how often do the projects fall apart because multiple agencies to oversee it and then nobody takes responsibility until the week before we lose funding? >> this is the first time coming to the commission with a request like this. i will let mta address the bike planning. >> commissioners, jonathan with the mta. to your questions, all of you are wondering, how did the project get to this point? this grand opportunity, the source of funds allow the mta and dpw to work together to complete a number of streetscape projects, which is in the interest of the city. what happened was, to get directly to your question, this project was built on a number of different planning process cheese. one was the bike plan. there was an injunction, so we did not move forward.

there were concerned with the left turn associated with the striping of the project. after the injunction ended, we try to move it forward to an environmental phase, and this grant came up. that is where we tried to put a package of improvements together. since then, the concerns have arisen again and we have tied it to paving, signal improvements along the corridor and streetscape improvements. the second street project will not die, by any means. the signal component, the sfgo -- commissioner kim: i understand the challenges of second street, whether there are community concerns around bike parking, the loss of parking lanes, spots, but for two years, nobody held a community meeting. how does that happen? >> i think part of it was the injunction. commissioner kim: when was that listed?

>> good morning. christina. i am an engineer with the mta. the injection was listed in 2010 -- injunction was listed in 2010. i think it was one year after the last committee meeting. we proceeded with the bicycle plant project that had already been legislated. there was a package of 45 products that went through legislation, approved by the board, and the focus and our office was implementing those. second street had not been legislated along with those other projects, so it was not implemented. because staff was focused on implementing those, we did not have a chance to have a community meeting. commissioner kim: how do you prioritize federal projects that are lent to grants? >> we began the process in 2010,

received the funds in the fall of 2010. we wanted to hold a community meeting. the issue was our hands were tied by the grant requirements, and that the grant was for design and construction and did not provide money for planning. we did start looking for money to do planning, it took us longer than expected. that is how we got to where we are today. commissioner kim: how did we apply for a grant for a project we did not have planning funding for? how is second street the only product of this has happened to, with all the money tied up in the block grants? they had planning funding but this was the only one we did not make plans for? >> there were numerous projects as part of the block program funded. this was one of them. i will be honest. pre-development funding, the money your talking about to do community outreach, does not have long-term construction

funds, always a challenge for the dpw and mta. we lined up the construction funds, used a portion of it to try to do that community outreach, but there are limitations on those funds as to how far we can go, especially with major concerns. commissioner kim: if we got the funding in late 2010, the cma block grant, realized we did not have funding for planning and community outreach, why was not that -- why wasn't that flag to anyone? how long is the community -- out ridge time line? what is the proper time when to get an outline drawing? community outreach to final product design drawing, which should be submitted by february 1. if we go backwards, when should that have begun? >> one year before the deadline. commissioner kim: why weren't we

informed that this was an issue -- i just do not understand what i'm finding about this today. in september, when caltrans requested an historical project survey, we should have known even then that there would be no final project drawing. or they should have been working on them at the same time simultaneously with the hopes that by december we would get environment clearance, which is what happened. now a month later we do not have any drawings to submit. >> you are absolutely correct. lessons learned. it is all of our responsibility to notify each of you when we see there is a potential risk to the project. as simone said, there were some risks with the trenching, historic preservation issues. we should have fled the that to your office, and you are correct. in the future, -- this is a very unfortunate situation and we are trying to preserve the funds to

the best of our ability and trying to proceed with second street. we should have informed your office, you are correct, when we knew there were issues. commissioner kim: i am upset because of second street, this corridor, which is a huge part for us. when the call the hearing of pedestrian safety in april, this is one area that we talked about. at that point, we could have been notified of this may not move forward. we could also the community outreach, which i have not heard about this corridor. over all, i have larger questions. if this happened to this project, it can happen to other projects in other districts as well. what kind of process will we have in place when we have multiple agencies overseeing projects, to make sure that this does not happen again? >> in the near term, what we can do is, we are going to come forward with an allocation

request from prop k to foley request that planning phase. we should come to your office to brief you on that for what the steps and someone will be. we are trying to time it for near-term funds, the one bay area grant coming up in one year, and recently, the proposition be straight -- b street project. we can talk to you about the planning phase, mature office is involved in that, scheduled meetings to make sure we are talking with the right people, and working with your office to fully fund the project. commissioner kim: i apologize for taking up so much time on this item, but i would like to see a plan for funding, timeline of when this will get done. also, i want to have a better understanding of processes like this so that this does not happen to another major project. to me, there is a huge gap in

communication. this morning, everyone was blaming someone else for not being notified. months ago, we should have flagged ths. this should not happen to any other project again and there should be a way to set up a structure that this does not happen. whether we have a master document and all agencies can see -- this is the deadline for the millions of dollars we have tied to this project, and a backboard calendar step of how we will get there. how do not understand why every project does not have that timeline, to meet funding deadlines. commissioner campos: commissioner olague? commissioner olague: this was just brought to my attention a week ago. i was happy to support it for fear that we would lose the funding. disappointed to hear that

supervisor kim was just informed about this this morning. in the past, i have worked with the residents in the ring, hallett area. one of the issues that keeps coming up -- rincon hill area. one of the issues that keeps coming up is a lack of infrastructure in that part of the city. these funds will be reallocated to cesar chavez, haight and market. i am wondering, how were these prioritized? who made the decision to reallocate those funds to these two projects? commissioner campos: mr. moskowitz. -- moscovich.

>> if you vote on this today, you will be making the decision. that is the problem i have with this. you are given only one chance to vote. the reality is, when an item is displayed and urgent, it is often times are defined projects ready to absorb the money. that is the issue. at least the cesar chavez project could absorber parts of these funds and release other funds. that was a product that was already fully funded. it essentially creates a bit of movement of different kinds of money, and that becomes available to go back into the second street project, but does not account for the full cost of the project, which is also but i mentioned earlier on. if i may, to commissioner kim's concern about making sure this does not happen again, how we can get to a place like this, we

are blessed am proud, as a city family, to have put together a workable concept of complete streets. we are in the process of implementing that. it is clear the implementation is not perfect yet, and the level of communication between implementing agencies these to be improved. we cannot get to a point where one agency thinks the other agency is doing outreach. there needs to be more coordination there that ensures we do not get to the 11th hour. that is not something that is impossible to correct. you are right in asking the question. you are forcing everyone to focus on what we need to correct. i cannot anticipate to you today exactly how the departments are responsible for implementation are going to do it. what i can commit to you is, for any action the board has to take either of prop k funding or

federal funds, like the ones being discussed discussed today, i would include in our process and recommendations for approval a review and a set of commitments and time lines for those issues to also be addressed. so that there is at least a time table that you can control over time and consider overtime to make sure that the budget is taking progress. that is just a modest step in leaving you certainty in how these projects are progressing through the time line. thank you. supervisor olague: is the biplane something that has been abandoned entirely -- bicycle lane something that has been abandoned entirely? >> there is an entire package that we will be trying to bring

together as one project. the planning phase will include all departments. we will be working in one direction and designing the project as it goes forward. supervisor wiener: supervisor wiener: one thing that has not been said that may have contributed to the delay, because federal money was involved in caltrans took an odd position, because of this road and sidewalk work touching local historic districts, a local resource evaluation was going to be required. i believe that that contributed to the delay. i think it was an over the top

position to take. bicycle safety should not be caught up in historic preservation debates. i will shamelessly plug one of the amendments to articles no. 10 and 11. it would make very clear that unless a street or sidewalk is specifically somehow historic in nature, it should not be lumped in with historic districts and made more expensive, our ability to make safety improvements. supervisor kim: i understand the delays over the past few years around this project, but no one has told me why in september, when the survey was requested, why then was the office not hold

that the federal funding linked to this project at risk? at that point i should have known that we were going to eat -- lose block funding. and no one told us. i found out about the survey from the community. i got angry e-mails from the community saying that the project is being delayed because caltrans had requested it. i would really like an answer as to why that did not get done. during that entire year, there was a complete communication breakdown that i cannot fathom. all of the delays, i get it, things like that happen often. but the communication, i cannot even conceive of an answer for. supervisor campos: colleagues, any other comments?

let me say that commissioner kim has been very kind in her questions and comments. i am still much sure that we have gotten an answer to the questions that have been raised. but it is really interesting that the issue of the bicycle conjunction was raised. it does not preclude community meetings. the injunction was lifted -- lifted in june of 2010, one-and- a-half years ago. i do have one question for staff, though. i understand that this action was driven by folks in the neighborhood, around second street. have you informed of the community that you are in fact planning to reallocate these funds for other projects? and if so, when did you inform them? >> i have been in conversations with the south beach spurring

conservation mission beach neighborhood. they have been aware of our desire to find money planning and wanting to meet with the community. i spoke to the supervisor's office in november. but we have not been able to hold that meeting. we were notified by the transportation authority, and letting them know about the action in take meeting. supervisor campos: i would submit that even when you have opposition of a project from said -- segments of the community, telling them the night before the action is proposed to be taken is not sufficient notice.

the process, the way that this has been handled in the last few days compounds the problems. the agencies that come to this commission for funding requests take very clear notice that this kind of approach is simply unacceptable. let's open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this item? please come forward. >> good morning, commissioners. i am with the san francisco bicycle corp. -- coalition. we were startled and displeased to learn of these events, as you would imagine. the transportation bill is basically getting improvements,

the source of this money, ultimately. we cannot afford to lose even $1 of it. second street is an essential in -- essential element. route 11, and it has been bicycle route 11 for decades. the general plan did not just come up with it. it is in desperate need of improvements or bicycle safety. we were really looking forward to having some improvements. it was set aside for further study in 2009, when the plant was adopted. we collected dozens of letters of support from merchants and residents along the street to make improvements.

this news is, at the very least, quite discouraging. there was and still is, nominally, a regional source of funding for bicycle improvements. in the first cycle, three projects receive funding. the bay trail in district 2, and cargo way improvements in district 10. i am discouraged to say that the marina bay trail will pay for car parking, but we will get past that. the important thing is, as we have all been discussing, to never have this happen again. easy to say. how will we do it?

a complete streets. a beautiful vision, but what it comes down to is the ugly and boring business of getting agencies in a room together and talking. let's do that. let's make second street better for everyone. supervisor mar: -- supervisor kim: how were you informed? >> i learned about it on streetsblog yesterday. boats have been scrambling to put a project together. i am only here because i read about it yesterday on street smart. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker? >> mr. chair, you like to be very practical.

in these dire economic times, the only word that comes to my mind is [unintelligible] so, let me offer you some practical suggestions. quarterly reports, and this of -- suggestion came from your vice chair, you have landmarks and then you have plan b period we could use this money on san bruno avenue. tomorrow. there are always some streets that lead to much planning. but this is a shame that some people who work for our city

make big money and do not do their job. to the people at home, for every 28 constituents, we have one city worker. this is a shame. our city workers, if they want to work for this city and county of san francisco, that also means the san francisco county transportation authority has to do their job. today is the last day for the san francisco redevelopment agency and commission. today, at the end of this day, no more redevelopments. a diabolical agency that has harmed a lot of people. this should spur us to audit these agencies, where we give

them a lot of money to do as they please. who adjudicated this project? why was it sent in one direction when we have four neighborhoods that do not receive that type of money in the right place? why not bruno ave? you have the check that you can ratify, allegedly, to short-term leadership. thank you very much. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker? >> good morning, commissioners. i was at the finance committee a few weeks ago talking about the repaving bond. and the opportunity that we have to complete streets with that. also, the city's real failure to step up to its own laws. ever fresher, it is locked in the public works code and it

calls for when the city is doing major work on the street at bb build them as complete streets that have -- that we rebuild? as a complete streets -- that we build them as complete streets. a few years before, we put language in proposition k that speaks to the importance of a multi modal planning these complete streets in the transportation network. we were hoping that as money was allocated, it was done along these lines and with this idea. unfortunately, the practice in the implementing agencies -- i should step back and say that some of the planning over the years have been fine. plans that come out of the planning department or the transportation authority, even

the redevelopment agency. at the planning level and the vision level, we are doing great, but when it gets to the mta, particularly public works, things break down and they become incomplete projects. every project, we should be looking at it to say how does it become a complete street? what happens is the assumption that we will rebuild every street big that they the way that it is. if the community or supervisors intervene, if there is some kind of force, public works grab in the had blocked saying that it will lobby the only complete street, we need to fix that. we are wasting a lot of money, if our goal is to rebuild these as complete streets. if our goal is to build in complete streets and come back later, you are wasting a lot of money.

you are also risking people's lives. these streets are dangerous. in you are wasting the communities time. no one knows where the way in is. what we also need to do is work with agencies on neighborhood planning. they need to be accountable to communities in ways that they are not right now the culture, sometimes it is great, often is nonexistent. we need to be more strategic over the improvements that we are doing over the coming years so we can stop things like this happening, so that we can stop wasting money and in danger in lives. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker? >> afternoon. my name is joe boss. congratulations, and thank you for mr.," campos and scott wien.

they talk about the city family. this city family is one of the most dysfunctional families that i know of in all of san francisco. i know that we cannot fix that, but i just -- i came here to get the update on high-speed rail coming into the city. i had no idea that we were going to have a one hour and a half discussion to try to save $4 million, of which i do not even know how much is going to overhead, staff, and so forth, as opposed to actual capital improvements. by the way, i am very happy to have mr. [unintelligible] in the city family. he is not one of the dysfunctional people. there are times when i want to say fine -- we lost $4 million. this city plows through $4 million every other day.

obviously, i think it is the call of supervisor kim. but this is 2 feet. thank you. supervisor campos: is there any other member of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing no one, public comment is closed. supervisor chiu: i wanted to ask one question to the executive director. a number of agencies have dropped the ball. i am very disappointed about what happened here. the question is, on our end, can you tell us what happened and why we -- what are we going to do to make sure that this does not happen again? >> thank you for the question. the reality is that the program has dozens of projects. this is not a particularly large project. so, it would depend really on the department's ability to alert us