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 to problems with these processes in order to be able to help them overcome them in some way or the other. particularly, the difficult situation with this project is that we -- some of the hoops that needed to be jumped through were actually completed. we have worked with the department's to make sure that we still had a timeline that was workable, many months ago.

and then, when it became time to actually move beyond the findings of the historic survey and all of the other things is when the department discovered that there was a significant amount of opposition that would not be overcome. in their view, that was going to do the scheduling of the project. at that point, it was really too late. in a number of locations, we have provided technical and logistical support. moving money around and so on. this really is an extreme case of getting to the final hour. the question of what we can do, the only practical thing that we can try to resolve at this point, as i said to commissioner kim -- i think that at the very least, i need to be bringing you to the meetings of the program committee with this federal

money that you administer. a concrete timeline us that the need to be taken for the federal funds to be discarded. assuming that we all have the same goal of making sure that no money is lost, just made more explicit, so that you can see the time that is available and you can request updates much more often, if necessary. supervisor campos: thank you. -- supervisor avalos: -- supervisor chiu: thank you. i think that for the needs of supervisor kim in her constituency, i think this is a big deal. i wanted to make that point. supervisor campos: thank you. as was noted, we have this action item. i wanted to get this clarity in terms of how we want to act as a

body. is it possible for us to delay action for a few days, for a special meeting? is that something that in any way could endanger the funding at issue? >> it would be better, mr. chairman, if you could act today. i was ill-advised, and i want to make it very clear, i want to advise the department to make the submission that they need to make, making it conditional in an action by the board. i would suggest that you hold a special meeting in the next week or so to make sure that the department is on solid ground, communicating to others that this is an issue that has captured the focus of the board and that action will be taken on it. supervisor campos: commissioner kim, do you have any preference? supervisor chiu: i -- supervisor

kim: i still have a lot of questions that i need to be answered. replacing the $4.8 million on second street. supervisor campos: is that a motion to continue to the call of the chair? i would be happy to make sure that we have a special meeting as soon as possible. supervisor kim: yes, thank you. supervisor campos: colleagues, can we take that motion without objection? without objection. thank you. madam clerk, please call item no. 7. >> item #7. the authority's enabling legislation requires the preparation and adoption of an annual report by january of eac. this is an action item. supervisor campos: -legally, are we required to take action today

on this item? i know that time is running short. >> mr. chairman, the statute requires that i bring you an annual report in january. i think it is important that you hear a presentation. however, i am informed by counsel that we have complied with the spirit of the law, by bringing the item to the board and making it available to the public. i would still like to say that to your pleasure, we can go over this in february. the fact that -- february. supervisor campos: the fact that it is presented is enough to meet requirements? >> yes. i think it is better to delay the action, but consider the item as presented to you and the board. supervisor campos: colleagues, we will take public comment, but unless there is an objection, i would be inclined to bring this

item back to us for a future meeting. let's open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public that would like to speak on item number seven? seeing no one, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we have a motion to continue this to the call of the chair? we can take that without objection. madam clerk, please call item no. 9. >> item #9. update on the implementation of california high-speed rail. this is an information item. supervisor campos: this item was introduced by commissioner wiener. i want to thank him and his staff for this work on this very important project for san francisco and the bay area. we will turn it over to commissioner winner.

>> thank you very -- supervisor wiener: thank you very much. i called for this meeting to update the city on the progress for high-speed rail. to discuss how and when we bring high-speed rail to san francisco and declared this as an opportunity, unlike any other, for us to act reasonably and involved institutional partners. how we bring the high-speed rail to san francisco is a discussion about land use and jobs, as much as it is about transportation. governor brown's recent full support of high-speed rail is very welcome in san francisco, where we are building the first project. i know that a lot of us are very happy to hear the governor reiterate his support and show that despite the noise that has been circulating around in certain quarters, that there is support for high-speed rail and

it is critical to the future of transportation in the economy in california. at the same time, we must actively look for ways to move the project forward, reduce costs, collaborate with regional partners, and explore how to bring more funding to the enterprise. as with any transformative infrastructure transportation project, whether it is the interstate highway system or railways, it is not cheap or easy and it does not happen overnight. the same is true here. i know that we will find a way to make this happen. with that, i would like to turn the discussion over to the mayor's office. then we will invite the director and staff to present. mr. elliott? >> thank you, commissioners.

jason elliott, from the mayor's office. thank you for giving us this opportunity to discuss the city's vision for high-speed rail. the mayor is committed to bringing it to san francisco at the earliest possible date. i will not deliver his support to much, but when he was in washington a couple of weeks ago, this was a topic of conversation that he brought very frequently. his support is strong and unwavering. this is the original northern terminus, as promised to the voters. it is the first statewide i still work -- high-speed rail project. this is actually broken ground and underactive construction. trans day represents a real commitment from the federal government and local partners to make high-speed rail a reality. as you mentioned, we are all grateful for the strong support.

this past weekend he made some more reaffirming comments. this is a substantial investment in the future of california. ultimately, the mayor feels that this needs to get built now or in the future. not so much because of detractors in the city, but because this is something that needs to get done and is much more -- going to be much more expensive in the future. if we can work together to make high-speed rail a reality -- we have already begun thinking creatively about how public and private partnerships could help us to bring this system to fruition. we have seen other types of partnerships like this operate with tremendous success. the mayor believes that this is a strategy that the city should consider as well.

specifically, the mayor would like to extend his appreciation to you, supervisor, for all the work that has been done so far. of course, thank you for everything that is about to happen, as this board takes action in this process moves forward. the best credit he suggested so far is this concept of a fast start program with the caltrans electrification program, eventually finishing at the trans bay transit center. it is of utmost importance to all of those. this, ultimately, when it is all billed out, but be a transformative project for the city in the state. we have milestones coming in the future. the mayor appreciates the work done towards those milestones on developing alternatives. we have an opportunity to strengthen, as we consider

alternative partnerships in the region, with cities and communities to the south. also, partnerships between community members. this is a system that serves writers all over the state and region. leveraging those partnerships with the private sector will be the key to success. this is how you capture the energy, resources, and expertise to make this a joint effort and high-speed rail system. ultimately, there is a bit of work that needs to be done to consider those choices that we have to make. again, thank you for the work that has been done. with that, i think i will hand it over to your executive director. thank you.

supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. elliott. commissioners, we have a presentation that we would like to share with you. talking about a fast start concept. i do not want to take much time at all. the executive director has been leading the working group, and before he takes it away, i would like to, in a manner of framing the issue, say the following thing. i think everything has been said by the mayor's office and the commissioner. we all need to be reminded that in the next 40 years, california will add 20 million inhabitants to the current 40 million. we are adding a number of people

to the state of pennsylvania, on top of the people already living in california. what appears to me to be outlandish is to try to do that without a transformative project like high-speed rail. we are all understanding now, not just in san francisco, but the local communities, a need for alternatives and transportation, saving us from the consequences of having to drive everywhere. we cannot do that without a major commitment at the state level without investment in infrastructure. lands that are grown from the grass roots up. that is why it is so important that the commissioner has taken the initiative to make sure that san francisco is a leader again in creating a regional movement that supports a high-speed rail the right way, in a way that

does not create a situation where the best is the enemy of the better. we can have high-speed rail in sentences go for the next 18 years, without giving away the farm. with that, i will take a second to wrap up the presentation. let me turn this over. thank you. >> good afternoon, mr. chair. in the deputy director for the capital project authority. i will be presenting the update on the high-speed rail project this afternoon. but a couple of items. first of all, a brief overview of the high-speed rail plan. and a description of the workings of the san francisco high-speed technical working group and its interaction with a

high-speed rail authority. some highlights from the 2012 business plan, released by the high speed rail authority and implications for san francisco and a description for the proposal that has wound up as the fast start project, a way that we believe will bring high- speed rail to san francisco more quickly than currently called for in the business plan, identifying immediate next steps. looking of the overall plan, ultimately the plan is to provide high-speed rail service from san diego to downtown san francisco, as well as connections to sacramento. phase one, often referred to as the basin project, connecting los angeles to the san francisco bay area and, eventually, san francisco.

the peninsula segment of the plan is anchored by stations in san jose, with options for intermediate changes between the two. as has been mentioned by others this morning, san francisco has long been a proponent of high- speed rail in california. the city is the only entity within the nation that has committed personal, direct local funds to the construction of a high-speed rail system. $1.6 million to begin construction of phase one. it is to open in 2017. it is not only a dramatic architectural accomplishment, but it will provide connectivity to the regional and local bus system, with local activity

presented to bart. phase two will connect regional and inner-city high-speed rail systems within california. the san francisco high-speed rail working group was established two years ago, primarily to respond to challenges that were identified within the alternative analysis report that was released by the authority, calling for the construction of various options for high-speed rail within the states, specifically within the peninsula. the city has identified a number of concerns, with alternatives at the time identified specifically as the analysis that included options other than trans bag. the plan, as presented, provided significant impact at mission

bay boulevard, with likely impacts to the mission bay redevelopment area. providing reduced assets -- reduced aspects to mission bay itself, further impacting the stations at bay shore, because a planned maintenance facilities in the area. the high-speed rail working groups also served as a way of bringing multiple agencies within the city together to address issues and develop a coordinated city position, providing a venue for city agencies and departments to come together to develop these positions. membership includes the transfer a joint powers authority, -- trans bay joint power authority,

including the office of economic and workforce development, planning, public works, the redevelopment agency, and its successor -- the port of san francisco. of course, planning in the san francisco municipal transit agency. in the time that the working group has been under way, it has accomplished a number of things. it did establish an ongoing forum for coordination of the city activities regarding high- speed rail. it would dramatically improved high-speed rail authority authorization, so that they would be able to speak with all of the agencies in santa francisco. they were able to reaffirm the high speed rail authority, excepting the transit center as

the ultimate terminus for the project. we identified maintenance facilities at the bayshore station and established consensus for an operation to accommodate both cal train and high-speed rail operations on the peninsula. specifically, high-speed rail authority agreed to three options from the technical working group to agree with the option that 16th street. the three options developed by the working group involved placing high-speed rail and a short tunnels under 16th street. the graphic that you see, number one is short. it is slightly to that -- to the

south, near mariposa. option number three includes land use elements. it would involve a portion of the 282 freeway, as it terminates in the city, replacing it with a boulevard. the business plan from the high speed rail authority was replaced in november of 2011. it is -- it is the continuation of business plans that started in 2008. they are required to be the submitted comments on the business plan representing implant and suggestions from all of the agencies in which earlier this month, there are some highlights from the business plan. ey