>> the meeting will come to order good morning, everyone this is the san francisco transportation authority plans & programs committee this is the meeting of tuesday, march 18, 2014. our clerk is erica chang could you please call the roll >> supervisor breed. supervisor kim. supervisor mar. supervisor yee. (laughter) >> thank you i'd like to thank jessie larson and others for brooet us on sfgovtv. >> item 12 the citizen's advisory council report.

>> i know that supervisor kim was going to make comments about the unfortunate news of joseph passing. actually, i was going to do any memoriam at the full board meeting i was hoping after the committee report we could have a moment of silence this is a time of vice chair flanagan used to do his report >> and bryan larkin from the cac. >> i'm sorry supervisor campos. >> i know we're going to do something at the board but i want to acknowledge mr. flanagan i know he really cared about this agency and i have yet to find anyone that is more passionate about serving people and would take it upon himself to ride the different buses and

lines to identify issues that riders, you know, were dealing with and i entities appropriate to say in the context of the cac report because for so many years emulsification the one that was presenting it so he will always be recommended. >> i would like to add i will miss him coming to the beginning of the meetings he was wonderful to work with peter from my staff as well and had an amazing wonderful heart and very thought of person that gave a lot of his life making transportation system better for all san franciscans. condolences to his family. bryan >> i'll start by saying we had 3 action items and items 4

example 5 and 84 was the fixing the quarter of a millions for 9 projects all of them looked good we had minimal discussion and passed that approved that unanimously. your item 5 about the roving the final report we again approved it unanimously and chris asked there be some clarification on the illustrations that were included it was a little bit difficult to tell where the station it so the staff is looking at that. we had public comment from a gentleman who said while staff indicated and stated that two tracks the bullet train service the high speed rail system

wouldn't be effected and next the transit study we had pedestrian access and the availability of funding sources we were good and passed that unanimously too. regarding joseph flanagan he passed away since our last cac meeting and we found him to be a strong and articulate popcorn for the disability community. i sat next to joseph he was combined to a wheelchair he could get away from me so i and the rest of the committee members will miss him greatly >> thank you very much mr. larson. i see no other comments supervisor kim. >> i was hoping we could have a

moment of silence for his leadership and participation and the process and his dedication and commitment to our city. (silence) >> thank you, everyone. >> one last note for those who are interested joseph memorials is wednesday at the 1 o'clock at the 1500 howard street. >> ms. chang open this up for public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. ms. chang call the next item >> items 3 to 5 this is consent calend

address the commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda >> any motion on those items. moved by supervisor campos and seconded by supervisor kim. i see no comments. open this up for public comment who from the public would like to speak. it's on the minutes of the meeting so >> consent calendar for items 3 to 5. >> oh, so we're not on the approval of the minutes. >> that's under the consent calendar calendar so we'll consider items 3 to 5. >> so let me just say we have a couple of cards on item 4 so - >> so we've sever it. >> yes. items 3 to 5. >> do we have a motion. >> do we have a motion it's moved and seconded by supervisor

yee. colleagues, we should do a role call >> supervisor london breed. supervisor campos. supervisor kim. supervisor mar. supervisor yee. items 3 to 5 pass >> thank you and we're on item 4 if there are no comments let's open this up for public comment. (calling names) and then if you want to speak please come down. >> commissions aaron i'm here representing san francisco tomorrow and the park a coalition one was the 19 prop k funding due to the contributions are very unbalanced for what project we have a lot of projects out there and two of

them 70 state we don't have a firm commitment in terms of how much money is contributed and no plan. the problem of the location of the systems they've stopped and don't show adequately how far we have to go to reduce the traffic and impacts on the west side of the city we've talked to reps about the different connectivity to make the detriment the costs involved. the other central subway we're concerned all those box projects we have a lot of developers looking for money but where are we going to connect and why not look at the trolley we have a rail that could go out why double up the systems and tunnel

our way to the north beach when we have a trolley >> thank you, mr. goodman. next speaker >> morning. >> i'm lance. i'm a resident of north beach and i've been watching carefully what's the north beach construction variance and one of the items on the list even if proposals is $173,000 study to extend that where it is crossing washington street to the wharf and the proposal is for a study to see if that's feasible and if it would be done. i'd like to, you know, i'm guessing that all those items are going to be up and down, you know, so but one request i'd like to make if you could i see the sponsor the seduced is sf ct

a if you could offer direction. i can the title of the thing is to extend the central subway to fisherman's wharf but there are alternatives that could be studied. for example, itch i i was in baltimore muscular dystrophy so they have free buses to take people around and relieving the traffic congestion. so, you know, so that my bottom line is to encourage sfmta and sf ct a to look at surface solutions thank you >> thank you, mr. karen's. next speaker >> i'm steven i'm here on behalf of spur and russian hill neighbors i'm the transportation

chair. we strongly support the funding of the subway estimation for years we have been of the opinions that the northeast part of the city has poor transit. it is while there's a lot of these lines because of the he congestion we have and the density the existing service is slow and overcrowd and unreliable we need to improve the transportation into the northeast part of the city. we also are of the opinion that phase two of the system we support it it has a major flaw it extends only to chinatown where a subway that extends all the way to the north beach fisherman's wharf would be a more efficient use of the expensive asset so we strongly support this study and look forward to working with the c,

d, and a the mta as this study goes forward >> thank you. next speaker. >> howard wong good morning. i'm a lifelong muni rider. we object to the $573 for the motion to strike for the subway study. it's been very secretly put b.a. before you. the neighborhood groups have no knowledge there was money available for the study. we urge that neighborhood organizations and transit advocates be allowed to weigh in what to study in terms of the improving transit. the central subway projects is not in the mayors transportation

task force recommendation proprietor projects and for good reason. given it's ridership low new ridership numbers and it's taking away so moved so much money from muni and the decrease of the transit in north city because of the expensive costs many people in the northeast and throughout the quadrant have opposed the center project but certainly any extension forward. san francisco's total vehicle split is already pretty bad 17 percent only on public transit much better promotions can lead to a integrated citywide system neighborhoods need to weigh in for study one hundred and 73

thousand is not a small sum if we were to study the improvements for the city projects that could be implemented quickly and the instead of the studies that were cut >> city anyone else who wants to speak please step forward. >> i'm for the central subway and i want you to approve the funding for it. and also expanding to north beach and inform fisherman's wharf. i live on the f line it's crowded with toufrtsdz going to fisherman's wharf so this is ideal for it to go to fisherman's wharf. i find it funny with the north beach people have opted the central subway and they still come out and how far rank you guys about the subway that's

wrong the subway is going to be built and we should go favorite to north beach and into fisherman's wharf. thank you >> thank you anyone else who wants to speak. seeing none, public comment is closed. i'd like to ask if on the central subway i know we are litigating here and on the north beach folks bryce is here can litigating talk about the scope. my understanding it's going to look at 3 possible alignments and it's purely an initial study i think to the gentleman that mentioned alternatives it will look at the 3 possible alignments but other ideas for alternatives as well >> good morning, chair mar and commissioners i'm litigating the interim so far the planning at the transportation authority.

on the initial study it's just that an initial study to look at what's out there and under the ground and the gore logic systems and the pattern that would shape the subway station. it's looking at a few divvied alignments if we look at the geographic and it looks like it wouldn't be a feasible option and at a high level it's doing some potential impacts for improvements and economic conditions that would be facilitated by this subway estimation and also looking at construction ability as i said before and the costs and funding options including the fundamental rating criteria which are back of the envelope

stated would be fairly competitive and since this initial study feeds into the sfmta relatively past study we will get this study done in short order. it seems like a lot of people money to spend but hopefully it this will get done in july so the capacity study will be studied in conjunction with many options we have people from the mta to comment here if i want them to >> supervisor campos. >> just a capture quick questions he in terms of the money who is going to do the work? who is - how are you planning to spend it. >> the study is led by sfmta we

have the project manager and some of the work will be sent out to other agencies so some of the economic development work b will be sent out to other departments we have traffic forecasting models and the ridership of this extension and doing the back of the envelope for the competitive rating will be done at the mta itself all 3 agencies will be reviewing each others work for the construction ability and for the economic condition analysis. >> so the hundred dollars 73 thousand how is it broke down. >> between the two agencies i don't know but there will be $50,000 for a consultant and $30,000 for the impounded to do the economic analysis and my apologizes i don't have the entire packet.

>> how are you selecting compounds? due to the timing of the study and the small nature of the task orders we're going to use the transportation authorities tool which have gone through the procurement process already >> another question in terms of if there are specific items or options that members of the contingent want the agencies to consider i mean is there a way for people to, you know, give you feedback over and over input on that? >> i'm happy to took something back eave met with several community groups since october. if anyone else wants to reach out call the project manage and i'll make his contact information available. i have the breakdown of the total costs by agencies if you want that so the sfmta would be

for $40,000 and the sf ta is $18,000 and for the planning department would be $35,000 and $85,000 that would be given to the sfmta but then given to consultant that will be managed by the sfmta and the planning department >> okay. thank you. >> and i wanted to emphasize i think it's great that vial groups can give inputs to paul the project you said he's the project manager forbid the sfmta. >> that's correct. >> but thank you so much four responding. >> i want to reiterate this is taking a look at under the hood and all the analysis of this project meets all the other options that could be on the table for rail bused will be

studied in the real capacity study. >> if there are no questions i don't think it's necessary for ms. bringing son to respond to the issue it's coming up later so colleagues we've heard public comment can we have a motion by supervisor kim. >> i'm sorry we're still on item 4 so my question is on the bike lane allocation. there's a definition in the packet, however, this only comes up because we had the fatality on king street last year. i notice that's our first bicyclist fatality and a lot of the discussion is around where the fact she was struck by the truck. i can't remember the intersection