scissors. we will have you come forward and do the honors. [applause]

supervisor campos: good morning, everyone, and welcome to the tuesday, november 8, 2011 meeting of the san francisco county transportation authority's plans and programs committee. my name is david campos, the chair of the committee. we're joined by committee members, commissioners david chiu, john f. bellows, an scott wiener. vice chair carmen chu is in

route. the clerk of the committee is erika cheng. we want to thank the following members of sfgtv for their coverage, charles and jennifer. madam clerk, please call item number two. >> approve the minutes of the october 18, 2011 meeting, an action item. supervisor campos: before we take action, is there any member of the public that would like to speak on the minutes of the october 18 meeting? three minutes. >> first and foremost, i want to commend the mayoral candidates for doing due diligence and reporting at this meeting. it is a sign of good public service. having said that, those minutes,

i read the minutes, and if we are going to write the minutes in a very simplistic form, you know, just give ages of what happened, then is fine. but i think we need to have its across the board. if you look at the agenda items and you see the minutes linked to the cac, they're very short. and the other agenda items are going right into detail. having said that, i did try to state as clearly as possible the last time that the citizens advisory committee plays an important role. and one of the things that whoever represents or whoever is on at the cac, the citizens advisory committee, is they should bring some sort of experience. at one time we did have transit people who were involved,

transit union members, and so on and so forth, but if you look good page 17 of this report that is given to you, you'll see the people from the various districts, and you'll see some people who have been representing the cac from whaleback -- from way back, 1997. we have a member who is representing the cac firm way back in 1997. you can go to the candidates and see if what you see before you is right. what i am saying is we need expertise, and we need fresh blood. and even on the political side, here we have term limits. so i can understand if somebody is there for five or six years, but from way back in 1997 to

now, 14 years, that is shallow, that is drab. [bell rings] having said that, today you're going to hear from some new candidates, and i hope they have experience in it transit issues. because if they do not have other cac people with experience, then they're not able to participate in the deliberation, whether it is the subway, the central subway, or other millions of dollars that we discuss. i will be giving my comments on that, too. thank you very much. supervisor campos: thank you. in the other member of the public who would like to speak? the cnn, public comment is closed. we have an action item, the minutes. we have a motion and a second. we can take that without objection. madam clerk, please call item

number 3. >> citizens advisory committee report, an information item. supervisor campos: now if we could hear from the citizens' advisory committee. >> chairman campos and members of the committee, my name is bob switzer, and i am representing glenn davis today, who cannot be here. and me just say there is one item on your agenda that i have a personal interest in, and that is item four. but i am here today to make the presentation on behalf of the cac, and i wanted to be specific about item six. item six was handled by the cac on its consent calendar as an information item, and at the time it engendered no discussion. however, at the end of our agenda there were a couple of comments that i want to convey

to you and a couple of issues raised that would be appropriate to mention it to you. first, cac member wendy tran, who has been extremely helpful in our deliberations because of her expertise, has asked that the transportation impacts of the van ness avenue proposal before you have included the california medical center and whether or not those would be addressed in the draft environmental impact report for van ness avenue brt. staff noted that the authority had coordinated with the medical center throughout the van ness avenue brt/eir process, and the transportation analysis in the van ness avenue brt draft eir was consistent with the transportation analysis elsewhere. at the request of another of our

cac members, jacqueline sacks, we have asked to have california pacific medical center representatives present to present to the cac on the medical center's project and discuss how the project was coordinated with the plant in van ness avenue and geary corridor brt projects. as a conflict -- as a consequence of these two inquiries, we expect to hear more information at one of our next meetings. let me just say, with that, this item was placed on our consent calendar to allow us to provide more opportunity for deliberations and comments on the other action items throughout our agenda, some of which you receive the gallaspy meeting. with that, unless there are questions from your board, i will conclude my comments. supervisor campos: thank you very much, sir. i do not see any questions, the

thank you for the presentation. again, thank you to you and the rest of the cac for your service. is there any member of the public who would like to speak on this item? if so, please come forward. >> if i remember correctly, the last time one of the things we wanted to find out from the cac was if the central subway project had to come to a halt, the cac wanted to know the impact of it. and i would have thought that today the cac would have come up with some statements regarding that question. now some of the present here at the last meeting asked more

questions of the cac. and that points out what i stated earlier. we're dealing with a project like the central subway, and if the members of the cac have no idea, even though they say they're experts of the phase one, the third street light rail, then it is practically impossible for them to deliberate. and it is also practically impossible for the cac, without having any link to engineers and the designers, to find out exactly what is happening. now, the cac should be that entity that clears a lot of misunderstandings, because they are the citizens' advisory committee. and i know that they do not

truly represent, but how can they advise if they do not have the right information? if they're not educated on issues? now what has happened for a long time with the cac is that they kept on rubber stamping. and you keep on rubber stamping win there is politics behind it, but we know, as you know, supervisors, that on the central subway, there's a lot of politics. and when politics come, that type of politics, what it does is it divides the community. as i stated the last time, there was a meeting with the former mayor and some others that was brought to light. [bell rings] such types of devious actions linked with the central subway do not project anything holistic.

so, again, the cac must be vigilant. you can get advice could you cannot really give us some good reports here unless you are educated on issues. so do not make the cac a platform where, you know, you just have some drab dialogue. thank you very much. supervisor campos: thank you. anybody else from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, item is closed. call item number four. >> recommend appointment of one member to the citizens' advisory committee. this is an action item. supervisor campos: we can now hear from staff. >> good morning. i am a planner with the authority. by way of background, the authority has an 11-member citizen advisory committee, and each member serves a two-year term. the plans and programs committee recommends and the board appoints and committee members. on page 18 of your packet, you can see a list of folks who

have sent in applications to be on the citizens' advisory committee. on page 17, there is a listing with information on the existing members. to qualify for appointment to the cac, you have to be a san francisco resident, and you have to a pier once before this committee to speak to your qualifications. we currently have one vacancy, which is the result of mr. switzer, and he is interested of being reappointed. obviously, he is here today. supervisor campos: have we heard from the district supervisor, the district 7 a supervisor, on this appointment? >> i am the chief deputy. i believe the district 7 supervisor is still recruiting and discussing with mr. switzer. i should note, the list is rather short, because we do put

a time limit on applications. supervisor campos: great, thank you very much. let's hear now from mr. switzer and any other applicant. mr. switzer, please come forward. again, we want to thank you for your service on the cac in your interest in wanting to serve again. if you could give us a brief statement about yourself and why you are interested in being reappointed. >> mr. chairman, members, thank you for the opportunity to present my interest in reappointment you and also to respond to some of the comments from the audience with regard to whether or not the cac is a rubber stamp in this issue. my background before coming to the committee was in interlocal city, county, and state government. it included both management of local government agencies, including a position as city manager.

i was involved for a long time as the city planner, in which my work included the development of transportation plans and general plan bank elements for cities, including housing. my work for the state involved in liaison on a number of occasions with caltrans and other agencies that were engaged, both state and federal agencies, engaged in transportation. so i think i understand the constraints on the public agencies that are dissipating here. with respect to two issues, let me just say that i think under -- and during my own participation in this process of being an adviser with the citizens advisory committee to you and attempting to bring value to their deliberations, i have witnessed, perhaps, more of the proposals that have come before our committee going back

to the staff as being un ready for prime time, based on the deliberations of that committee as i understand that have come back to my staff i and my predecessors time. our committee is very concerned, both with the quality of citizen participation in the neighborhoods and the documentation of information we are receiving, particularly about the citizen participation before these issues come to your committee, as well as the criteria by which these programs are evaluated. let me just say, with regard to the central subway, because that issue did come up at the last meeting, we presented information that we had requested of staff with regard to the cost. if you recall, it was associated with the closure of the central subway project if that project

were to be abandoned. we have, since that time, we have sent that information back to staff. we have requested more specific analysis of the out-of-pocket losses that the city would experience, and when we receive that information, we will be happy to share it with you. at any rate, with that as background, what to indicate my own interest in continuing, if you feel that i and others that have my kind of experience can bring value to your deliberations. appreciate it very much. thank you. supervisor campos: is there any other applicant who is here to speak? >> yes, good morning, mr. chairman and committee members. my name is adrian hime, and i stand before you to be considered for the vacancy the citizens' advisory committee. as a native and former member of the transbay joint powers

authority, the cac from 2007 to 2009, i believe i would be a valuable asset to this committee. they're my educational and professional experience as a transportation and use planner, i have in-depth knowledge of the transportation policies, such as the regional transportation plan and sustainable community strategy is, as well as the one bay area block grant. i also have understanding of transportation funding mechanisms and local projects, such as the central subway project, a better market street project, and the jfk separated bike path project and golden gate park. i believe i can include transportation equity in regards to communities and communities of color. thank you so much. supervisor campos: if you can repeat your name, please. >> adrienne hime. supervisor campos: thank you very much. is there any other applicant who would like to speak?

let's now open it to public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to speak on this item? please come forward. >> supervisors, let me explain to you, when you participate or deliberate over a long time span, having come to these meetings, we see candidates who really just focus on what is before them. very few of you all know that the san francisco county transportation authority extended it -- extended monies at one time to build a three conduit's under a creek, all of which failed, costing us millions of dollars. the citizens advisory committee to the cass san francisco transportation authority not once addressed this issue. another issue, the muni

maintenance facility, cost overruns that adversely impact the entire area. now, if we're talking about candidates who are seeking to give input so that, say, the bayview hunters point has good transportation, then, ok, i challenge the cac to extend the third street light rail to balboa. not in the direction of in which the light rail moves now, but in the opposite direction. because the third street light rail is a white elephant. it starts at fourth and king and ends at the middle of nowhere in visitation valley, and we have spent $700 million. for a long time, nobody said anything about it. but now, suddenly, when discussing about the central subway, they are trying to say that a phase one of the third

street like real works, when it does not. so if we have learned that the third street light rail, from the middle of nowhere in visitation valley k to fourth visitationing in the service up to today does not provide reasonable service, meaning that you have to wait on an average of 30 minutes or 40 minutes for the light rail, then something has to be done. if something is not working on the first phase, it casts a doubt as to what will happen in phase two. so, again, the cac candidates who come here should be very well-informed about the history, very well-informed about this. right now flows in one direction. [bell rings] to change that requires expertise, not some expertise from the state and some drab

expertise, but really knowing how to facilitate transportation so that people can take public transportation, that we can truly say that we are a transit- first city, which we are not. i repeat, we are not a transit- first city. we just say that like a mantra. thank you very much. supervisor campos: thank you. is there another member of the public that would like to speak on this item? seen none, public comment is closed. that may begin by saying that i want to thank the two individuals who spoke, who have come forward to apply to the cac. from my perspective, it would be great to see both of them serve. i was definitely very impressed with the presentation from adrian hime, and i think that she is the kind of individual that we want to see on this kind of body. that said, it is important though that we have geographic

representation in the seed that is currently vacant, which is a seed that represents residents of the district 7 supervisor real seat, my understanding is that she lives in district 5. i think it is important for us to make sure that geographic representation is there, but i encourage you to continue to please be involved because i think that, whether it is this body or some other body, that you definitely have the kind of qualities that we want to see in some and who serves on this kind of committee commission task force. so thank you for coming forward. the big question for me as, with respect to mr. spencer, who clearly is dedicated and has done a fine job on the cac, is simply getting the feedback from the district 7 supervisor. with that, my understanding is that, commissioner chu, you have

heard -- supervisor chu: thank you. i want to thank all the individuals willing to serve in this capacity. it takes a lot of time and effort to be a part of any organization. i do want to indicate that supervisor elsbernd has indicated his support of mr. spitzer and the reappointment. so i would like to make a motion to reappoint mr. robert spitzer to represent the district 7. supervisor campos: we have a motion. can we get a second? second by supervisor wiener. colleagues, can we take that without objection? motion passes. we want to thank mr. spitzer. again, i would, ms. hime to continue her involvement. we look forward to seeing you participate in the capacity in the near future. and thank you, mr. spencer, for your service. congratulations. next item. >> item 5, recommend appropriation of two $126,827 for the 19th avenue transit

corridor investment study, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule, and amendment of the transportation/land use coordination five-year prioritization program. this is an action item. >> at this start on page 19 of your packet. there are some maps on page 44 that might be helpful. this is a request for prop k funds to serve as a local match for a new study, the 19th avenue transit corridor investment steady. it is also known as the tier 5 improvement study, which i will get to. i will talk about the background, and then i will get to the study and the request itself. as background, this concerns the southern portion of the 19th avenue corridor, basically from eucalyptus up to the county line on 19th avenue. there are several large properties in this section of 19th avenue, some of which have been envisioning potential further growth.

including stones town galleria mall, san francisco state university, which adopted a master plan in to dozens of an envisioning to grow its student body, and park are said more recently, the residential complex located just south of sf state, which has recently been approved for growth in 2011. included in that proposal, a commitment to several transportation improvements. we see this as an impetus to court in a possibly a wider set of transportation changes that could benefit the community above and beyond partners said. the study would have three focus areas. the first being the idea of shipping the m-ocean view light rail line that runs in the medians of 19th avenue to the west side. most of the riders of the light rail line are heading toward the west side, so shifting would be an improvement for pedestrian

transit access. we're also thinking about possibly separating the crossings of the light rail under 19th avenue. that would be an improvement to both transit operations as well as traffic. the second area of focus would be to look at related pedestrian and bicycle improvements. if we did ship to that line, how would the pedestrian conditions change, and how might we shift the space around a little bit to make sure the pedestrian conditions in the remain as they are can be improved. finally, the last area of focus would be this idea of extending transit to the l.a. city bart. that has been talked about as an extension of the light rail line, m-ocean view, to the l.a. city bart. we like to look at that as well as ideas on improving bus reliability in the corridor. there is a lot of buzz transit

service in this area, and we think it would be the most cost- effective way to improve the reliability of that service. the study activities would include the needs assessment, developing some transportation improving concepts, and then doing a real engineering feasibility analysis and evaluation of those improvement concepts. looking at some cost estimates and in doing some thinking about how we could fund and implement those new projects. there has been some previous work in this corridor. i will mention two efforts. one of them is the 19th avenue park presidio boulevard transportation plan. that was a study by the authority itself and was adopted in 2008. it looked at existing needs for pedestrian safety and transit operations. this new study is looking more at sort of future transportation improvements that could accompany new growth. the other study is the 19th

avenue corridor study, which was requested by the board of supervisors and around the time that the parkmerced proposal came forward. that study looked at four different tiers of transportation and land use changes and how that might affect the transportation system. during that study, the community was interested in what he ended up calling tier 5 improvements, soared above and beyond what was being proposed in parkmerced and sf state. those improvements kind of overlap, and that is the idea. that is some people know this is the tier 5 study. then 19th avenue corridor study was unable to really analyze those tier 5 improvements, and this is what this next level of conversation is intended to be. really to look at some of these a larger improvement and how we might be about fund them. there's a strong emphasis on partners. we expect a