year. the clarification is the advance of the tep funds but the project will be made whole in the 5-year plan update. this is advancing funds that are needed now. with that, we'll be happy to answer questions and there is members of the staff. >> i did want to make one point and i know that the mta's really making a commitment for strong community outreach for the tep, transit effectiveness project. i'm happy to hear about that. i think these projects are really important but also important that mta that within 6 months to come back to the outreach especially the communities impacted by the special projects. i did want to acknowledge that the ta and thanks to our director and miss lombardy oh as well for

leveraging so much more money for what the city is doing. example the $14 million for the escalator, the 2 bay area grant and the potrero avenue, no, that's federal money. a lot of good work leveraging money and making major improvements in many nabz. -- neighborhoods. thank you for bringing this forward. >> thank you, i just want to know who the contract was awarded to? >> i would let sf mta cover that. >> does that include funds or does that come from another source. >> that's in a request for prop k funds. barbary was awarded the contract. >> shawn kennedy with the mta.

>> thank you. >> i also see a note that, mr. k, it looks like a request from colleague commissioners that the mta think about a maintenance plan for the escalators as was brought up by commissioner kim. i'm just wondering if you are comment on that? miss lombardyo is here as well. >> thank you for your very good comments and commissioner king as well. we can incorporate that into board's packet. my understanding is that the new federal guidelines when you put in a new escalator you have to build a new canopy for the very reasons you cited and the rules for replacing a rehabilitated, you can cross the line whether it's a new escalator and you have to put up canopies. it's a

trade off. i can request a response to that particular angle as part of the board packet. >> commissioner campos? >> i appreciate that, but i don't think that the committee should send anything out until we have fully vetted it. so i would hold on to the $3.7 million until we get that. >> that's until next month. >> yes. i think the message we need to send to the mta is, you know, you are requesting funds for things that are worthwhile, but it's not an automatic thing and you need to make sure you present all the information and don't ask for a prop k investment without a fully detailed maintenance plan. >> got it. >> commissioner kim? >> yes. i'm happy to support that continuance. also want to address something the mayor

brought up, it's important to get information on the balconies. we have to make sure those dollars are going to last us the longest possible because we are doing everything that we can to maintain them to book the maintenance plan and the canopy issue is important. >> amber just had a great idea. bart is doing a great job with canopies. let me see if i can get bart here to have a proper discussion on this. >> i want to ask mr. kennedy on the tep, i know there is many in the community who feel for the tep to be successful, real meaningful outreach has to happen and if you can come back in 6 months to report on that outreach. >> yes, we are definitely planning to come back in 6

months and we will report on who we talked to and how we are going to be addressing concerns. we are also in the process of developing an equity analysis that will go kind of into how these projects end up being pursued and being completed and that process should be completed for the scope of the equity analysis within the next week or two and then we hope to be done with that analysis early in 2014 so we can inform our process going forward . we just hired an outreach consultant that is really starting work right now and we are hoping by the first of the year over the next six 6 months really be out and work with groups and try engage and focus the eir process to the mrems -- implementation plan

to figure out which process will go forward. >> not to put you on the spot, mr. eric williams with the transit workers union mentioned immediate improvement and can you talk about that as well? >> yeah. sure. so, our director of transit director hailey has an operations plan both for the tunnel as well the overall light rail system in general. we have the vehicles and making sure transit priority is working and operational. we are doing things like 3-car train to reduce some of the crowding in the tunnel and doing a lot of switch repair, track repair. district try to upgrade and

make it more reliable. we are also a little bit longer term in the 4-5-year range trying to order lrv's and new vehicles to get out there. not only are we having in our existing fleet which is in some case of disrepair. we are also ordering new vehicles for the next several years. >> thank you. commissioner breed? >> just one last comment because i noticed that some of the requests there were be some new bus stops and bus stop improvements and i just wanted to mention that i have serious issues with the current bus shelters that are located all over the city. i have already talked to the mayor's office on disability where some of the locations where wheelchairs can't get through some of the more narrower streets. when

making these decisions maet should be working hand in hand with the mayor's office with disabilities when you place these shelters in locations that they are taking that into consideration. i just wanted to mention that because there is a request to do new bus stops that mtaen insures that when making these decisions, they won't compromise one accessibility issue for another. thank you. >> thank you. if there are no other comments. let me repeat that there has been a motion and seconded to continue the escalator item as part of the overall proposal. let's open up to public comment. is there anyone from the public who would like to speak. if people can come forward and wait on the right hand side. mr. williams? >> good morning. e ric with

transit workers unions. for the tep to be successful today you have to reduce service because of the lack of operators and lack of equipment. let's be honest. while i like sean, he does a lot of work at the tep program. the truth of matter is tep is based on reducing service. if we are doing everything to do with transit first, we have a lot of work to do. now, recent with john hailey, he knows what he's up against in terms of providing economic service that these citizens of san francisco defer. -- deserve. we know what we are up against. tep, it's not going to work. of course you have to put aside a project because we know it's

too many holes within the tep goal -- going on right now. we have to complete the project. everybody is chasing the tail. nothing is getting done. i just ask once again, scrutinize the tep for what it is. honestly, it looks fine for the future. but if you look at what's going on now with the projects coming forthwith tep, it's not going to work. you are taking that a tunnel. >> thank you. next speaker, miss sacs? >> turning to tep, i have spoken about this many times at

the full board meeting and citizens advisory committee and i also went to the workshops and they are trying to figure out handout you to include service. what they are actually doing is reducing service like the gentleman before me said. what they did is they took, they are making so that reducing service where there were booklets that i still have. they took the one california for example commissioner kim, they took one and they had it going to howard during the day. they took that off. they reduced services to the point that people with disabilities, people that work swing and

grave yards cannot get to and from their jobs in the effect ive way. they reduce service at 11:00 at night. people that work and restaurants and hotels and bars cannot get home. people with swing and graveyard can't get home from their jobs. that is totally wrong. you have to analyze tep before you do anything. >> thank you, miss sacs. next speaker. >> steve wu from chinatown cdc. we want to talk about our position on the theep. we have some significant concerns about it demand terms of the reduction in service it's proposing particularly in chinatown. the tep will be reducing the route of the a

decks part of the way through chinatown and eliminating folsom. in the area of talking about reducing revenue, we don't understand why there are cuts to service. for the items that will be reducing the service, we are not sure why that's there. the system going through environmental revenue -- review. in planning, you need to make sure with the cuts you have not been able to evaluate fully. thank you. >> commissioner kim? >> actually if i can ask you a question. sorry. thank you. of the 10 projects, actually maybe i can ask the mta staff about

the preliminary design of the projects and the additional 5 projects. are you aware whether the 8 axis is included in this list and/or would you like to hold off the approval of the funding for this design until we get more questions and answers? >> we have not moved in that direction yet. i'm not sure what is proposed in the project. we haven't taken that position yet. >> okay. i will ask mta staff but i will wait after public comment. or not. i think we should let public comment through. >> yes. we should keep going. >> hi, good morning. my name is jane martin and from people organized employment rights and we organize low income bus riders. while there are parts

of the tep wr excited about but there are impacts that are a reduction for our communities and we know that the title 6 analysis actually hasn't been done jet and the mta is embarking on a lot of community outreach. we want to see the results of that and want to make sure as the board goes to make more decision about tep, the needs of our community is taken into account. there is planning before the larger questions of been answered. we are not here to oppose the planning money, just making sure we are paying attention to it movg forward. >> thank you. is there anyone else from the p be that would like to speak, seeing none, public comment is closed. >> if you want to respond to comments? >> sure, just to clarify

questions, a decks is in included in this. i will turn it to -- who will have a more thorough response. >> also what team projects are beyond the a decks. >> sure. shawn kennedy mta. in the first group 14 mission, the middle part of mission we cut into three groups because it's three different proposals. the 30, 5, a decks is in the first group. the second group is the rest of the 14 with 28 the j and l. and i want to point out that these are not service, there is really two components to the tep, service increasing which is proposing the increase

by 10 percent and these capital projects. the detail design money that we are requesting for today goes for the capital projects and for the outreach on those capital projects and cdc and jane martin and other groups to figure out what of the capital projects to move forward and the design of those capital projects so we are shovel ready to take advantage of those funds. the service projector service improvement of those changes talk about are really in a separate process and that outreach will be going in the same time, but it's not part of this kind of preliminary engineering detailed design task that we are requesting for funds today. >> commissioner, i did want to jump in to say the 5 limited a part of this has been a major improvement of efficiency and service to not only to district one and also district 5

stretching through the tenderloin and part of market as well. i this i -- think that might be one example of that improvement along that corridor. >> commissioner breed? >> yes, i was too concerned that tep was coming to make request for additional funds when they have not completed the environmental review especially when we have other significant current needs. i'm not necessarily comfortable with moving forward with supporting this level of funding for the tep until we have a clearer understanding of the environmental impacts over all before we are making decision about something like this. that's where i'm at. i just wanted to make that clear. >> actually, what would be the impact if we continued this

part of the proposal too? >> this money is to do the outreach. so environmental process with theeir process lays out the impact disclosure document. starting in 2006 we have had a hundred community meetings that developers at the planning level are now being reviewed at the environmental process, the draft eir is out after 2 months. and we are now working on our final eir as was mentioned we are hoping to have out and certified in the early spring of this year. that does nothing for implementation. there is a lot of outreach that still needs to happen. we have to decide talking with specific people on not only residents but business

owners and advocacy groups and what kind of bar the e ir propose and will help us to consider the proposed location and these are the trade offs and we need to figure out how to move forward on that proposal and to take that to do design work on that so we have design drawings. right now the current plan is to use in our cip, the mta cip we have $150 million set aside to fund these first 10 corridors with capital money. $150 million. so we want this money to go for not only going to do the outreach but to

finalize the design and take advantage of that money and pursue this. >> i think wr continuing this item and also want to know what the negative impacts are for short-term so more discussion happens. i proposed this question and director chang as well. if you want to address that. >> good morning, director chang, this process is very important, a high priority process for the city and it's working it's way around public comment and we are going to support the mta in having those meetings and conversations to address community concerns that are still outstanding. i would say to move this project forward through the design phase, i would be comfortable we do that with asking the mta

come to these meetings to see how they are making progress on their equity analysis and to have more details presentations on specific lines and specific parts of the network, for example the 8 segment, the valley second degree -- segment and not necessarily the china segment. i would like to see this continue. >> i don't have a lot of confidence in the public outreach process of the mta because of passed experience. i'm trying to i guess understand how where doing design work and outreach simultaneously because the money is being asked for. so you are talking about doing design work while the outreach process is happening as well from what i

guess i'm hearing from you and mta. i don't know, what's the point of public outreach if that's the case? >> can i just add to that. with what outreach you've had we are getting negative food back in terms of, the presentations are done in the community, now we are getting negative food back on what the plans are looking like. yet there have been no modifications to this process. one of my big issues is that i think sf mta does a great job of organizing meetings in the community but you never see modifications to the plans afterwards. this is also with parking meters. there is so much of the process that we go through with sf mta. i don't want an outreach where it's just a listening session. i would like to continue this

until we get lots more information. >> john, with the mta. i will try to address a couple concerns that were brought up. as the executive director, this is one of the top priority projects. the request today, the prop k allocation request has to do with what we call a travel time reduction process. those are physical capital improvement, things like transit authority and things like better accessibility and bicycle improvement that help people get to transit easier. so the physical component of the transit project. the reason we are moving forward to try to address some of the conditions that were stated is we do the public outreach and do the planning and get feedback but we don't have physical engineering projects to show the public. i think you might have seen some of that with the van ness project. we do want to

do some preliminary engineering and design so we have feedback for the public. instead of saying this will what you will need as a 5-minute time. we want to show them what it's like to actually experience riding the system. which is why we want to do it currently. the environment talks about the environmental impact and what we are talking about is the service impact. this is our engineers and staff at the mta to prepare real physical plans and drawings to get reactions from the public. which is like concurrently we also did that outreach from the contract that we funned the mta to do at one time so we get comments and feedback on the physical improvement we are talking about making to the environment. that's why this component is coming to you now based on the timeline of the eir and the public outreach having this work done so we can make real changes. what we don't want is go through a

public process, do a design and go back and to have design again because that's when you start losing your coordination opportunities and start to have cost increases on the project. we are trying to do the best we can at coordination and trying to do the best with outreach and this does reflect what i high priority this is for us. >> so is anyone talking to the transit drivers? >> yes. actually two things: i will answer that first. yes, we have, with the 5 l, we started the driver outreach and classes and talked with them about how to 50 would be working and now following up with this many on a monthly basis on how to performance is going and how we can tweak it from their perspective an that is going to be a model as we move forward and that's what the outreach consultant is helping us on and

reaching out to our 1200 operators and figuring out how to best share these proposals with them again because it's been since 2009 and 2006 and dropped off in 2009 and kind of silent then. we need refresh what the proposals are now and see any alternative dwladz -- ideas that we can proceed with. i would like to go back to john's point and supervisor kim's point, our view has been a level of environmental process. it sets a bar. we can't construct anything higher than that bar but we don't have to construct anything up to that bar. meaning this is the point, now is the time in the next 6-8 months where we'll be

making specific decisions on what gets built and what doesn't and we'll be making changes to the proposal as we go forward based on the community feedback and this preliminary engineering level. detailed design won't be overlapping what it's called permanent engineering but it's outreach looking at how long will the bus bulb beand the drive way and what kind of utilities we need to move and that gets played out in the engineering phase and that can be moved into design once we get the questions answers. >> last points? >> i realize we have several more items. i think we should continue this. i think we need more detailed presentation at the next committee meeting. i read your report and it does answer a lot of questions, but

i think the public deserves more of an explanation. i get that you are primarily looking at physical design to speed up tep. i understand tht mta's priority, i'm just not sure it's my priority. we need to be clear on that. if we are going to allocate dollars, i need to understand better why this is important and what we are going to do to speed up these lines. they are all important. i get it. i would just like to ask a lot more questions about what you are considering and what portions of the lines you think are going to help in speeding up. >> we have preliminary project descriptions for all of those and i think we can work with the authorities come back with a more detailed presentation. >> and the urgency from the mta

and mta's recommendation. let's bring this forward to the next committee meeting and the outreach is going to be meaningful and deeper. i do think there is a perception that the tep is about cuts and it's about expanding more services as well. there is a motion to continue not only the escalators but also to continue the tep part of this. i don't think i need to clarify that anymore. can we take the continueing the escalators without objection to the next meeting? we'll do that without objection. thank you. on the item before us, can we take this with a positive recommendation without objection? >> so moved. >> thank you. >> miss chang, plea