you're making fun of people when you suggest it will be and this proclamation needs to be kicked back. it's full of flaws. so, personally, whether it's option 2 or option 4 isn't as important as the process by which you arrive atlasening to what people have to say and having the integrity to get it right. thank you. (applause) >> denise [speaker not understood], john bollinger, francis gore man. >> good afternoon. * gorman please just start. is this on? i guess it is. okay. i'm denise [speaker not understood]. i'm with save muni.com. and i rely heavily on public transit system, our public transit system. and i fear because of this ill-advised project, public services will be diminished and

fares will increase, and this has not come up at all that i know of, not at this meeting or other meetings. what are we going to do in the future when we can't get around the city with public transit and that train system is just a big boondoggle? i also fear what the 1906 earthquake could not do to destroy chinatown, this project will. and my favorite place to go is north beach. and i'm just horrified to think that i will not be able to access some of those wonderful restaurants and bakeries that are there because of the disruption of this construction. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> john bollinger, followed by francis gorman. those are the last people from whom i have speaker cards. >> okay. >> good afternoon, mr. bollinger. good afternoon, mr. chairman. my name is john bollinger, i'm

the president of the telegraph hill dwellers. i'm here today to make two points. number one, in conjunction with the north beach neighbors, i just passed around a letter that our two organizations have been very involved in this [speaker not understood] to director rifkin, and really want to make the point, i'll read briefly from the letter, we are actually very excited that this process has begun to come a long way, but we're very concerned with today, you've heard from others, is that the deeds make the words. we're much more concerned with reality in neighborhoods in north beach than we are with rhetoric. and the rhetoric is good. our letter reads, we are please today see your comments, director reiskin in the chronicle yesterday stating that the mta is now "ready to abandon the plan to dig up columbus for the unnecessary and disruptive central subway destruction that damaged north beach. muni also no longer favors digging up the street. this is very welcome news. the letter goes on to say and you heard today, that's not what your plan is to vote on today. you're planning to vote on a

resolution that unless you delete the language states that if the director of transportation by february 1st determines that option 3 or 4 is not feasible, et cetera, the muni board of directors directs the central subway program to continue to construct the retrieval shaft for the boring machines on columbus as previously approved. this is absolutely unacceptable. and while we are glad to hear the promises and the resources devoted to making other options happen, unless you delete this language, i think your attempt to rebuilding trust with the community in north beach is going to be shooting itself in the foot. we, of course, would prefer that you also include option 2, which at least is another alternative if the others don't work out, that we would not require further environmental review and would save money. but we implore you today to begin fresh by taking off the table for once and for all with your vote today the clause in this resolution that allows you to move forward in the plan

because it is absolutely unacceptable to north beach. thank you. >> francis gorman. mr. chairman, that's the last person who has turned in a speaker card. if there is anybody else who wishes to speak, you could please turn in a speaker card. okay, thank you very much. i have been a tour guide in san francisco for the last 15 years. i am a member of the san francisco tour guide guild, but i'm not speaking on their behalf because we are all independent. however, i had done walking tours in north beach, so, i'm familiar with that and they've been my most successful people. love the area. as a matter of fact, [speaker not understood] has been a lovely stop there. but i haven't gone through that neighborhood, but i can imagine what she's going through. whenever you open a magazine and the san francisco travel is promoting the city, they're promoting all our neighborhoods. i also conduct tours for folks in motor coach to get from one side of the city to the other.

please keep in mind that columbus avenue is a major artery. when i take us around the city and i need to move around in three hours so they can go on to something else, or four, that i simply cannot afford to eliminate all of north beach and hie because my only route is columbus avenue, unless i go by van ness. and particularly with the america's cup coming in, we'll have embarcadaro traffic. so, as you know; as the neighbors know, russian hill is not an option really because our motor coaches are limited on that hill. so, you simply will eliminate sites like lombard street and the famous north beach, going along through the real chinatown of stockton which to me is the real chinatown. they can walk along grant but they have no way to do that and that will be eliminated if you use the proposed option, which is to dig in the center of columbus avenue. thank you very much. >> howard wong followed by susan mccull ac and those are

the last two members of the public. good afternoon, howard wong with save muni.com. i'm a native of north beach and a lifelong muni rider. i agree that the resolution language needs to be amended so that it's much stronger in purposefully assuring that there would be no large digging and construction on columbus avenue. i think that the options are not only possible, but they're engineering architecturally very plausible. the option 2 that many people have mentioned may have some other benefits that you may consider. as you know, the central subway project has increased in price steadily over the years. the 1.58 billion dollars that it currently is at, according

to the pre-ffga risk evaluation that was created by mta and the fta does indicate that there is a probability of a cost increase. there are many large infrastructure projects. in fact, there have been studies of large infrastructure projects that indicate that almost all large infrastructure projects go over budget. and there are many reasons for that. they're not always engineering architecturally related. they're often political. there aren't many other factors. option 2, it's already the existing project and e-i-r. the tunnel variance in north beach was a option that was really not vetted in the e-i-r process because it was not very seriously considered at the time. the north beach merchants and residents are very justified in their anger because, indeed,

they were not given much information about that issue. so, consider option 2 and stronger amendments to the resolution. >> thank you, mr. wong. >> susan mccull a. it's the last person who has turned in a speaker card. * >> good afternoon, ms. mccull a. good afternoon, susan mccall a, current vice president of north beach neighbors. john read the the official letter we have in partnership with telegraph hill dwellers, so, i won't repeat the information that is in there. i just want to reiterate that we have been very concerned about the impacts that the current option would have on the businesses and we have been very concerned about the, what we felt was the lack of public outreach in the past. over the last couple months we have been working with mr. funge and mr. reiskin and also representative david chiu's office to improve public input. [speaker not understood]. we didn't have a chance like russian hill dwellers to have a vote on the current option of

the pagoda theater, but i do want to comment we have been working for years to try to get something into the pagoda theater and get [speaker not understood] off the street. not off the street, but just improve that. so, i think working to really come up with a plan that is going to help mitigate some of the impact to our businesses because we want to see those businesses thrive. >> thank you very much. so, i guess that will be continued. okay, one more speaker, that's it. >> actually, he's already spoken. [inaudible]. >> last speaker. >> giovani [speaker not understood]. i'm a small business owner in north beach. and for a long time lot of the tourists they always tell me how beautiful is san francisco. this is not los angeles. los angeles needs a subway, we

don't. people love to walk north beach, chinatown, because that's what they come for in san francisco. fisherman's wharf. so, my concern is we're going to be out of business and the city is going to need more revenue, which it's not going to get from us. if we need to have people walking around, look at each other, and see our coffee shops, our restaurants, how beautiful san francisco is. the best thing they can do for us is to pave the streets, clean the sidewalks, give us a hand to beautify more of north beach, not dig it up like rats. i don't like subways. i like the fresh air, the sun, the stars, the beau pi of san francisco. * beauty that's all i need to say. >> thank you very much. the public hearing is closed at this point. members of the board, i have several items i would like to

raise here at this point. and i think the first would be the overall thing has been said and i agree with this completely. i'd love to see us go to north beach and fisherman's wharf and the pledge efforts to begin to look at that. there are obviously questions of financing and all of that. but it is certainly worth weill to go. i'm not sure about the suggestion to sauselido. that may be beyond our means at this point. the other two would be a wonderful way to connect the entire city. and i'll also talk a little about the timeline. i think i agree with the notion of changing the resolution to bring it back to the board before the director of transportation makes the final die significance. i would suggest that the language be something along the lines of the second meeting in january which should be the third tuesday in january -- >> no, it would be january 15th or the next regular meeting would be february 5th. >> i think before, i think before that, there is so much

interest in this, i think it's very reasonable to request 3 and 4 may not work in the public forum it seems to me. i would support that. i would hope board members do as well. and i would hope that the 3 seems like very reasonable options to me at this point, especially 4. i hope that works and i hope we're doing everything we can to make that happen as expeditiously as possible. we'll get reports back to the board in a periodic basis. they don't have very many meetings between now and then. just to get a sense of where it stands so the public will know. so, those are the comments i'd make. i also think the comments about how north beach is different from union square, that's persuasive, different kinds of business, different kinds of support from corporation, all that kind of thing. so, those would be my comments. i'll open it to members of the board. director heinicke. >> i have a question, which is based on these presentations and the goal of extending the

project further north and the goal of obviously accommodating our neighbors to the extent we can, i certainly favor option 4. i think we've heard a lot of comments of people who were just generally opposed to the project overall. those arguments continue to. some merit, but the decision has been made and i continue to support the project, especially given how far we've come. so, my question really relates to option 4. do you think it's possible or feasible or likely that we will be able to accomplish all that is set up to be accomplished for option 4 by february 1st, 2013? >> so, i think that's a fair question. i guess i'd first say i wouldn't have recommended it if i thought it was not possible. i think there's a tremendous amount of work to be done and there are a lot of things that need to fall into place quickly in order to make that happen. as i mentioned before, i have been in conversation with

president chiu about this. i've been in conversation with mayor lee about this. our sense was as i said before, the city family can come together and marshal the resources to try to make this happen. and if we have a willing party in terms of the property owner, i think it is possible. we have evaluated the level of environmental review that we believe would be required. we believe that it's doable in that timeline. the other approvals we believe are doable in that timeline. it's certainly by no means easy. it's by no means a slam dunk. but, again, would not have recommended it if i didn't think it was viable. as i said before, i think it is a win/win scenario. it's one that i would like to see happen * . and with regard to the timing, as i tried to explain, if we don't make a decision by a certain point, we

start to impact the project and put the agency and the san franciscans who fund it at risk. so, that's where we got this, the deadline from. while the specific day is not based on science, this is not an arbitrary deadline, we need to make a decision around that time if we're going to do something other than, other than the base case. i would suggest that, if i might , perhaps the wording of the resolution to address what i think is a very clear issue of trust be something along the lines that if we're not able to achieve option 4, that we return to you on the meeting of february 5th, which would be coincidentally on february 1st to explain where we are. >> i personally would have no objection to that. and just to be clear, is it --

the decision under option 4 need to be made by february or all of the preconditions that we've talked about need to be sewed up? i mean, i realize there can be a point in january where it all looks like it's lining up and you and the agency decide, we're going forward with option 4, subject to some contingencies. and if those go bad, it has the negative impacts you talked about. but i think the concern from the community that we're hearing, and i know you hear this, is that we sort of set a false goal. so, i wonder if february 1st is really the anticipated deadline to have everything done, all the environmental review, all the funding, all the agreements, or is the deadline really to make a decision and say we're far enough along the road that we're going to pursue option 4 despite some contingencies accepted down the line? >> i see it as the latter. if, for example, we had all of

our approvals and didn't have meeting -- we were requesting a supplemental appropriation from the city and that wasn't scheduled till the second week in february, you know, what we need to know is around february 1st that we have everything lined up to be able to make this happen. if that's the case, then we can move forward even if we still have a few loose ends to tie up. as we slip much beyond february 1st, we're kind of by default making a decision on the currently approved project. that is the only point. >> sounds like you and i have the same objective. i appreciate the assurance to the community members and to us that you wouldn't have put it on here for option 4 if you didn't think it was at least, you know, well within the realm of possibility. and, so, two questions. would it help us, would it help you in your political and other efforts if we were to change

the whereas clause that sort of suggests all of the approvals and funding have to be obtained by february 1st to essentially say they all had to be lined up or, you know, presumed to be feasible by february 1st, number one? and number two, would it help you if, as one of our valued constituents said, that we really change the resolution to say we're directing you to make option 4 happen to the extent you can? or do you really read it that way right now? >> to the latter, that's what i read and i read it as a direction from the board to make 4 happen. >> good. >> in terms of modifying the whereas to speak to the spirit of having everything lined up such that we know that, say, option 4 is certain as opposed to every last approval in place, i'm fine with that. >> well, i think -- and i'm glad you said that and i'm sorry to beat a dead horse, but this is important. i think there's a difference

between certainty and a close -- you know, a comfort level where we're willing to go down this. and we recognize there's some risk that something may unravel and we may have to deal with it. and i think the concern i'm hearing and sensitive to is if you require certainty by february 1st, that's not going to happen. but it is quite feasible to get the february 1st for you and we can't tell you what to do, have enough comfort that it's worth pursuing this option further. that's the difference i see. >> i'm sure there's language we can find that would achieve that goal. >> [speaker not understood], the notion i suggested, to come back to this board as opposed to, say, force them and bring it back to the board at that point. >> again what i would suggest is rather than trying to do something in january, that we were -- basically if option 4 isn't looking good, come february 1st, that i come back to the board on february 5th. >> [speaker not understood] will still be at the board level, which gives the public ample opportunity once again to come and talk about where we

are at that point. >> correct. >> [speaker not understood] obviously try to make 4 work, it seems to be support for that, among people who support the project. members of the board, any questions or comments? >> you covered my comment. >> okay. >> we don't need to beat a dead horse, and i'm to continue beating it for a brief second. are we worrying about the language of the resolution at this point or is that going to be something -- do we have that taken care of? because i just have a slight concern on the last further resolved clause. that ties into what you -- >> the question would be if -- i think you have a pretty clear direction to make option 4 happen if you can. and i think a lot of the concern about the resolution is what happens if you don't. are we here by resolving -- authorizing you to do a bunch of other things? i think that is the concern in the community. if we're changing that as president nolan suggested to say, make option 4 happen, and if you can't, come back to us,

it all but makes the resolution irrelevant, i think. i mean, at this point you just received clear direction from the board on one proposal. no, our city attorney never thinks these resolutions are relevant. >> i think you're free to move forward in that direction without approving the resolution. i think give guidance to the directors sufficient without approving the resolution. but i also note i think the thing that appears to generate the most concern in the resolution is actually the whereas clause which is much more specific than the resolved clauses. >> that's right. >> limit the resolution all together and do a [speaker not understood] to the board, is that something we can do? give direction to mr. reiskin along the lines we suggested here, to actively aggressively pursue number 4? and report back to us the february 5th meeting which will be the next meeting after that about what's happened to that and perhaps on january 15th a report along the way of how likely it looks.

>> listen, we've got a staff recommendation and i don't disregard that lightly. but the point here is we've been told by our old friend judson true and several respected member of the north beach and local neighborhoods that we've got some trust rebuilding to do. and what i hear as the biggest concern of trust is that this resolution will allow us to back slide so to another option that they don't want * so that maybe to me we junk the resolution and do everything we can to make option 4 happen. we're not making any promises. clap lap >> don't clap, there's no promises. just like i told the free youth riders, no promises, but we'll try. and then we'll come back and do it again. * >> i think it would be appropriate to have some sense of the board resolution -- not resolution, some kind of the sense of the board [inaudible] -- a motion or something. >> mr. chairman, actually you can just approve a motion to take no action, to give direction to pursue option 4, and return to the board on

february 5th. >> is that a motion somebody would like to make? >> i would be happy to make that motion. >> i'll second. >> further discussion? >> i would just like to make sure that we have director reiskin's approval and that we're not walking into something that isn't -- i mean, again, i don't disregard staff recommendation. >> i think that's fine. i think it meets the spirit of what we were proposing and it makes it clearer. and i think it gives the assurance that we need to the public. i think it's a good solution. >> important city departments that should be involved in this are already working together. the mayor and supervisor chiu already support it. we have the sense of the board, a motion and second. any further discussion? all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed? it passes. appreciate your efforts. (applause) >> we'll take a recess here.

>>please stand by; meeting in recess >> item 12, presentation discussion regarding the implementation of sunday meter enforcement. >> mr. yee is going to come up and give you an update. you had asked when we approved the budget that we return to you prior to the end of the calendar year and report to you on our progress and preparations towards the implementation of what you approved. so, we just have a kind of brief update for you and then we're here to answer any questions that you have. >> thank you. mr. yee? good afternoon, mr. yee. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman, members of the board, mr. reiskin. vaughan yee with sustainable streets. as you recall, you approved the enforce. of sunday parking meters as part of the last two-year

budget cycle with the target date of implementation by january 6 of 2013. * so, i'm here to give you a brief update on where we are status wise on that process. basically we've taken two tracks to accomplish that goal, target date. the first is that we are focusing on the communications to try to achieve some widespread awareness of this significant policy change, and to raise awareness of the new metering hours before this target date, we are doing -- we are having -- we'll be having parking control officers to distribute fliers on cars in december as part of their regular duties. we're placing advertisements on muni bus exteriors, half page ads in the various newspapers and the customer service center. we are including book slip notices in fast track quarterly

summaries and also the sfmta rpp program, renewal notices. we're using the existing meters by the plate inside the dome as well as stickers, decals on the meter face itself to notify the public of this upcoming change. and we are also issuing announcements through press releases at all of our social media outlets and our sfmta website. and we also will be doing a mass e-mail blast announcement to the various parties, stakeholders, including the board of supervisors, merchants, neighborhood groups, civic and religious organizations. excuse me. we also plan to have our parking control officers after

the january 6 date to have a three-week basically grace period starting on january 6, 13th and also the 20th. and those three sundays we will not be citing formally violations, but instead issuing a friendly courtesy notices of the violation and the need to start complying. again, the decals on the meters of the new hours and the enforcement times will stay put on the meters. we have also met at your suggestion with a panel of religious and community representatives in mid november. its was very successful. they had a lot of good suggestions on how to do outreach, and we are volunteering to meet with one of the leader of the group, mr. michael pappas, to the inter

faith council to personally visit with him some problem locations that he had suggested and also work with him to see if there are some solutionses and outreach methods we can try to reach some of those affected parties to try to relieve some of the potential problems that may be faced. they also gave us quite a bit of good feedback on other issues, including the suggestion for us to start the sfmta to do more consistent applications of our, of our parking management equipment and processes and regulations. we take that to heart and we will be putting a lot of those suggestions into place in the next couple months as well as the upcoming year. we have also developed a tool

kit for outreach that we will be distributing to the group to help us do further outreach. and we will be extending an offer, as i mentioned, to visit with some of these potential problem areas. and we also produced about 40,000 fliers for distribution at their request. so, we'll be seeing those in the next few months. the other track we're following is the technical end in getting the machines and everything up to snuff and ready for implementation by january 6th. and on all the non-sf park meters which is three quarters of the stock, they're the older variety, we're pre-programming the changes in the shop and we will be visiting the site and touching each one of them and affecting the change in the