Public comment on item 2 now i pose. All right. No Public Comment. That was an information item. [gavel] item 3 please. Item 3 approval of the minutes of the january 17, 2017 meeting. This is an action item. Colleagues if you have looked at the minutes we can get a motion to approve the minutes. So moved. [inaudible] [off mic] all right. And we will do roll call. Commissioner safai. Aye. Commissioner sheehy. Aye. Commissioner tang. Aye. The minutes are approved. [gavel] all right. Item 4 please. Item 4 recommendation allocation of 4,456,324 in prop k funds and 2,540,359 in prop aa funds with conditions for five requests subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule. This is an action item. We have anna leforthere. I am director of program and policy and i am present the program for the half cent funds and vehicle funds and those at home and for new members of the commission as well as others the prop k half cent sales tax has been in its a voter approved sales tax. The original sales tax which is proposition b was approved in 1989. It was a 20 year expenditure plan with a host of programs and with the signature project being the third street light rail project and reauthorized in the year 14 of the plan and the voters approved proposition k in 2003. It generates 100 million a year and host of programs including traffic calming, bicycle and pedestrian safety, curb ramps as well as the vehicle fleet, tire replacement and other projects. The vehicle Registration Fee is a annual Registration Fee that folks pay when they register vehicles in San Francisco and generates about 5 million a year. Half of the funds are for street resurfacing and for transit safety and safety and reliability as well. So focusing specifically on the allocations before you today i will be brief. The first request i believe that theyre all from no, theyre not all from sfmta. Theyre from sfmta scpptd California Department of Motor Vehicles department between all San Francisco public works and this is a green project and 650,000 and leveraging about 2 million in Public Utility Commission sfpuc Green Infrastructure funding and fund the pavement part of the project and elements include bike signals, bulb outs and roadway crossings et cetera and between church and duboce and fell and scott intersections. There is a specific map with the intersections shown in your packet on page 25 of the enclosure which is the packet of the allocation request details. The next request is from the department of public works and this is for the design phase of a Neighborhood Transportation Improvement ProgramCapital Project that will be funded. It will be a cost sharing arrangement between districts nine and ten to Fund Improvements on the Western Entrance to the hairball which is the Cesar Chavez Potrero and bayshore intersection for the design phase and dap tal funds for construction phase as well and came out from the report from the department of public works about six months ago. Scope includes wider and regraded bike and ped path that goes underneath the freeway so it would provide adequate clearance. [inaudible] [off mic] okay. Next project is from the mta. It is for neighborhood greenways in district 11 planning work. Its to focus on three key corridors and just by way of background the neighborhood greenway designs are something that has come out of both the neighborhood im sorry, the greens Connection Network by the planning department. Theyre key corridors in sfmtas bicycle strategy and the plan is to figure out how to prioritize non motorized Access Points to transit and employment and education and open space over or in addition to the motorized uses of the street so this is for the planning work that under way soon and should take about a year and a half. The next two are payment projects and by the prop k program and the Registration Fee. This is the first request from public works is for the filbert and leavenworth pavement project. There is no project at van ness and filbert but they be coordinated to avoid conflicts and teams are working at this time and this is about two and a half miles of paving to be done and construction to start this summer. The next project with the Registration Fees is for two and a half million to pave one and a half blocks of work so thats all that i have to present toed today. I am here to answer questions as various project managers from the agencies. Thank you for the presentation. Commissioner safai. All right. Were commissioners today. Thank you. So i have a specific question regarding the greenways if you could talk about that a little more and i know as part of your process youre doing supposed to be outreach to the Supervisors Office and i know we transitioned into our position so if you could include cathy from my staff and any conversations. I know you have been doing outreach with the community but were hearing about it after the outreach is happening so we would like to be folded into that Going Forward and if you could say more about that for my own edification that would be helpful . Absolutely. I am ask nick carr to speak to your questions from the mta. Hes the project manager. Good morning. I am the project manager for the district 1 greenways planning project. We have done a little bit of Neighborhood Outreach in the Grant Application process really, and our just embarking now on the preliminary stakeholder interviews both internal to the city and community groups, resident groups, things of that nature, so i was just talking to kneel patel yesterday and getting to talk about this project and launch out into the city. Great. Thank you very much. Colleagues any other questions on this allocation here . Okay. All right. Seeing none then were going to Public Comment on item 4. Any members of the public wish to comment . Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel] colleagues can we get a motion on item 4. So moved. Motion to approve. Motion to approve. Second. All right. And we will do a roll call since the house has changed. Q. Commissioner farrell. Aye. Commissioner safai. Aye. Commissioner sheehy. Aye. Commissioner tang. Aye. The item is approved. [gavel] all right thank you. Item 5 please. Item 5 recommendation adoption of the fiscal year 201718 transfund for clean air for local expenditure criteria. This is an action item. Good morning the Transportation Fund for clean air is fund by a 4 surcharge on Motor Vehicle registrations inlet bay area. 60 of the funds collected go to Grant Programs managed directly by the air districts and 40 go to programs at the county level with the Transportation Authority administering the program in San Francisco. The goal is to reduce emissions and improve air quality. In fiscal year 201718 we expect to have 724,000 in Funds Available to fund projects. The air district establishes regulations that govern what types of projects are eligible for funding and they require counties to adopt local expenditure criteria for the projects. Given the small amount of Funds Available we fund 48 projects a year but in past years we funded diverse types in San Francisco from bike parking to low emissions vehicles to signal timing on arterials. So the local expenditure criteria are what were seeking your approval today. Theyre on page 29 of your packet. The criteria are the same as last year but this is the boards opportunity we hope to reaffirm your support. The primary way that our local criteria add to the air districts underlying policy is establishing a priority order for project types. As you see on the screen with the zero emissions Vehicle Projects as the top priority and for evaluating Grant Applications these prioritize cost effectiveness of the Emissions Reductions and consideration of project deliverability and diversity and past delivery performance. The air district keeps the underlying policies for tfca consistent but made some changes and notable examples they increase the cost effectiveness limit for shuttle projects and upgrades to existing bicycle facilities. They relaxed requirements around bike share projects and policy language on alternative fiewls vehicles and buses and add a category for on road Goods Movement and truck replacement that is low emissions Goods Movement trucks. We provided input to the air district on these policies including advocating for changes that allow upgrades to the existing bicycle vehicle and add a buffer, curb to separate an existing bike lane from car traffic which was previously ineligible for tfca funds and they had to be new facilities and so were appreciative of that change from the air district. And finally this is our proposed schedule for this years funding cycle so we would have applications due at the end of april and back to the board with programming recommendations in june. With that i can take any questions. All right. Colleagues any questions on this . I know we were personally interested and staff at looking at some of the funding for bike lanes in district 4 so i will be following up on that with staff. All right. Seeing no other questions or comments and thank you for the presentation and go to Public Comment on item 5. All right. Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel] colleagues can we get a motion to item 5 . Motion to approve. Second. All right. Thank you by commissioner farrell and we do that without objection. [gavel] okay. Item 6 please. Item 6 recommended adoption of the one Bay Area Grant Program cycle two San Francisco call for projects framework. This is an action item. Thank you. We have amer wrap her. Good morning commissioners. I am excited to be here today and this one Bay Area Grant Program is the once in five year opportunity we have to program the frl funds passed to us from the metropolitan transportation commission. This is really outside of the local fund sources we have, the biggest chunk of funding to program unless the state gets its act together and passes one of the funding bills. Great. So basically what were going to what i am presenting to today is the praim work how we evaluate the projects for submitted to the grant program. We will come back with recommendations in june but this is how we develop the staff recommendation to move forward with the project. So the one Bay Area Grant Program mtc developed it to support projects identified for meeting the growth patterns thats approved through plan bay area, the Regional Transportation Plan and target and reward jurisdictions developing housing and the ambitious totals that mtc has approved. So okay. So this is a map of Priority Development areas which are areas that the city self designated as where they anticipate growth will occur in the city over the next 25 years or where the growth will be focused rather. So obag as i said is not an insignificant program. Its about 44 billion million. Over five years and its three theres three pots of money identified. The first is for planning activities a little under 2 million and safe routes to School Program that is under 2 million and represents the set aside pot where we can Program Additional funds to safe route projects at the discretion of the committee, and then finally the bulk is a competitive Citywide Program that i will go into a little more detail in a second. So the projects that can be funded through obag are diverse so transit, bike and pedestrian projects also looking at mobility management and Transportation Management projects so were proposing to select the projects basically mtc has set a lot of the criteria. Their federal funding as you can imagine there are strings and timely requirements so what you see here are screening criteria. The ones in blue are basically the ones that we are proposing to add but this is pretty straightforward consistency with planned bay area eligible project sponsors and things like that so the first half of the non screening criteria is our location specific criteria so its many layers of maps where youre either in the identified area or outside. This is again the Development Areas that i showed the map before and 70 of the Grant Funding has to be spent or serving those areas. Theres also considerations for communities of concern, communities that are identified air quality risks or near freight corridors and for the first time in this obag cycle mtc asked us to reward projects for jurisdictions that have Affordable Housing and antidisplacement policies so were adopting that for San Francisco to reward Affordable Housing developments in the pipeline. And then finally there are project based criteria and you can see theres a lot in blue which means were tailoring the project to meet San Franciscos needs so in addition to project readiness we will be looking at community source, Community Support safety and multimodal benefits, coordination with multiple projects and then somewhat an evolution from the last cycle where we focused on streetscape projects and safe routes to School Projects and were looking for the opportunity to finish what we started. Looking at an opportunity at the large known Infrastructure Projects that are moving forward that support those Development Areas and the core transportation improvements and in particular looking at not just with the corridors within the city but how people are getting in and out of the city, so that is going to be a new consideration, and then we will also consider things like geographic equity and what the project sponsors telling us are their priorities. The schedule as i said bringing the framework through this month for approval. Then we will go through the call for projects. Make recommendations and bring it to you in june for approval. In the meantime we are doing our first round of its basically consistent with the way we do outreach around the call for projects and do one round of vetting. Stakeholders know there is a call available. We will do a second round of speaking with steak takes and public agencies and staff when we release the project recommendations. And so with that i am happy to take any questions and i look forward to working with you over the next couple of months over this. Thank you very much for your presentation so one of the things i spoke briefly with staff about and i want to reiterate in public as well just because this is such a large pot of funding that were receiving through this i want to make sure were funding any sort of current obligations that we might have helping to complete existing projects that are already under way versus starting completely new projects that might take a huge chunk of money and a lot of time so thats my preference here. Again i know that this call for projects is pretty broad but i like to put that on the record. The other thing if you could clarify when we expect to hear from the mtc commission on approval. We dont have an exact date. We have to submit the projects to them in july and given their turn around and review process probably between september and december for approval. Okay. And then i know that there is a small portion of this that we do have to put towards safe routes to school which i think has been wonderful, but in looking through some of the reports that have come out about what thats translated into i want to make sure were ensuring theyre good outcomes, measurable impacts to the community in terms of people actually feeling safer going to school whether its walking, biking or so forth, and theyre actual deliverables that come out of the funding. Thats correct. We are for the small portion that is required we are recommending prioritizing it for non Infrastructure Projects which are incredibly difficult to fund elsewhere but at the same time we are looking back at the projects we funded in the last cycle to ensure exactly what i said that there are measures that we can point to about their effectiveness. Okay. All right. So commissioners do you have any questions or comments on this item . Okay. Seeing none then we will sorry, commissioner safai. I just want to add on to what chair tang was saying the safe routes to School Program is important and effective in our district and a lot of the schools and Community Folks have accessed it and we have seen some positive things with people getting out of cars and taking advantage of kind of pooling their energy in terms of some working famil