Commissioner tang, commissioner yee, we have a quorum. Thank you. Item two please. Advisory committee report. Information item. Thank you. We have our cac chair. Good morning commissioners. Item number seven on of the 4 million for several allocations. The cac approved in the item 8 0. Most centers around clarifications and how it was run. One thing regarding the district 11 John Morrison questioned why the bus service was cut. That was something mta will be get back to us and address that today. Item number eight, the cac approved this item 70 with one abstention. The pilot Shuttle Program and its regarding in january when it ends, what will become of it, what will happen what are the plans and mta will be back with us with an update. Item number 10. Many people in the cities talking about trees along that. The driver required to look for alternative routes. That was a concern for some of us. Thank you very much for your reports. Do we have any questions or comments from commissioners . Well thank you. We will go to Public Comment on the cac report. Seeing no members of the public, Public Comment closed. The consent calendar please. Items three to five is consent calendar. Staff is not prepared to present on these items. If any objects, it may be considered separately. Any questions. Seeing none, Public Comment on consent calendar. Seeing none Public Comment is closed. Sorry. Good morning chair tang. Just to note that after we mailed the packet, the staff did provide another revised version of the one bay area grant formula fund. San francisco did receive a share cut. Were investigating the basis for that. We want to let you know and will report back to you next month. Thank you for that update. Any members of the public on the consent calendar . Okay, seeing none, Public Comment closed. On the consent calendar, commissioner breed, christian christensen, farrell, tang, commissioner yee, consent calendar is approved. Consent calendar approved. Item six please. Item six recommend appointment of one member to the transit advisory committee. This is an action time. Item. Good morning commissioners. This item is appointment of one member to the citizens advisory committee. Items on the page 37 of your packet. Hes seeking to approve Transit Service in the garry correspond gearry corridor. We have our Draft Environmental Impact statement and Environmental Impact report out for Public Comment. We are seeking Public Comment on that through november 16th. We do have a meeting on n ovember 5th at st. Marys cathedral. The item for you today is the c ac appointment for the project. Meets bimonthly. The structure is shown in your memo. The current vacancy is for one member, paul chance, who has expired. Hes seeking reappointment to one of the at large seats. There are 12 other members that are also shown in your attachment. In addition to paul, there are 25 additional candidate have applied to the seat. Their applications can be found in the enclosure as well as summarized in the matrix in your attachment. All of the candidates, just to note, regardless of the n eighbor, are eligible for the at large seat. Having encouraged applicants to appear today. Paul is here and possibly some other others. We at staff dont endorse candidates. Thank you. Thank you very much. At this time, well call up any of the candidate who are here for the gearry cac. Theres one person here today. Please come up to the podium. Good morning commissioners. Im paul that collin mentioned. My chairmanship expired and im seeking your support for my reappointment. First i like to thank the committee for your previous recommendations that i was appointed to the cac. Its been a great experience for me. I want to get reappointed for the reasons being three fold. The first is i would like to be a part of the process. Im a transit rider. I think that San Francisco is such great city, it should have a topnotch mass transit system. It needs it, because were a good city for that. Gearry brt is a good starting point including the others to get in the rights direction. I would be proud to be a part of that process. Secondly, i think that i will benefit the cac in the sensation im a engineer by profession. I bring analytical skills to the process. Im a good communicator and im good with people. I found that helps in terms of dealing with interactions with the public. Trying to make the project a success for everyone. Thirdly, i also feel im s eeking reappointment because i feel a sense of responsibility and duty to finish this. As colin mention, the draft er has been an issue. Its estimated this committee will end in spring. At that time, the cac will be asked to vote on the project. I feel like it will be a more meaningful vote people that have been there for a while, make that vote as opposed to asking someone who came in to might that tough call, say hey, what do you think of it. You only been here for two m eetings. I hope that i have your support and thank you for your time. Thank you very much for your presentation. Last call for any applicants. Seeing none, any questions from Committee Members . Well open up this item to Public Comments. Any member of the public wish to comment on item six please. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleague, any recommendations . Recommend that we reappoint paul chang to the at large seat. Motioned by commissioner yee. I think mr. Chan you made a good case for yourself. I will be happy to see you continue in this role. Be happy to bring to the cac not only your background as an engineer but your institutional memory from the beginning about this project. With that then, can we take this item without objection . Seeing no objections, mr. Chan, congratulations. Youre back on the cac. Okay, item seven please. Item seven, recommend allocating formulating 85,243 85,243 subject to fiscal distribution schedule. This is an action item. We have chad from the t. A. Chad with the transportation authority. We have five requests in the first one is a request from public works on repaving on ingall and industrial vetoes. They v e to streets. That index goes from zero to 100. So much need improvement. On the next project is bicycle way finding sign. It shows the current sign. Back in the back it was funded with the previous sales tax and the current request from sfmta would be in a pilot for new s igns that look like the slides now. Theres a pilot that will run for the first half of 2016 to ensure that the agency fine the protocols. The project thats also funded, leveraging prop k its funded about 800,000 in Transportation Program funds which are from the metropolitan Transportation Commission. The sfmta would request additional prop k some time in spring of 2016. Next request is for youth Bicycle Safety education c lasses. The consultant contractor that the sfmta would use for this project is through a contract and the contractors are San Francisco bicycle coalition. Theres some laboring included. That will be for fund program management. They use a selection process, very similar to the process used by the safe house school p rogram. Looking at schools highway to students, receiving free and reduced lunch and effective way of reaching populations. Also working with district staff to identify priority schools. The plans and Programs Committee considered a prop k results back in spring of 2015. At that time Committee Members raised concerns around strategy, equity and cost effectiveness of the classes. Sfmta has addressed a number of these concerns. Some of the responses are enclosed in the memo of these items. Sfmta anticipates finishing a transportation strategy in spring of 2016. Which will include a vision for education for adults and youth going forward. The next project is bayview m oves van share pilot. It can be used for day trips for seniors and others including pool trips to clinics, hospitals or grocery stores. Initial f unding for this project will be for 10 months of operation of the shuttle. One of the goals will be to secure nonprop k funds to extend the program for 18 months. The last project this morning is the genevahear harneybrt funds. Additional potential through the ecology property. The requested funds will support analysis of parking and traffic impacts to geneva avenue in response about the alternatives proposed. Sfmta expects work to be completed by june of 2016. With that, im happy to take any questions. We have staff from the r equesting agencies here. Thank you. Commissioner yee. Curious in terms of the schools were talking about. Where are they . They have been selected and included in the prop k allocation request form. If you have the enclosure handy, it will be on page 47. Thank you. All right any other questions or comments from Committee Members . I would say that, this package looks fine to me. The new way finding signs is a great idea. Just seeing visually the clutter of the previous signs are the existing ones. In terms of the youth Bicycle Safety education classes, im glad that the departments are working with the contractors to provide us with the metrics or work towards that goal. I appreciate everyone listening to the Committee Members on t hat. I think that the bayview pilot is interesting. Would love to see the results of that as well once the pilot is over. Well, seeing no other questions, well move on to Public Comment on item seven. Any members of the public. Public comment closed. Committee members, motion on item seven. Without objection, item seven is adopted. Item eight please. Recommend approving San Franciscos seagulls and p roblems for plan b area 2040. We have the assistant Deputy Director from the ta. Good morning, this is b uilding on an item that youve seen buffer over the last couple of months. Today will be for approval, the objectives for plan bay area 2040 as well as the project recommendations from our p rojects. Im going to go through here quickly for the sake of time. Feel free to stop me if you have questions. Plan bay area 2040 is an update to 2013s plan bay area. It includes a number of things. It includes jobs and housing allocation, revenue forecast and contributions to a financially constrained. Any project thats moving forward before 2040 or a significantly changes capacity of the Transportation System needs to be included in the p lanned area either as a nared project or part of a category. The goals of objectives have been changed since we presented last month. We want to make sure everything that needs to be in there is there. We want to advocate for additional funds for transits. Which is something that came up in the last plan is really important for San Francisco. We want to make sure as much revenue as possible go to San Francisco priority and then advocate for new revenue s ources. Also, exploring some specific policy areas that are important to San Francisco. Such as vision zero and in particular, something thats coming up a lot in the discussion is equity issues around affordability and displacement. We issued the call for projects in may. Just as a reminder, the call for projects in the San Francisco project list thats in your packet is one of three different processes going together that will create the universal projects. Alongside the projects, the Regional Transit operators and transportation agencies are submitting their list of p rojects directly to mtc. Mtc is performing an elevation for local street and roads. All of that will be taken into consideration in the development of the final scenario. We were getting bund of 8. 4 billion. Thats the money we have to distribute to close the gap. We do anticipate mtc will come back to us later in the year are w with a slightly smaller amount. Any project thats moving forward before 2021 needs to be in the rtp. Luckily most of the projects that you see before you are small enough to be bungled into problematic categories. All of these can be handled and dont have to be named individually. When identifying the specific priorities in your packet, we looked at the existing projects. We got update on the funding plan. When evaluating new projects, we worked with stakeholders to identify what the we asks does it need to be individually listed or could it be bundled into one of those problematic categories opinion the next question, does it need to move forward with construction before 2021. Then what kind of planning effort did the project come f rom. These are just a few examples of the existing 2013 plan bay area projects that were proposing to move forward in this plan bay area 2040. Many of these projects listed here werent just san f ranciscos top performers its regional top performers in the 2013 plan. Some examples of the new p rojects that are proposed, things youve seen before you in the last three years. Things like late night transit, expanded bus service and v ehicles. Theres a lot of projects r elated to Development Efforts that are going on across the city. Probably the two biggest Revenue Service proposals would be the muny metro 19th avenue core capacity. Its important to know there are many planning processes going on now. Theres rail trail. Theres the rail yard study. Theres a lot of planning going on. Theres a lot of good ideas that came out the discussion. However, we do have a financially constrained target. What we did do create a rail capacity long term Planning Project for each transit operator. That would allow projects once Planning Efforts are over and priorities are identified, it will allow the projects that are identified to move forward with planning and conceptual engineering. Being able to move forward with everything up until the environmental document needs to be signed. With these larger transit projects, that is going to take through 2021. This strategy will allow us to move forward with anything we need before the next rtp is approved. Some of the sfmta investments that were included in this category, would be the extension of the central subway. Additional light rail in ther upper market, undergrounding. Theres been a lot of discussion about the bart potential new tube. Thats all included in there. We talked about core capacity transit study and the rail yard study last month. This is allieding up into a Long Range Planning effort that were embarking upon with the sfmta and the Planning Department and the Mayors Office that hopefully will culminate a comprehensive city vision for transportation over the next 50 years. This is for approval today so we can submit it by the end of the month. Mtc will be analysessing the project analyzing the project and putting scenarios and packages of projects. Approving a preferred scenario in mid2016. You can see here, the end of 2015 is busy. Theres still a lot of work to do through its adoption. The plans adoption in 2017. With that, ill be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you so much for the presentation. Commissioner yee . Im just curious, like, maybe this is little bit too soon. Weve been talking about the 19th avenue. Is there any reason why it may not be included in this bunch of projects . The 19th avenue core capacity is funded capital projects. Its a project that could Start Construction before 2021. Is it in here . I didnt notice it. Number 48. Attachment three. Its in there, i thought. Any other questions or comments . Just looking over this package, i think that i want to thank you all for working collaboratively to make sure we have a good list of projects. Im fine with passing this out as is. If we can get a motion. Motioned by christensen and seconded by yee. Oh, Public Comment. Seeing none. Public comment closed. One more thing. I want to acknowledge all of the city staff that worked incredibly hard on this. It wasnt just an effort on our staff, everyone deserves an applause across the city. Thank you for acknowledging them. With that, we have motion by commissioner christensen and yee. Item eight is adopted. Item nine, adopting the Partnership Project. We have ryan green, Senior Transportation planner. Thank you all so much. Im here to tell you about our travel demand Management Partnership project which were wrapping up. This is a Partnership Project between four city agencies and also involving a number of employer, private sector employers and the four city agencies who participated were items and the department of city planning. They all played a very active role in this project. It was funded through a grant from the metropolitan Transportation Commission climate initiatives program. Their objectives was to test different approaches torussing Climate Change through Employer Engagement around Sustainable Transportation policies. It was funded by prop k. As i mentioned, were wrapping up the project pretty much over at this point. Weve prepared a fact sheet which is in your packet starting on page 83. Youre looking for your adoption on those final report. Ill briefly share