finally -- i will go over this in a few slides, but this is the first time a lot of flexibility was given to the congestion management agencies. previously we had gotten fundss in silos for different programs . this round where we have a lot of flexibility as to what type of projects we can program. this is the map of san francisco's priority development areas, also on page 59. i won't go into it in too much detail unless you have

questions. the framework in 38 million, 3.5 million is planning activities of funds every cycle, congestion management. generally over sight of fubd funded projects, county transportation and regional transportation and lots of thesering activities. next portion we see here, 24.6 million, that minimum we have to spend in the priority development areas. we created the next line down. this school is an eligible project. eligible projects within this program. and we created this target to really identify the school infrastructure projects in the city. there will be another round of funding and another call in winter, january of 2013 where we will be focused on

the education outreach portion of this school program. the final piece is remaining balance, funds we can spend outside the area. >> the funds you are articulating in buckets, are those written in stone or asked to approve? >> that is that we are asked to approve. the piece in stone from mtc is 70% in priority areas. that flows down to us. >> what types of projects can be available? previous cycles of funding, all these funding programs more or less were separate discreet programs that would come to us separately or regionly competitive. now we can fund all -- we can, for example, fund all the projects that qualify for transportation for livable communities project, so this is a valencia and streetscape, local streets and roads, a pavable rehabilitation

project. new features, the bicycle and pedestrian improvements pot have previously projects could only be funded through larger streetescape projects or a bicycle project could be funded if it was on the bicycle network. those restrictions have been lifted. we can fund virtually any pedestrian project including education and outreach, a flexible category. and the school portion. we decided to call that out and focus in on a small amount of funds to look at infrastructure projects. the schedule we are working with right now, the funding framework, which we just looked at, the priority schedule, released today, will release projects after the board action next week. initial application also be due in october. we are working on getting a little of a previous release out a week early, making sure the application

is up and online and projects will begin looking at it and understand what we are looking for. we are doing a two-part call for projects, so the first initial round will be due for approval in early december, what we are calling the initial list of projects. we will be using prop case sales funds or other funds, making early investments in the projects. over the next few months work with the sponsors to increase the public outreach specific those projects, includes doing presentations for the bicycle and pedestrian and advisory committee and looking at the design and cost update funding plans to ensure once we approve as a staff and you as a board and move forward through the federal pipeline, which can be a very complicated deadline driven process, the project also go through as smoothly as possible. we put this under the rubric we call project

readiness, looking at environmental clearance and making sure it is a solid project moving forward. again, you will see money flowing to the projects in 14-15 through 15-16. how will projects be selected? we have a criteria on page 63 of your packet. a lot of the guidelines, screening and priorities are dictated by the federal level. we have to follow the guidelines. a specific example is if a project wants funds it has to be a certain condition below 70. i won't get into the technicalities. certain things we have to make sure they are meeting benchmarks. mtc included criteria

focused on priority projects on the growth. these will come down from mtc following san francisco specific criteria. if you look at what is in your packet, where we have italics, this is the project criteria. readiness is something we will be working on with project sponsors. we will be given priority to project streets. one of the advantages of having the different fund program under one rubric as it is much easier to fund projects that address multiple modes and multiple issues on a corridor. finally we will be giving priority of projects that make improvements on high-risk and high activity corridors so this speaks to the mayor's working group and action forward.

we will be working with sponsors to specifically identify what the safety issue is and how the project is addressing it. i want to point out at the regional level mtc is updating their criteria. throughout the region project sponsors will identify the amount of improvements and bicycle improvements in the project so we get a good regional level look at how the funds are supporting those projects. with that -- >> quick question for you. as we talk about the guidelines, can you help me -- put that back up, thanks. how do those interact and what i understand, understand the priorities, we have zero control. that is our representative. i look at a map of san francisco and high priority areas and by supervisor districts 4 and 1, half of eight and two are not in the districts. not in the high priority

districts. how are we going to i guess these concerns but making sure we have improvements and how do these interrelate and how are these going to work pragmatically. >> let me point out one piece that may assuage some concerns. the idea with supporting priority development -- can i go back to the map quickly? that is probably easier. here is the map. we can fund projects that the cma -- you know, the authority deems to have proximate access to priority development areas, so the best example of this that i can give is if you look at the priority development area on 19th avenue, we don't necessarily have to provide funding for just the piece of project that may be on 19th within the pda but if project provides access we can also use that project. that means the criteria. there is that piece of it.

so that can be helpful for a lot of the districts that have the large corridors and the citywide networks providing access. >> someone -- give me an example. not representing district one or four here, since we are on the committee here and in district one, the one california feeds into and starts by the ocean. but this is not in district one but the california because it feeds into it, we can prioritize to 40th? >> we would have to look at where the improvements where, make sure improvements are serving the priority development area. if we do all improvements out at 40th, we would have to balance those two things. >> okay. >> priority development areas, these are established at the local and regional level in 2007 and 2008, really areas that have land use plans taking on growth. >> i fully understand that again but i think from an

equity perspective -- we can talk about that. in certain areas they say zero dollars of improvements, we talk about a lot of the board and commission here about making sure different areas of towns see improvements and see government working for them. district four and the streetcars that go downtown, i guess that is a question when you get back to mtc goals, i agree. that makes a ton of sense. how do you balance that out. when you talk about san francisco and how does that work pragmatically? >> again we have prior development areas, then looking at readiness. if there are projects that meet pda goals and provide access and are ready and gone through a robust planning process and street approximates project, address safety concerns, that would be something we would look at to balance those two. just a general question

because the commissioners talk about districts 10 and 11, which is valid. i'm not here to defend other districts but how we allocate our dollars and different pools of capital, it is important that we do it across. it is tough when 70% of high priorityization, i get it, that is how i want to understand how we do it. i hope you will be mindful that we do address concerns in different areas. you could see an easy way to -- can i just say only in those areas at all. so i want to make sure that i voice my concern over that. just awareness that we go into it, having that discussion. >> i can understand your concerns and things that you recognize i do express from time to time. frankly every meeting, but this is really about the one bay area grant and how it is looking at regionally, developing areas around transit.

that can support our goals around stable communities and reducing greenhouse gas emission and that. that is the regional goal. these types of criteria for funding. we also have other sources of funding that cover our transit needs, you know, across the city. we are using funds to help the projects and supporting the criteria ya. we will see that citywide. those dollars aren't always distributed as equitably as they should be. that is what i talk about a lot. i think this is something that we -- i believe is benefiting the city. especially in areas that we have to really manage the growth, make sure we are building the kind of support around the growth that will be happening. >> perhaps i used bad examples. 19th that cuts through and park presidio off the golden gate with the drive done through district one and four. that is a big deal.

19th is a perpetual mess. we are doing this by park mercid but how we do this stretching across the bridge is an issue. we have talked about lombard in district two. that will be fundamental to van ness, transportation will be huge. lombard needs a lot of help. i didn't mean to pick on local transit projects but the point being there are major transit issues in those districts that are not part of the high priority districts that affect our area. that was my concern. i want to make sure we continue to talk about. >> i think that is right. we do have a lot of resources going to those projects. federal level and other levels, local levels meeting some of the challenge. we do. we are building doyle drive. that is sitting. we know we have to make a link to van ness. i think that is important

and city should be responsible for that critical need. >> with lombard, there is nothing allocated. we are working on ways to make that happen. it is a matter of continuing to prioritize in context. >> duly noted. >> with that we have the -- one bay area web site that says www.sfta.org/obag. we have all the information of -- background and priority development areas, background of the process variable there. we have one bay area e-mail, my contact information if anybody has questions. >> great, thank you. so call for projects. we will -- in between call for projects and submission of projects, which is late october 25th -- >> right. call for projects will be september 26th if the board adopts the framework. project will be back

october 26th, application also be to the authority. we will be back in front of the board early december for your selection of the projects. then after that we will do project development from december to april. final selection will be back to the board again may or june. then at the end we have to give the project to mtc june 30th. >> >> great, thank you. in between the call for project and submission for proposals there has to be a public process for each. is that correct? >> we are doing outreach on the plan on how we will distribute the funds. we will be doing that outreach. public process will be going through the public board process. in between the selection of projects, the first round of selection and second round will be public outreach on each of the projects specifically to get i want the details of each one. >> so the t.a. is providing -- staff is providing oversight to make sure we are not losing out on projects, because there is no public outreach, we will do that outreach. >> that is the intention of

doing the call for projects. >> excellent, thank you. >> okay. commissioner cohen? you have a question? >> okay. thank you. we can open up for public comment. any member of the public like to comment? please come forward. seeing none, we will close public comment. let's go on to our next item that is set -- >> action item? >> that was an action item. the item is open. we didn't settle it. >> motion to improve. >> then forward to the full commission. okay. we will do that without objection, thank you. >> thanks for the reminder. >> let's go on the item 7, please. >> 7, allocation of 4,772,490 in prop k fund with conditions of requests

for the cash year schedules and strategic plan and five-year priority program. that is an action item. >> good afternoon, i'm with the authority committee. this begins on age 67 of your packet. we received allocation. on the package shows what is received and brief descriptions on key issues we think may be of concern to members. the peninsula joint powers board or caltran has requested 4.3 million for ten annual caltrain projects. ever are year the staff rank and review projects like these for inclusion in the annual budget, subject to extensive review, discussion, negotiation among three joint powers, board counties. prop case from cal train capital improvement capital and caltrain chair are used to support san francisco's

annual local capital match contribution to caltrans program. prop k for the system have been heavily advanced to provide san francisco's local match contribution because sfmta has been unable to contribute to its own financial challenges. a strategic planned amendment is needed in order to fully fund caltran's request, allowing advance of approximately 1.9 million in prop k from fiscal years 2004 to 205, to 20-13 and the guideways category. among other requests we received, the san francisco transportation agency has requested 136,000 in prep k for design and construction of crosswalk and guardrail, modifications at the intersection of the ohsanessey and dale dell. also requesting 35,727 to construct crosswalks and red visibility curbs at

controlled pedestrian cross. finally department of public works has requested 20,000 for curb side and landscape improvements on 24th adjacent to 24th commission bart administration southwest plaza. southwest curb and landscaping are scope elements of the 24th street mission. bart improvements project and full scope of plaza improvements should be completed in november 2013. we have representatives from the agencies requesting funds. they are responsive to questions, as am i. >> great. thank you for your presentation. i know the financing of this. we are pulling down money from future years. >> correct. >> if you could talk about how we are making sure -- how -- i understand how we are funding things in the present. how will that affect in the future besides the debt we are increasing the interest rate, we are increasing the

debt in the future, what are we doing for the future? >> in the category specifically we are pulling funds from finally two years of programming, so funding would not be available on those two years as everything is currently structured it would be. that would be funding will be exhausted in to 2024-25 versus 2026-27. in terms of overall costs, they go up over the lifetime expenditure plan. if you consider the program as a whole that some less than a 1% increase due to financing cost assumed in the strategic plan. if the strategic plan model were updated to consider several factors, such as we have not issued long-term debt, that could make up for these financing costs.

but indeed a long-term solution a needed. >> so my other question is, does that con train work we want to do at the future date? things that will not get done based on decisions in full future dollars? >> you ask an excellent question. i'm maria. chief deputy, it is not clear for folks watching, the way prop k is set up, if a project needs to advance funds the financing costs are only deducted out of that particular line item that only impacts the caltrain guideline. >> also what courtney was saying there is a trade-off. we are getting capital projects, which is good. costs more if we delay. a what this does is accelerate the need for the city to come up with a permanent source of funding for the caltrain capital match. >> still have a need but haven't found what the -- >> right. but we are having to look at the -- look at perhaps the opportunity to find the

rest of the funding the city has committed to the caltrain electrification project, providing an opportunity to deal with the ongoing capital issue. >> how many years do we have to figure this out? >> running out of funds in 2024 or 25. >> okay, thank you. colleague, any other comments or questions? let's open this for public comment. any members of the public like to comment? please come forward. seeing none, we will close public comment. this item is open before us, motion to move forward with recommendation. we will take that without objection. item 8. >> the strategic plan recommendation and an information item. >> good morning, i will do

a very brief introduction. in part i want to acknowledge the great staff work in this great effort and collaboration of great sponsors we have had. as you may recall this prop vehicle registration fee is probably the only new in a decade made possible by senate bill 83. in november 2010 san francisco voters approved a $10 increase in the san francisco vehicle registration fee and in expenditure plan that went with it. chad will give you a quick o.view, seeing this a couple times, what we are bringing before you is the heart, exciting, we will get money in five years in the program. a couple things in what the commissioner just said, this is tiny, compared to prop k, bringing in 70 million a year. it is about 5 million a year. we expect it to be pretty flat. we can do less with it.

it is a pay-as-you-go so we can fund what we can pay for each year. on the other hand it is lot more flexible with only three categories, which chad will describe. this is something we can look at geographic equity. the there is no reason to look at that. i'm excited to show you the proposal. i want to emphasize this is information. if you are happy, public and sponsors are happy, we are come back for approval with the strategic plan, along with first allocations. good morning, i'm chad tradman, transportation plan nr with the authority n. terms of the agenda this is 8, begins on page 83. maria did background in terms of bringing forward different pieces of development, the first strategic program. 150 million over the life

of the program and establish three programmatic plans. construction, public safety and transit reliability and mobility improvements. the slide serves as a bit of table of contents for what the final plan will incrude. as maria mentioned, very much in some ways like the prop k plan with several key differences. maria hit on a couple so the prop plan will be shorter because it has overall smaller dollar amount. there is no financing assumed within the prop and simpler plan. the five-year priority plans for each of the three programmatic categories established in the plan will be included as part of the plan for prop a and prop k, the five pps are separate apart from the strategic plan n. addition from the slide the policies criterias were adopted by the authority board. the key piece is programming notification, as maria mentioned.

to be really short, the policies are meant to provide guidance on managing the prop aa program for both project sponsors and for the authority. priorityization criteria, the adopted criteria are found as attachment 2 in your packet, on page 90, made of three separate levels. the first is the screening criteria that establishes basic eligibility. the second level, general criteria are applied to all projects. for instance, priority shall be given to projects with clear endeavors, community support and developed out of the community based planning process. that third, category specific, these are criteria specific to each of the categories within the prop aa. an example is that priority will be given to projects that include complete streets elements such as ramps, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian improvements and traffic

calming elements. so purpose for projects we had spring and summer was two-fold. one was for policies and priorityization criteria as part of development. second was identify potential identification projects to fund with the first year -- first five years of prop aa programming. so we had double amount asked for as we have available. it is a pay as you go program as maria mentioned. we had to do a lot of cutting to develop a recommendation that fits within the available funds. use a to deliver funds to deliver benefits. applicants in the criteria put emphasis on the projects that were ready to proceed with design and or construction in the first two years of the five-year program. the first two are current fiscal year and next 13-14. we had enough good projects in the categoris that we actually ended up recodi