referenced in the first where as but it's not a very tightly written set of causes in my opinion. and although reference is made to the planning commission approvals, i wasn't able to find those particular approvals i was able to get the addendum to the eir i think that there are some significant issues with regard to these matters also there's a reference in the calendar item to alternatives that infees feasible the c u.s. todian of records is not named for either the mta or planning department. thank you. >> good afternoon president nolan and members and director

and -- would you spell your name again. >> i did want to spopd respond to the objections and i'll start with mr. kopel these findings are absolutely accurate they were reviewed with the land use attorneys. and i do want to emphasize that the addendum that's referenced in the findings are absolute ly adequate. the file is in the addendum and the final environmental impact report and the findings were done with

meticulo u.s. care. and returning to miss weiss's objections this is a project to be clear only for the height of the project nothing else is subject to referendum for example the dcw hearing officer issued an order so that's already been done this is normal course of business if you will for a construction project public improvements like this take a long time to get. certainly when we do them these will be wonderful public improvements and again you want to be mindful these are not taxpayer funded they were

offered up. i would highly recommend you do this and this is an adequate approval motion. >> okay members of the board? >> okay any further discussion on it? all in favor say aye. thank you very much. >> aye. >> the bicycle plan project and related actions reapproving david kopel? >> hello again on this item this is a 182 page document it doesn't have the pages numbered so it's -- there's a reference

to the c u.s. todian of records commission secret ary i would note that she's no longer with the city. the changes to the findings aren't highlighted anywhere so it's difficult to compare this document to the previous document. i am requesting at this time the original and the current document and if there's a document that has the tract changes i'm interested in that i think it's difficult for you to take action on this without comparing them and seeing what changes were made to the text with respect to the findings i would note and i think mr. solomon is going to talk further about the transit impact they are significant so these are not you know minor

league changes but have some significant impacts on transit that are not mitigated here and in some cases the old findings refer to m u.n. i lines that no longer exist and in some cases they may not exist and. and although references made to your board resolutions on 9105 and 09106 it's not set forth directly here so the near term improvements are not called out and i think that's a further deficiency and i don't want you to act until those changes to the findings are made obvious.

thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. solomon? >> good afternoon mark solomon again. of course you should approve the bike plan. however the significant impacts -- there's a pyramid there of impacts but a wide range of impacts down to 10, 22 nds they basically add up to your savings it's difficult to tell there's many contingencies on different options but we can not be digging ourselves deeper on the transit system. the transit for sustainability has to be paramount we can't be

delaying that. we're going to end up with a really bad transit system. people getting into their cars further slowing the system down. that's your capital right there and to give it away for any project no matter how good you guys can't stand for that. because if we've seen the population grow over the past 15 years by a hundred thousand we're already seeing transit delays. you know how many more cars are out there and how much more dangerous it is. there is no

free lunch here we have to balance this equation. this is ronald, reagan's environmental law. otherwise they do really bad environmental work and that the costs of that are outsources to hundreds of thousands of people and it's your job to prevent that from happening. >> good afternoon. >> i'm the director for the san francisco bicycle coalition i urge you to readopt the bike plan. in january of this year the california court of appeals found it to be very sound indeed

. we urge you to approve this and move longer in creating a safer biking experience in satisfy san francisco. >> motion to approve? >> is there a second? >> second. >> further discussion? >> all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> this is the last item on the agenda today. the long-range vision for transit and initial policy analysis

>> we have a cupouple of pro jects, the central subway, the van ness brt that are kind of the next things on the somewhat near term horizon for the transit system. ~ but looking at real projections that we have and because of a couple of these efforts underway, i thought it would be a good time to look much longer

term at what -- to start the conversation what the long-term transit needs are for the city. so, going to allow for a brief presentation and this is really just meant to be a starting point for discussion and to solicit some kind of initial directional feedback from the board. so, the first slide that's up on the screen is what we have defined as what the city and county and the bay area has are the priority areas in the bay area san francisco. requirement for the bay area, regions the bay area -- regions implementation of sustainable community strategy, legislation. that plan will be adopted likely by the mtc this july. in that process we have identified where we expect and want the growth to happen in san francisco. and the idea region wide is that we much better integrate land use and transportation

planning such that we're focusing to where we have or can build transportation infrastructure. so, these are the growth areas we anticipate and this is coming from the planning department to identify these. you can see many of them are either in our existing population centers in terms of the financial district and south of market, but also the new projects that are developing in hunters point shipyard, treasure island, park merced and mission bay. so, this is where the growth is coming in the next 20 or 30 years. we're going to have another 100,000 household, another 90,000 jobs come into the city. so, we've had a good time to look forward because as we know, we don't have the muni system and the transportation system at a level that we would like it to be to meet today's demands.

and yet we have a whole lot more people and demand on the system coming to san francisco that we wanted to start the process of thinking about. so, what the emergence of these new job and population centers means is that the travel patterns of the city are going to be changing and evolving. we've always had kind of from the out skirts into the center of the financial district travel pattern. [speaker not understood] in the morning comes out in the afternoons. everybody lived on the outer edges and everybody worked in the city center. it was kind of a simpler, kind of two dimensional arrangement, but that's changing as the city expands, particularly as the growth happens along the eastern part of the city and specifically around park merced, around 19th avenue, around treasure island and

around the shipyard. so, we'll see that there's going to be other travel patterns that will be much stronger, create much more demand on the system than exist today. so, the implementation of the t.e.p., it is kind of critical and necessary first step to get -- to maximize, optimize the efficiency of the existing system with some modifications to the service brand. but largely within the existing system. but as the growth comes to the city, as democrat ogg regardvses and menomic development folks expect, some of these issues are going to become more challenging, notwithstanding the work of the t.e.p. ~ and i think mr. solomon made some reference to this. as more cars come into the city, that's going to challenge

the operation of muni, what we're already have the dubious distinction of being one of the slowest transit systems in the country. the t.e.p. is going to help that. as the growth comes, those gains will be challenged. vehicles are currently at capacity. many vehicles are during the rush hours. and as you know, we have some vulnerability in the way our system's designed and some bottlenecks and hot spots that in the long term we're going to need to address. but the lack of resiliency of our system to address service disruptions is going to become more acute and more pressing need as the demands on the system grow. so, what we're focusing on and kind of the initial kind of thinking about the long-term strategy are the key corridors that are going to move people in the future. this is very high level and

intentionally so. it's not even -- it's probably premature to call it a strategy. it's kind of initial thoughts on what a strategy might look like, focusing on the key -- on the core transit corridors. so, when you look at where we would be even after the t.e.p. and you look at some of these main corridors, you'll see that providers here have the dedicated right-of-way, bart and caltrain in particular, provide a pretty good alternative to driving right now for people coming from the outer edges of the city, 15 or 20 minutes' travel time to get downtown when things are going well at least. if you compare that to our system even optimized, it's considerably more anywhere from 35 to 50 minutes. so, what we're looking at is as more people come to the city, if we're going to choose not

just the [speaker not understood] goals you set for the next six years, we're going to need to shift the dial in order to accommodate all of that growth. we're going to need a lot more people on transit in order to do that, we're going to make transit a much more preferable alternative to an automobile. maybe more akin to the kind of travel times that are currently available on bart and caltrain. so, we're focusing on these kind of core corridors and looking specifically at where some of the pinch points are. these are the struggles that john haley and his staff deal with every day when there is a problem at west portal, when there is a problem at church and duboce at fourth and k, it really cripples a much larger

part of the system and you get all of market street into that category. and it's a very unforgiving system. so, small deficiencies can lead to significant problems. the other thing that our current system doesn't do well is connect to some of these emerging job centers. so, both addressing the speeds, addressing some of those hinge points and connecting these growth areas are some of the things that we're looking at in this strategy. so, taking those tis things and kind of looking forward, this will go to 2030 because this presentation was initially developed for the mayor's 2030 task force, but i would say this is a much longer term vision if you think about how long it took to get the central subway from conception to com pletion. that itself was a 20-year process. what we're looking at is probably more like a 50 to

100-year view. but we started to think, and this is where i think maybe we want to come back to and get some of your feedback on on these planning principles. our kind of initial outline. quickly, first, build upon the existing network. we do have a lot of infrastructure in the ground, the travel and traffic patterns. i don't think we have the luxury of starting with a clean slate. we want to i ammprove, service the existing customers and provide connections to the growth areas, another principle that we're trying to achieve. to get those travel times down to be somewhat comparable to what folks today have on bart and caltrain, i would say a very ambitious goal. but if we're going to be competitive with cars and get more people out of their cars, i think we're going to need to do that.

address some of those hinge points and bottlenecks that i referred to because we can develop the best system in the world, but if they're still going through these single-modes of failure, every time there is a disruption in service it will have that same ripple effect. trying to distinguish peak passenger loads by closing gaps in the network, making them more resilient, more of a network's network. increasing rail, although we're not specifying wherein creased rail would go. i think rail is going to have to be part of the solution. and then, again, the network redundancy so we have more flexibility as part of what we looked at in real estate master plan, having more of our facilities be able to service more types of vehicles, a big gap right now is there is not an easy way to move trains

between our two train yards. we have to come all the way through the downtown tunnel where we're running revenue service. so, those are some of the principles that we developed and would love your feedback on those. so, just quickly, kind of conceptual thinking is that to turn those core capacity corridors really into the high-speed, high-capacity lines to complement what we have already with bart and caltrain. it's basically a third, it's 19th avenue corridor to the twin peaks tunnel. [speaker not understood], geary and extension of 3rd street light rail, both phase 2, the central subway, and then a future phase as well as the train service that goes around the ballpark and the train service that will go to the shipyard as that's developed. these are what we see as really

the core of the system, would be the main arteries to get into downtown and to get people back out in the afternoon. but because, again, the patterns aren't just -- not because everybody doesn't live along those corridors and people are going to need to move to the other growth areas, kind of the next level down is really high capacity frequent service on a number of kind of our other main key lines such as some of the existing rail lines, some of the existing high capacity bus lines. whether this would be brt or lrt, you know, it's kind of to be determined. but these are -- this is the kind of next level down the core that would interconnect folks to the high-speed network. and then, so, kind of putting

that together on an existing network, the historic streetcars, the less frequent service, moving this together, the hubs that create more of a network system and remove some of the pinch points, we would be able to achieve that principle of really reducing the travel time from the outskirts of the city, but also connecting everybody in the city to these highest speed lines or to the high frequency lines. and coordinating also with the other transit providers in the region. i made reference a few times to bart and caltrain, but to some of the other providers. so, it's more of a seamless system that enables people to move around on transit and use their automobile as a last resort, not as a first resort. so, admittedly, very, very high

level, very conceptual, very lacking in detail such as what specific modes we'd be proposing, even what specific streets necessarily, costs, timelines. the idea is really just to start thinking about what we would need the transit system to look like in 50 years, in 75 years if we're going to be able to manage this and keep people moving in the city and have it happen in a way that doesn't require everybody to come with their own car. so, there's a lot of refinement that has to happen. there is costing, and also cost benefit analysis, some of what we'd be looking in the future, you know, very expensive. so, understanding the benefits of that, we want to do a better job of articulating as we start advancing these. and what we want to do after we get some guidance and some

feedback is start bringing this out to a community that -- and ultimately the outcome would inform the county wide transportation plan. the current one would probably be adopted this summer. so, this would probably inform the next one. but the planning department assumes to embark on an update of several elements of the general plan including the transportation element. and i think it would be good to start thinking, start having some of these long-term principles in place if not actual lines on a map to inform that process, which is kind of the next kind of big milestone of transportation planning in the city. so, that's kind of it. i would love to hear your thoughts on [speaker not understood] some of the principles that were positing here and any thoughts you have about process advancing this discussion.

>> thank you. any questions or comment? >> i'll start off. thank you. i think this kind of next steps planning is incredibly important for us to look at. and it's also, i find it a little bit daunting when i know that right now we have rush hour crowding and delays that are unacceptable for today's level of population and today's rider ship. so, i know that we are starting to address that. everything i'm hearing, more reliable, maintenance issues are starting to i am preform. i think it is incredibly important we take the next steps and look at these. i'm wondering -- it sticks in my head so much to think this could be a 30-year, 40-year out plan to get to the point where you could get from ocean beach to the embarcadaro in 25 minutes. and i know that we have to start planning in order to do that and we have to start making those changes and we have to identify what those changes are going to be and

that there will be support for them, not just from the public, but from our elected officials as well. and i'm wondering, do we have any process -- i know we talked awhile ago about some level of c-e-q-a reform that can help us see that our internal projects. do we feel like that's progressing to the point where it really is going to start to be a benefit? i know when we talked about this, director heinicke brought up the point if we do achieve some reform that will allow us to speed up improvements, that it is going to make more sense to wait until we've got that reform and then embark on those changes. can i just get a little sense from you what we're feeling on that? because when i look at some of the projects that we're working on now, i feel like this is incredibly daunting. >> yes. so, the time frame for anything we're talking about here is way out. i mean, there i would think be

years of planning and community process before we get anywhere near the point of entering environmental review. so, anything that's happened that's not on the landscape now in terms of c-e-q-a reform or nepa reform is probably not even all that relevant. i mean, obviously anything would help. locally, if you've been following, there's a lot of discussion right now about some reform of how we do -- handle appeals here in san francisco. depending on how that goes in the near term, that could have some impact on our projects. senator steinberg has introduced i think sb 791 at the state level. initially the governor said that probably wouldn't happen this year. the legislature said they think something will happen this year. depending how that turns out, that could be something that would be helpful. map 21 has some meatball

streamlining for projects that are within rights-of-way. i think it leans a little more towards highway rights-of-way than transit rights-of-way, but i think that might be something we see a little bit more of in a successor bill. so, i think there is some movement at the c-e-q-a/nepa level that could help us, but again, the horizon what we're talking about are much beyond. and to the extent we're talking about very significant projects, these are things that would warrant significant environmental review. it's really the long pole in this point would be the planning process to get to the stage of being ready to enter into environmental review. and i don't know how to shortcut that. i don't know if we should -- shortcut on those suggesting how to streamline that. or if thi