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 recommending. we recommended the signing, allocation targets, prescribed in the exopinioned chewer plan. in other words, 50% of the overall revenue to pet safety and the remains to

traffic mobility. on the annual basis we were able to assign cash flow across the three, which enabled us to front load street resurfacing projects. let me walk you through quickly each of the highlights in each of the three categories. i want you to know this is to help guide the presentation but on page 93 of your packet, included in a bit more accessible version is an 11-17 version of something similar to on the screen but also included in the packet. attachment three shows all plans by the organizers organized i want the three category. attachment four, which looks similar, shows the staff recommendation. one side, table one of each attachment shows the programming amount or total funds requested for each of the projects. the actually and more useful side for our purposes today is table

two, cash flow side. that is as information to make sure we stay true to stay as you go so the prop aa never went negative. for quick identification is that the cash flow side of staff recommendation sheet is highlighted on top in orange for you and yellow for the folks in the audience. street repair and construction, categories that rose to top were grounded in community-based process and included complete street elements, mancel and china town projects. the other projects recommended for programs correspond to the project sponsors, or in this case dpws, prioties to the extent they fit within the amount available of category over the five years. in pedestrian safety we wanted to see projects that provide clear pedestrian safety benefits. similar to the category i mentioned it was oversubscribed.

we mentioned this was draft and sponsors are providing comments on the recommendations. keeping that in mind a couple projects are mid-block project submitted by authority and developed as part of western soma neighborhood transportation. is tmta has indicated it will sponsor and working on a project to schedule this project. the winston drive project, submitted by san francisco state would implement projects along winston connected to construction of new student recreation building across campus on the north side next to the lowel high school. we are working with sfta and san francisco state on the approach. the sfta would like to weigh in. there is a immediatal scheduled to clarify and address the concerns. also we want to verify this is ready to enter design in fiscal year 12-13 and determine which agency should lead. san francisco state has indicated it would be open to the sfmta or sf state

delivering the project. the sfmta has expressed concerns over the ut mcallisters improvement project and working to schedule all meeting on that with uc-hastings -- yes. [ laughter] >> i'm glad to know i'm not the only one thinking that thought. who is going to be working with uc-hastings? >> sfmta. >> thank you. >> okay. i was even thinking it. i'm sorry. i mentioned the next week we are looking to schedule meeting between sfmta, other departments to determine what the agencies might have with delivering and bring updates to the next programs committee meeting. other projects in this project simply dropped out, not recommended for funding because category x ran out of funds after projects

ready to go. the sfmta has concern over posting, bond saving projects and project deacons. these were seeking fundss in 14-15, 15-16, some of out years k be funded with the prop case sales tax dollars under the next prop a priorityization updates or future prop aa funds, which come about as a result of cost savings from other prop aa projects or program funds from projects that maybe fell behind in schedule and unable to allocate funds in the year which they were programmed within prop aa. examples of other opportunities. transit reliability and mobility improvements. in this categoris that rose to top have strong impact on transit accessibility and reliability. not recommended, for example, the city college, have less impact on project than physical barriers or capacity limitations like

others we recommended. as a final note the sfmta submitted travel time projects from muni routes currently in environmental review under transit effectiveness, tep, included are environmental impact. until the ier is done, we feel there is uncertainty around scope, schedule and cost but we realize eligibility was written specifically with tep projects in mind. given all that we have recommended, including a place holder for the rapid network projects, including the bsrt project in the last few years for this category. as the tep eir completes we will determine if it will be a multiyer project start up basis. last slide, as maria mentioned, this is informational and when we come back to the committees with the plan. full plan and allocations

as action items. with that i can take questions. we have a few sponsors who submitted to prop aa if you have project specific questions. >> thank you for your presentation. it was pretty quick. trying to sift through a lot of information here. on pedestrian safety items before us, how much are these linked -- three sources linked to actual areas that are of high concern. >> the one we looked at was through the priorityization criteria specific to that category. we give priority to projects identified the through the walk first effort, or that may be identified as corridors, projects or inter dictions through successor efforts, given what they have given consideration to date. >> i'm looking at this chart. these are total funds we are talking about in terms

of fiscal year 2012-2013. part is double a funds. we don't have that much funds that are here. >> the overall available funds, if you add up all three, that is what we anticipate being able to program out in prap aa dollars, including 12-13. if we had enough in 12-13 to -- we do. after understanding our revenues in terms of what was projected in the expenditure and seing from the department of motorvehicles, putting that together, these are funds being able to program out in given years by cash flow. not on the programming side. that is clear. >> so if you have your magnifying classes with you, commissioner, attachment 4, you can see the first year we actually have 12 million in the bank. we have been building up moneys so when departments come in we can pay them. we have a little higher than normally, but a total of $26 million. again, if you look at the

programming side would tell you in 12-16, the previous authority board could award 12.5 million but the expenditures considered lower. that is about six million. that is what you see before you. i will note while you are digesting that that this is an iterative process. we looked at the safety questions, walks, statistics and projects like the gas closure in the presidio to lincoln actually has a high number of collisions over the past number of years that involve pedestrians and so on and so forth. we tried to get that data. we also looked all of the project's ability to seek funding from other sources. because it was so over sub ciebed, if there was a chance to fund out it probably got kicked out n. some cases the amount of funding reflected greater funding strategy. a great example is streetcar doer improvement project. the amount, about 2

million, is for street resurfacing. that is because this has been a dpw maintained. we can't fund out of obag but thought of the streetscape improvements would come out of obag. >> thank you. >> commissioner cohen. >> thank you. my question really i see that in the street repair reconstruction inspection i see district 6, 9 and 10. it says ninth street pavement renovation. you talk to me about that project. i'm not that family with it. >> there someone from dpw that can speak directly to that project. it is in i believe the limits on ninth are from market to i think it is -- amanda from dpw will come up to speak. >> you are mta. i can talk to you about my

other issue. this is not to be fully funded and like to encourage you to find a way to fund the route. it is important. to the more center parts of san francisco. is there -- can you come up with a proposalal to fund it? >> what we were thinking is until we know about the travel time reduction projects after they come out of the tap ir, we will have an understanding what the project is, when ready to go in. there is funding within the last three years of the program to fund projects on the rapid network, which would include the adax. >> what is the time line on the tep eir? >> johnathan can speak to this. >> johnathan with the mta. we are currently in the process to move the tpir forward. we are running a couple months behind schedule but

hoping about summertime that it would be completed. we are scheduling projects based once they are certified, we will be ready to go. which is ymwa, the routes proposed the most critical, the adax and 14 was another route we had proposed. what we are trying to do was not wait around for things to happen. as soon as the eir are certified we have projects ready to go. as part of the projects we are doing initial engineering and certain corridors, adax one cleared at a project level. once eir is certified we would be ready to begin development of project. i feel fairly confident we know the project and have a good sense of what the schedule will be. there are two overlays of how we are developing, one being customer amenities, already funded through a grant we are getting through mtc. on top of that