which is going to be available for obag, or are we actually going to have a packet that adds up to $35 million? i'm concerned that when we get to a bunch of applications that could be in competition with one another, and generally my district doesn't do very well in those competitions. >> let me see if i understand your question. what we have is a set of applications that exceeds the available money by about $25 million or so. there's 35 million available -- 33 million available and 62 million in projects. we're not going to receive any further applications because the application process closed on october 26. so, what we have is what there is. the [speaker not understood] step is to prioritize projects that seem to fit well with the criteria. and, in fact, that's the matrix you have with you.

in the second column from the left is a script and a number of projects have been prioritized to continue developing them and those four projects at the bottom that i recommended to fill out the list simply because the scores are so low. at that point the projects that are shown on the list above the line are still adding to more than the $33 million that are available. there will be further refinement of that list. hopefully not by vetting projects, but by reducing the scope on the, on the projects that are prioritized. >> so, i'm not sure that, i'm not sure that this will necessarily weed out or help surface projects in a district by district basis, but the list is going to be a very strong list as far as the criteria

that we're set up regionally. * >> right. and the other thing that i should emphasize is that for the projects that do double up, they will be helped in the form of [speaker not understood] funding so the sponsors can refine the project and be even more competitive. >> okay, thank you for the answer. i'm kind of confused by what's the line -- i have 12 projects on the list. all the 12 projects are above the line, you're saying? or is there a line invisible to me i'm not quite aware of what it is? >> the 12 projects that are shown there are the projects that will be brought to you on -- at the [speaker not understood] in december.

that list of projects will come with a prioritization. that will be a very preliminary prioritization that will have been discussed with the department and with the other sponsors. this, by the way, is not just the department, nonprofits sponsoring projects and so on. what i anticipate is because this list adds up to a lot more than the $33 million, there is going to be maybe three or four projects at the bottom of the list that are going to be probably not recommended for further funding. this list is not -- this list is not prioritized today. so, what you're seeing here is the inventory [speaker not understood]. the sweep stakes is in matching this list to the scores that will be a combination of mtc and local scores so that you can have at least a closer to the $33 million that are available. >> i thought you were saying we had a list on our desk today

that has a score. [speaker not understood]. >> right. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. commissioner cohen. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. i have a question for you, director, about the list of 12 organizations -- 12 large departments and/or agencies. i see one nonprofit that is on this list. my first question is are there applications that didn't make the first initial cut? are there organizations or departments that didn't make the first initial cut or is this a total composite list of everyone that applied? >> this is it. this is the list of everybody who applied. >> okay. >> $62 million worth of projects. >> great. and my other question is can you explain to me who is sitting on the evaluating committee and what is the criteria that you're using to evaluate who is going to be evaluating these applications? >> let me ask our deputy of the

projects [speaker not understood] to give you the detailed answer on that. the criteria essentially set by mtc and the authority board and you approved those criteria several months ago. >> okay. you can refresh my memory in what that criteria is. >> absolutely. good morning, deputy director for policy and programming. i believe in june of this past year, the authority board approved a set of prioritization and screening criteria that will be applied to the abag coffer from elks. -- projects. [speaker not understood] based on the metropolitan transportation's criteria with a few particular prioritization criteria added for emphasis, in particular, complete [speaker not understood] pedestrian safety, task force identified areas that we could ascertain

how these projects would be able to meet san francisco's priorities. so, there were a few additional criteria that were added to mtcs. we have developed a scoring matrix that is based entirely on the prioritization criteria approved by the board, [speaker not understood] scores about how the projects are able to meet the criteria. we have distributed that list of scoring to the applicants so that they have been able to review the preliminary scores that have been given to their projects. we are working with the sponsors right now to provide feedback if they are not in agreement on a certain scoring, but their project has been given at this time, but there is detailed instruction for how the score has been given. we're in the middle of the process. this was distributed earlier -- at the end of last week and comments will be coming back from sponsors by next thus and we'll integrate those comments

into the plans and programs recommendation. >> okay. so, to confirm what i'm looking at, the 12, like i said, we have very large organizations. we've got bart, we've got dpw. i see sfmta as well as tjpa. then i see a small nonprofit group. is there some kind of weighting of the scores or is everyone on equal footing in this application process? >> [speaker not understood] actually have to be an eligible applicant to apply. you have to have what's called a cooperative master agreement in place with the state department of transportation. this particular nonprofit does not have that agreement, so, their project would need to be sponsored by an agency that does have this agreement, mta, dpw, the port. >> right. >> dph. we have been working with this agency, the executive director

of api and also the mta, to figure out what's the best way to move the scope of this project further either integrating it into mt's existing old program curriculum and outreach, or whether there needs to be a stand alone project. we're also in communication with dph on this issue. we're trying to figure out what's the best way to move this project forward. >> okay, good, i'm glad to hear [speaker not understood]. i'm under the impression apri has reached out to dpw to work as co-sponsors on this particular project. so, my next question is in terms of the timeline, when will apri or dpw have to make a decision and approve their new project proposal to you? >> it would need to be as soon as possible.

the abag program is geared towards capital projects and this is more of an operation-based project so that even aside from the sponsorship issue, there are other things that we're trying to address in the application. but we would need -- apri did need an eligible project sponsor as soon as possible. [speaker not understood] mta as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner mar. >> thanks. and i wanted to just say that i'll review the criteria. i know that a number of the projects impact multiple districts. i note for one number 4, the fulton street gate enhancement probably impacts districts 5, 6 and a little bit of 1. the biggest one down at the bottom, number 11, the masonic avenue complete streets. i think it's a tiny bit of 2 and much of 5 and a little bit of 1 as well. but is that a part of the criteria, that it's going to impact the broader range of supervisorial districts than

just one? i know it's based largely on need and how it fits a complete streets model, i'm guessing, but what about the range of supervisorial districts that might hit? >> one of the prioritization -- one of the primary prioritization for mtc was supported by development areas. that is the guiding principle as far as geography. >> and the pdas or the priority development areas are mostly in the eastern neighborhoods, is that right? >> primarily. we can certainly provide you with a map, but yes, it is primarily in the eastern side of the city. but not only, not exclusively, though. >> and i had a question about the safe routes to schools. i know that there are two on the list. i'm wondering does dph and dpw and even the school district look at the city-wide needs and

prioritize it or does it just come up -- well, why would ert [speaker not understood] be on the list and not -- betsy car michael and schools in the bayview, for example? but i'm just wondering. >> right. there are actually three safe routes to school applications, et cetera, on this list. they do stem from a combination of identification efforts. one is a city-wide identification of project needs and there are also walking audits that are performed by the department of public health and also the safe routes to school members to identify specific projects to be implemented in the near future. >> and the two that i see on the list look like they're build outs and it looks like they cost [speaker not understood] for a build out. that sounds like a lot of money for a build out. i'm wondering if you could talk

a little about that. >> as far as the project scope, it is a collection of different scope elements. so, it's not to say that the $500,000 cost is only build outs. but we can certainly provide more details on the scope elements. >> let me add to that, commissioner mar, it's a very good question. the $100,000 build out would be a bar r bargain in this town. * based on individual location, whether the [speaker not understood] is involved, whether there is a fire hydrant in the vicinity of it and so on, the cost of relocating [speaker not understood] is tremendous. we've seen build out costs of $200,000, and even more over the years. and those are numbers that go back five and six years. so, it's unfortunate that these things cost so much because it limits the amount we can do.

but it's not out of line with historic trends we've seen. >> it just sounds that i should have my staff check in with dph about the safe routes to school priorities and look to see what the school that are on that list are so that the next round of abag proposals can include more of the schools. >> that's correct. and we can also send you the current list of schools that are on the list to have walking audits. >> that would be great, thank you. >> and the district elementary school. i would like to clarify. >> colleagues, unless there are any other questions or comments, why don't we open it up to public comment. mr. chair, you do know that i make it a point to come here from time to time to understand the deliberations that are going over here. now, certain women who have a

lot of experience from the bayview came to me and explained to me one of the meetings that was mentioned by the director here under the auspices of the san francisco health department. now, i think the san francisco county transportation authority should have a detailed orientation on what really is happening in the bayview. and it's not as simple as you think when you talk about safe routes. our young people have to cross four or five [speaker not understood] going to school, another four or five [speaker not understood] getting back. and the san francisco county

transportation authority purports to know everything. but in the last nine months we have bus routes, like the 44, that cannot even go to certain destinations. they just stop below the hill and our students and our youth [speaker not understood]. when people come to me, then i have to work with the community response network and i have to work with volunteers who escort our young people and our seniors. now, i would want those people who are having these meetings at the ymca to have these meetings at the bayview opera house or the [speaker not understood] facility -- >> thank you very much. and the [speaker not understood]. i'm going to put it in writing. thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any other member of the public who would like to seek? -- speak? seeing none, public comment is closed.

madam clerk, if you can please call item number 5. >> item number 5, exercise the first one-year option of the legal services contract with nossman llp and increase the contract amount by $350,000, to a total amount not to exceed $1,310,000, for general legal counsel services and authorize the executive director to modify non-material contract terms and conditions. this is an action item. >> great, thank you. this is an item that came before our finance committee. i don't know if there are any comments or questions on this item before we take action. if we can have public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to speak on this item please come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. the house has changed, so, if we can take a roll call on this item. [roll call]

>> the item passes. >> the item passes. if you can call item 6, please. >> appoint winston parsons to the geary corridor bus rapid transit citizens advisory committee. this is an action item. >> this is an item that came before the plans and programs committee. unless there are any comments or questions, why don't we open it up to public comment. any member of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, unless there's any objection, can we take this same house same call? same house, same call. and we want to thank winston parsons for his service to the city and county of san francisco. can you please call item 7. >> item number 7, allocate $3 million in proposition k funds, with conditions, to the peninsula corridor joint powers board for implementation of the communications-based overlay signal system project, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule; amend the strategic plan; and commit to allocate $6,390,000 in fiscal year 2013/14 and $6,470,000 in fiscal year 2014/15 prop k funds to the cboss project. this is an action item.

>> this is again another item that came before the plans and programs committee. turn it over to our executive director. >> yes, mr. chairman, thank you. commissioners, there is another handout that is on your desks which has a title of agenda item 7. that is simply for your information since this item is a very important allocation for the division of caltrain. we had a discussion on conditions and oversight related conditions at the boards and programs committee. and i just wanted to report that as a result of that very important discussion i think there was essentially a committee formed by project sponsors that will now do joint oversight of the work of the

joint powers board in pursuing this electric ifcation project. the bottom line is all project sponsors will receive the technical and project status reports * including the cost and budget reports that jpv will be submitting to the federal transit administration and there will be periodic meetings to review the problems of the project and to request concurrence from -- review and concurrence from all of the project sponsors. so, this is really i think a win for the project, but also for the region because the transportation commission will be involved in that in addition to the transportation authorities of san mateo, santa clara and san francisco counties. we are essentially working from the same sheet. i think this is a good model for how these multi-county

projects not just get if you -- funded, but how the oversight gets done. fundamental here is it is the same information that will be provided to everyone. * so, that's just a clarification on the conditions that are in the board resolution, the project -- the allocation was recommended unanimously by the plans and programs committee. >> thank you, mr. moskovich. unless there are any comments or questions, why don't we open it up to public comment. any member of the public would like to speak on item 7, please come forward. good morning, thank you for the opportunity. my name is roland [speaker not understood], i'm from san jose. i am one of the strongest supporters of the caltrain modernization program. i [speaker not understood] it extensive the last year. i am really pleased by the report from the executive director with the recent developments because frankly

there have been questions about how this project has been moving in the last year. i'll give you some examples. highlights for the last year ask a 1-1/2 million dollars bond, get the accurate gps coordinates of the equipment, and $6 million in program management. now, there are many amounts of technical questions that have to be answered urgently because it directly impacts the capacity of the line down the peninsula affecting all the cities because currently the plan is to put passing track. we frankly are not required if you have a modern signalling system. in closing, what you have in front of you is an application for signaling system. it's got nothing to do with electrification which is in prop k. [speaker not understood]. in other words, you have a choice in front of you today. you can either approve this or you can defer it to a later date. thank you very much.

>> thank you, sir. is there any other member of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, unless we have any comments or questions, can we take this same house same call? same house same call, item passes. madam collect, if you can please call item 8. >> introduction of new items, this is an information item. >> colleagues, any new items for introduction? why don't we open it up to public comment. any member of the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. if you can call item number 9. >> item number 9, public comment. >> this is an opportunity for any member of the public who would like to speak on any item that's not on the agenda but is within the jurisdiction of the county transportation authority. seeing none, public comment is closed. and item 10. >> item 10, adjournment. >> meeting adjourned. and again, happy thanksgiving to everyone. [adjourned]

>> welcome to the municiapal board of directors. (roll call)

cell phones that are set on vibrate can interfere with the microphone. >> motion one, approval of the meetings. >> chairman nolan: all those in favor? opposed? -- >> good evening commissioners.

i do not attend last meeting. however your approving them and i was in the august 21 of september 4 meeting, i was wondering why there is an endless culture of misrepresentation of certain verifiable facts. those minutes and that summarize what i stated or submitted. why should these? the omission of relevant data that pertains to taxi service, taxi services, is the dereliction of duty, omission. for special assistance number 12, parliamentarian code 1372, who is supposed to supervise the flow of information, ensure preparation and

distribution, ensure the development and proper maintenance of database and files, doesn't this board care about taxi dispatch, driver quality of the confusion over top lights, and the lack of taxi stands? bearing my comments and pc&m survey in the sand can only be construed as a cover-up. would you correct those minutes? >> thank you. >> anyone else care to address the board on the minutes? >> chairman nolan: all those in favor? the ayes have it. >> secretary boomer: item 5, communication. >> chairman nolan: let me say that we anticipated a large

crowd of people today, taxi items. what i want to do is combine with a members consent, 11 and 12, and get people from the public about three minutes each. i was under the impression that everybody understood at that point that there were no taxi items on their. i apologize not everybody had known that. will listen to the proposals today. anything else ms. boomer? >> secretary boomer: item 6, introduction and a new business by board members. >> i would like to say that we went to the cable cart delegation. director reiskin, director

nolan and myself went to the dedication of the cable cart number 6. it was nice to be there to see the car as it rolled out as agreed everyone who had worked on that i congratulate them for doing a great job. unfortunately the gentleman in charge of doing the paint job for 30 years -- could not be there because he was ill in the hospital. everybody recognize the hard work he had done that. the cable cars are such an amazing attraction and the drivers are such ambassadors; >> chairman nolan: it was impressive and moving; he dedicated his entire work life to the cable cars. it shows. the quality shows. the family joined in the ribbon-cutting ceremony.

director ramos? >> director ramos: thank you chairman nolan. i had the great pleasure to attend the recent public event that the san francisco bicycle coalition coordinated hosting the gentleman from copenhagen, one of the directors that is helped push their mode share the something like 30 percent. one of the things that they have done in copenhagen - and there is interest in doing that here - is getting a bicycle counter installed along one of the heavy bicycle corridors. there is private interest in cooperating with the nta and exploring the opportunity. i want to see if it would be