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, priorities 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 the assumption out of aa is the more improvements that require analysis circumstances those would be done con currently or immediately following the initial investment. we are pretty confident. >> johnathan would it be more appropriate for me to be asking the transportation authority to look into ways to have adax to fund mta? >> i think what we will do, as chad has said, we will look at transit reliability category. i think we are more comfortable with the scope of projects we put forward are. placeholder is a nice compromise but we were heavily are -- reliant on

the project moving forward and there are certain projects we may have issues and comments with. that might be able to free up funds to fully fund some of those. >> i share your concern. i don't want aa dollars to be tied up. shouldn't be tied up. thank you. so my original question was an explanation on the 9th street pavement recommendation. >> for those watching and you on page 96, attachment 5 with mini project description, you can add to this if you need, from market to division and bryant from 18th to division streets. we probably need to change the project name so it is a little more descriptive. >> okay. division and what? i don't have it. >> on market. ninth from market to division and on bryant street, from 18th to division street. >> okay.

that will explain. >> in terms of the tep i think the placeholder is essential. the tp under eir is about six months under schedule. it is a big undertaking, something we are very supportive of. but one of the messages to the voters was we want to deliver the projects. if they are ready to go, they are funded first. there are strict projects on the line. if like in prop k if we have programs in the fifth year and the sponsor doesn't come in the board can say you have a good story, we will let your funds rollover or could program them to other eligibility projects ready to go. the timing is also very good. we are about to embark this year on an update of the five-year priorityization programs, covering fiscal year 14-15, the next five. that is picking up the tail of prop a.

we will be able to complement in two categories, the biggest opportunity are the rt, tps category and prop k where we can have the ability to advance a lot of funds if there are projects ready to go. same thing on street repair. may be able to advance funds to backfill the projects. >> thank you. >> colleagues, any other comments or questions? commissioner kim? >> i apologize for being away from the meeting. could you discuss -- maybe you already went over there through various attachments. i see there is a request for eddie ellis traffic calming. could you talk about that a bit more? >> that was -- that is a one-way and addal improvements. the reason it was not

included is we realize the overall funding for that whole set of improvements is in flux pending what might come out of negotiations with cpmc development. and in the future i think if there are -- the entire project isn't fully funded or in the next couple years, one thing we have been thinking about is taking particular steps of the overall project, maybe splitting it up, going from there, seeing there might be a place for one of the smaller sets to be funded with future prop aa funds that are available. >> i think there's a lot up in the air over the next couple months with what you deep as might be potential funding for eddie ellis and little saigon. because that project has been in the work for years i feel very uncomfortable not prioritizing that. mcallister is another priority i would like to see, but that is a newer

project. just -- i'm worried. little saigon has been a priority for the community for years and years. i would rather move forward with that and look for funding for other aspects. newer projects through those types of developments. that just some of my initial thinking. i really want eddie ellis to happen. i'm not confident in some of the upcoming events over the coming months. i'm repeating myself there. with the west plan, which is something that came out of the transportation authority study, is that something we are looking to down the road? >> so we are recommending funding for something that was included in that neighborhood transportation plan, mid-block crossings at seventh and eighth, submit bid the authority. we have been in discussion with mta. they have agreed to be the sponsor and internally developing a project and schedule tol -- schedule

to deliver and other authorities as well. >> thank you. >> finishing up on ellis and eddie, attachment 3, the authority submitted a bunch of projects because when we do plans we have to work with implementing agencies primarily and make sure they take ownership. ellison eddie will follow up. one of the other points is estimate was around $6 million, a big bite. maybe we can phase or backfill so we will follow up with your office. >> okay. let's go ahead and open for public comment. >> good afternoon, committee members. my name is tony moran with san francisco park and rec.

i would like to say how excite wed are to have the project corridor considered and speak to the prop a funding. currently mancel is a four-lane highway that cuts the park in half. it does not provide pedestrian or bicycle -- any type facilities. the proposed improvements will include a road dike that would reduce four lanes two, adding curb, sidewalks and pedestrian lanes, bicyclists and transits. improving safety to two intersections in the park and include landscape and lighting improvements. i have a project summary to provide community members at their leisure. not sure how to give it to you. thank you. this proposal is the result of community im property

during the assessment workshops which we held in 2010. the community had a lot of concerns and three other roadways in mcclaren park. we are currently working with sfmta and dpw on project funding and project implementation. as a team we are intending to go back with the proposalal. in closing i would like to thank the agency staff, sfmta and dpw for much needed support during the process and thank you for your time and consideration of this very important project. >> thank you. thanks for your comments. next speaker please. >> good morning, elizabeth stamp, executive director. we are excited this is moving forward. we were a big advocate for

the proposition into include funding for pedestrian improvements and transit improvements. we advocated for its passage as well and it's been a long wait so we are excited to see it moving forward to fund projects. one concern is nexus with pedestrian safety is not totally clear on all of the projects being put forward. as folks mentioned it is a small pay as you go source. having that go toward allowing countdown signals along high-injury corridors throughout the city makes a lot of sense. those are the corridors that the mayor's pedestrian safety task force has identified where over half all the serious and fatal injuries occur, where people are getting hit by cars in the city. so we can really focus by just looking at that 5% of streets where the most injuries are happening. it is not totally clear to us that that is occuring

with prop aa. we are concerned if some of projects advanced are shifting over to prop k funding that reduces the funding that prop k can provide that only prop k can provide for planning, for doing walk first projects and other high priority areas like sixth street. we are excited this is moving forward but do request a little more information about the scoring on this and how it applies specifically to pedestrian safety. also to transit reliability we have concerns that the tep projects are not in here. that is a pedestrian issue as well. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please.

morning, commissioners. i'm jackie fax. i'm a member of the citizens advisory committee. i was one of the three individuals that was appointed to work on this -- this initiative passed by the voters, the aa. this sort of thing. i strongly urge you to go through with it. as far as the drift in signals are concerned, one thing i brought up at the last cac meeting is you should go out to 19th and teravel and cross the street on 19th at teraval, that sort of thing. that signal gives an individual like myself enough time to safely cross the streets. some of these other intersections i get in half