a focused area and we want to begin with a tightly scope pilot project to show the potential for this model to be a better way to provide services to the community and easier on any one organization so they don't all have to be doing the same things and pulled services and manage them collectively. that would be one way to deal with this issue. >> there are a couple of things here. there is statistical data and that reflects that the community

has several grave health concerns. that is reflected by a the investment that not just the city, but community health partners are doing in terms of an investment. the department of public health is rebuilding the southeast clinic. there is a child prevention and wellness center to address some of the concerns. i am concerned we are cutting transportation lifelines to a community asset has serious, life-threatening and data that is established the seriousness of what the community needs. the community is obviously sick and you have major institutions making significant contributions to turn this around. what reason would we be cutting

transportation? i understand there is an outside authority that has set a threshold and standard that has not been met, but instead of cutting it entirely, why don't we modify it so that it is able to meet the needs of the community instead of completely pulling out the program? >> that question would rely on increasing participants or writer ship or reducing the cost of the service. >> we have tried exactly what she said. we would have to make a significant portion be serving -- supervisor cohen: that's another problem. we're talking about communities not connected to any kind of transportation.

from a policy perspective, and all dovetails and is cyclical. if it is not connected via transportation hubs, how can we honor these simple requirement that this lifeline be utilized. i'm going to ask that maybe we postpone action on this item just so that i can have an opportunity to dig in a little deeper because i am concerned we are almost cutting our nose despite our face on this particular item when it comes to health care and access. it is a social justice issue from my perspective and i would like a little more time to talk to the partners. >> the air district. i think that can certainly

happen. there is no fatal flaw in deferring this action. my a sense is in your district will be very hard to budge unless there is a major reworking of the route and service. but if you're going to have that discussion, we should bundled with the lifeline funds but that would mean polling in the mta can to the discussion. supervisor cohen: maybe that is the best thing to do to have a fuller conversation, too: even the transportation authority so that we are smart about where we are spending our transportation dollars and not being wasteful. i would like to put a motion -- supervisor kim: i would second the motion to continue. i really understand the points you have brought up in talk about communities that are

disconnected from transit hubs, we have to be creative and thoughtful. i understand where we are in the process and it may be challenging to move forward but it's important to examine how we can make this successful. something our office is working on is trying to facilitate transit for folks that are homeless and in our transition housing system, so we're working with existing organizations to partner up to develop a line between all our resource centers and shelters so that our clients are going from organization to organization. to access all these different organizations, we hope that will generate the demand that

would justify the funding for that line. figuring out ways to increase the partnership is important when you are not talking at a huge number of folks, but we want to make it as easy as possible for people to be participants on systems such as these. i think a lot of this has come out of the fact that it has been challenging to work with -- getting discount tokens for the homeless, and transitional housing more homeless clients or companies that want to buy bulk transit passes at discounted price. i can say they have been consistent but i find the policy very challenging. it does force us to move into the private shuttle services for our different populations and i support director cohen on this and think we can find some creative ways to address this issue.

supervisor farrell: i want to commend the commissioner cohen for leadership and i look forward to discussing it one month from now. supervisor avalos: we can go on to public comment. >> let me address a number of issues on this. number one, i would like you supervisors to get empirical data since we are talking about different sizes, carbon dioxide, we need empirical data if you are spending money on this, that, and the other. let me give you one sector. in the wh