stretch. if the departments will have a chance to save the money, the need to make their sub metals tomorrow. understand there is justified concern by the board, by the commissioners representing the district in particular. my main concern, in addition to the process issue -- when you realize this amount of money is reprogrammed, you are the policy body that decides where that money goes to. you should have choices, which you do not have today, but for the sake of saving the money, i will suggest the following. the money could be reprogrammed to the projects mentioned in the subnittal, presented by the two departments involved, and we need to have a discussion about how the second street project can be made ready, incorporating community concerns, and how we

are going to make sure the funding for the project is found. some of the funds, about half of what we need to complete the second street project, could come from funds out of the cesar job as project, which would be a door but this federal money and freeing up an equivalent amount. i would further suggest there is money that can be programmed to this project subject to discussion from this board by the new vehicle registration fee fund collected in san francisco since last april, which generates about $5 million a year. i repeat, this is not an ideal situation. my main concern right now is to have clarity, in terms of what the process needs to be, but also to save the funds being lost to san francisco. i know there are representatives from the sfmta and dpw.

they can represent the concerns of the community. we are ready to answer any questions you have for us. commissioner campos: monday that was not clear was -- one thing that was not clear was by what date does this body to act to protect these funds? >> in theory, we should have action today in order to allow the other departments to make a submittal tomorrow of design documents necessary for the obligation of funds. however, i am fairly certain the department can make a sunbelt contingent based on future board action that could take place at a future meeting. i also want to warn you, because this is federal money, the funds need to go into an amendment of

the transportation improvement program at mtc. that amendment would be considered by the mtc at its committee level on february 8, and that the full commission on february 22. we can probably put the wheels in motion in terms of submittals pending a detailed review and action by the sport at a later date. however, because of the mtc action on february 8, we consider a special meeting next tuesday, the seventh, to have action ready to report to the mtc. commissioner campos: it would be helpful to hear from the department of public works. is there ever presented a from the department of public works here? >> good morning, commissioners.

i did not catch your question. commissioner campos: how is it that we got to this point that we are talking about the potential to lose millions of dollars and are asking for approval from this commission at the very last minute? i know that commissioner kim has specific questions >> of want to echo the director's comments. this is not an item that we are happy to bring to the commission today. we spent six months tried to overcome an environmental her role on the project before we initiative conversations about design. there have been some issues with this project from the beginning, not just the community -- the lack of community support. while we are sad to see we will not be able to continue, at least the implementation of the

project now, we want to let you know we have a plan to move forward in the planning process with the community, and hopefully, supervisor kim's office to initiate process to implement second street. we need to repave that street. that was the primary element of the project that brought together the bike component, the streets kit components. it was on the table schedule. the mta and the dpw have both created a plan. the mta have prop k allocation requests that will be heard, i believe, at next month's cac to continue the bike planning. we are creating a plan to move second straight forward. commissioner campos: commissioner jim? commissioner kim: i did not catch your name. >> simone jacque.

commissioner kim: i just want to say, i am extraordinarily upset about how this is coming to us. i have a number of questions. who owns the community of reach for the project? who owns that portion of this work? >> dpw and mta should be doing that together, in terms of the bike components. to our knowledge, -- commissioner kim: why was the last meeting in 2009? why has there been a hold on two years on community outreach, and for this item to say there is community opposition, how do we know, if we have not had a meeting for two years? >> i cannot speak to the bike planning -- commissioner kim: when this comes to us today, why months

ago, nobody said we need to read gauges the community in this process? we knew we had to meet the deadline on february 1. where did things fall apart? our office has never been informed we were about to lose $4.8 million for this project. had we have known, we would have held these committee meetings. second street is one of our top priorities in the district. how often does this happen? 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