as well. chester fong >> wrong item. >> for our regular citizens advisory committee. we have the background they have a advisory member and they serve different terms for the recommendations and the boards points out the members. neither staff nor the committee make recommendations on the appointments and you can see a list of folks for applicants i applications and in attachment won a lincoln's with information regarding our current members to qualify you may not be a san francisco resident to speak to our interests and qualifications. we have two vacancies on the

committee requiring our action, however, we recommended you only consider one appointment. this vacancy is from the term inspirations of robert from 7 and the recent expiration of mr. flanagan. >> i see no questions. supervisor yee >> so several people have impressed interest for being appoint and the people r that have stepped forward are all good candidates but the person that i felt is basically stood above them i will be supporting is john larson. and was really great to have met him and had a discussion with

him because during that discussion it what i saw was the sincerity and his commitment to the issues. so i appreciate is if the rest of the committee would also support him >> thank you supervisor yee. any candidates for this district 78 position if anyone wants to make a statement please come forward and we'll open this up for public comment. >> good morning, chair mar and members. i'm john larson i'm asking to be considered for the vacancy on the transportation authority. i'm a 17 year resident of the

west portal neighborhood i've used all transportation and different types of transit to get to my job buena vista and driving and, yes even walking. in fact, pedestrian safety is one of the reasons i'm interested in serving. specifically to implore the rate of pedestrian death and injuries that are acute on the districts 7 corridors and many interested in the transit study which is the study to look at efficiency issues an 19th avenue and lake merced village. i have 20 years working in nonprofit i kurt currently work at the courts the state organization that oversees court administration i've worked in

advisory groups which is charged with courts related changes to the vehicle code i pose a law degree and analyzing legislation and developing recommendations as well budget oversight. i will like to contribute to this because i believe that a public centered process results in long-term results for policymakers and the people they serve speaker if selected i will work hard to make sure that the district 7 the largest area are recommended and heard. thank you for your attention >> thank you, mr. larson. next speaker >> i'm glen rogers i am a landscape architect i was also on the advisory competent.

as a landscaper architect i have unique qualifications for this post. i was in doing the study i was the first time person to make the sfmta and sf ct a aware of the fact there was a senior streetcar they omitted in their traffic study. i too am interested in the 19th avenue transit study. i believe this project is in error in many ways. and this is very likely the reason i was not considered as a member. first, we think that the particular design they've proposed that will cause traffic jams for many years in the future is said to be for two to three years the construction will be taking place but the bay bridge was 5 years over it's

time limit and we say expect this to be of the same caliber. the other issue when this project is started all the service with the young streetcar will no longer be available to the residents and in my opinion there has been a plan presented by aaron goodman that's a better plan than presented by sfmta and i hope you'll be able to see that later >> thank you so much mr. rogers. next speaker >> sorry commissioners but i also am seeking that appointment by no longer in that district but not seen mr. larson in any

meetings. my concern with the planning commission and some of the boards and panels we have some people being appointed and become a rubber stamp but i haven't seen mr. larson's plans the concern is that when you have public interests at stake on the citizen's advisory council you should have someone on the panel that represents the largest you community out there and district. i think that's key as well as having other neighborhood or at least people involved in transit that are dealing with the issue when it comes down to you have a lot of neighborhoods i would recommend someone like george who would speak up for the entire population first and foremost so before i appoint

sympt someone i would look at the views and i don't know mr. larson's vision i've never seen a recommendation as to the 19th traffic study >> mr. goodman what district do you live in. >> district leveling. >> any other comments? >> district 8 i want to show any support to supervisor yee and his appointment i think he knows. >> wait a minute gilbert so no other examines for the seat so public comment is open please continue. >> yes. i wanted to support supervisor yee's appointment of mr. larson and i thought his presentation was outstanding. i worry about the central subway

hateers would stop and will the the central subway sgo go through. thank you >> thank you. anyone else on the public who worries about to speak seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor yee has impressed his support for mr. larson. any other comments. is there a motion sovm by supervisor campos and so colleagues, can we take those without objection >> roll call supervisor breed. supervisor campos. supervisor kim. supervisor mar. supervisor yee. john larson has been recommended as the appointment person

>> item 7 recommended appointment of one member to the gary corridor citizen's advisory council committee. >> and here comes chester fong. good morning, chair mar and councilmembers. principle planner this is an appointment to the gary rapid bulls transit the gary brt project is the liberate we have a dedicated citizen's advisory council that meets bio monthly the structure is shown in the memo we have neighborhood seats as well as at large seats one vacancy is for the chinatown fillmore seat we've received 5

applications and those applications are in your packet. we've kourjd the applicant to be here today. we understand that some have advised but their unable to make it here today. i'll conclude my comments and if the candidates that are here could speak we're seeking one candidate and so candidates if you would like to make a statement please come forward. thank you, mr. fong it looks like no one is going to present. i'd like to ask if supervisor breed wants to make comments >> i'm recommending arthur he reached out to our office and we have had a chance to reach out

but unfortunately, he can't because of his work schedule he can't make it t it but has made a commitment to make the meeting for the gary brt because those meetings are in the evening he takes the gary on a daily basis and lives in the fillmore based on his daily ridership and his understanding of the transportations be issues and his resume he would be a good fit for the seat. i'd like to moved with this recommendation >> thank you colleagues, any other comments. >> second. >> its been moved and seconded. so we open for public let's open this up for public comment anyone from the public who would like to speak seeing none, public comment is closed. so colleagues we've had a motion and a second >> supervisor breed.

supervisor campos. supervisor kim. supervisor mar. supervisor yee. austin inspires has been recommended to appointment to the cac. >> congratulation. >> item 8 recommendations of the final report this is an action item. >> we have listing here. >> good morning liz i'm a senior transportation analyzed and i've been serving as the director we have computer technical itself. i'm happy to bring the draft report. i want to start by recognizing that is an exciting partnership with all partners led by the post partnering with the sfmta

and the san francisco planning department. we've also with the funding support into from caltrain's for a grant as well contributions of funding from the 3 major west side landowners the gallery and san francisco state all over the and park merced. i want to recognize people in the audience from park merced and from sf state and jonestown they will make brief remarks. i was going to speak for 10 minutes >> okay. >> so the study area we're looking at the study is ocean avenue runs in the middle. this work builds on past land

use efforts including the park merced plan that calls for a increase in the population at the site about 56 net housing units increase as well as the campus master plan from 20 to 25 thousand. in the context of that work there was a corridor study for the transportation recognizing the need for broadly looking at the transportation issues that led to the idea of what are known as pier 5 and transportation improvements which the m line integration was one of them. the purpose was to look at taking the m over to the west side of the street so that the crossing would be straight. the image here shows what that

looks like as far as the density of the land where it becomes visible. i'll talk about the existing needs not corridor. several big ones related to transportation the first one is about the speed and reliability traveling 9 and a half miles per hour conflicts with the vehicles. a second oh, that looks better the second need is the access to transit we are we have a high ridership stop at the university and johnstown and all the folks boarding there if the station happened to be the highest ridership you have thousands of students crossing the highway 6 percent of the facility

accidents occur here. so building on a version of american people you got to the park merced agreement taking them over to the west side of the street. the idea here was to look at it building upon that side park merced plan as it stands solves the access plan but not the speed and reliability. so i'll quickly walk you through the steps we started by establishing goals for the work the big focus was on speed and reliability of transit improving the access and the safety of non-motorized vehicles in the corridor. during the first stage of work we developed several different ways to get over in the northern

part of the corridor and the same with the south. we shared that during our first round during february and got great feedback and learned some of the idea were unpopularity so we spent the summer trying to understand the performance against the goals. when we came back and did our second round of outreach we completed an evaluation and compared two options to form the highest alternatives of the bridge and taking the underground from approximately st. francis cycle through park merced and traveling over highway one and a bridge connecting to randolph street. some of the connections improve the reliability of the m and also a lot more capacities on

the line we've enable 3 and 4 car train services that is a benefit that ripples through market street. also big improvements to the safety distance across the street appraise for places where pedestrians cross the street and prove the quality of life. i mentioned we did two rounds of outreach we reached the stakeholders from all the parts of corridor from west portal down to the o m i and worked the 3 landlords on the west side of the street. generally a lot of support and questions we're not making decisions but we will continue to work with the community on the questions and subsequent phases. that talks about the costs which

is, of course, generated a lot of questions this is a potential cost of the project on the order of 5 hundred million capital confidence showing some of the considerations is the savings and operating costs that will be generated in the traffic time. thinking about the potential to leverage existing commitments to looshz and sf state has committed presidential 2 million and there's more work to be done with the value of increases looking at value stunts and the last chapter of the report includes a list of potential work and we're not asking for a decision today definitely moving forward to that spending the money today. did want to note that phasing is

could start with the bridge and do the subway later. so that brings me to my last slide the next phase of work is still before environmental review. at this stage we transfer the leadership to sfmta. that will take us past july of next year to do the study report this is a caltrain's facility and diverse time to answer questions before we enter the environmental control phase. you've approved the prop k. i defer to the chair how he wants to proceed with the partners remarks >> we can probably squeeze them

in but be as brief as possible and i have a number of cards to call as well. i see bert from park merced and others >> i'm jason from san francisco university i'll be brief and support my support my gratitude to the staff for leading this collaboration. >> good morning commissions i'm bert i'm here representing park merced. the park merced long-range plan was for the inception of the study we've been supporting this study financially and prarpgs in the sessions. the adaptation will be transformative for the west side of the city improving muni operations and pedestrian safety

i'd like to thank the gentleman and to chester fong and tilting and others and the mayor's office for their tireless effort. and to the neighborhood and stakeholder we're collaborating to get this done. thank you, commissioners i urge you to adapt this 19th avenue study >> i see cynthia from the galleria. >> we wanted to acknowledge the wonderful leadership this collaborative are partnering has had and thank you for the opportunity to participate and want to see solutions and improvements and will continue to support the project. >> so with no other partners speaking let's open this up for public comment. i have a couple of cards (calling names)

and anyone else who wants to speak please come forward >> i'm katie work with the west side group. i wanted to thank liz as well. i have 3 points to make first of all, lots of outreach was done including with residents in our area. and as part of one of those outreach sessions we conducted a very inform survey i wanted to say that 70 percent felt neighbors support of tunnel. going through our area the reason we got together was some of the options were unpopularity so it was a good way to that was a prospective bridge through our neighborhood that turned out into a tunnel that made people support the project better.

the last piece i wanted to mention as well as someone who lives in the neighborhood we see the traffic and pedestrian safety issues everyday the offer crowding on the train it was clearly designed for a system or ridership one hundred years ago and if we're going to make the tunnel do it right and get an underground station. and if we're going to spend the money do it the right way and improve the safety situation and the ridership situation for everybody. thank you >> thanks. mr. goodman >> well, you mentioned that tunnel thing was starting on ocean avenue the reason community members opposed it was talking about the tight it little streets the issue on the overhead you have 4 we're trying

to look at the congestion this is tip towing through the tuesday lips this is not going to solve the 189th avenue turn issues you're going to have more congestion you've ever seen before sf state university had an m u for one million if something was in the ground and started. the same thing happens here with the park merced tail track and the future planning if we don't get this up front they're looking for studies and analysis and i think there are some, you know, adequate minds here looking at that but the problem they don't look at it i'll show you quickly i gave the drawing to peter albert it shows connectivity. you don't have the length in the

system i can get you a copy myself if you don't have connectivity you don't look at the bio county transit and you're not solving the problem. we're bending for a developer to do what they want for the project which is $7 million. so, please look at this sincerely and do not just look at certain neighborhoods it effects disproportionly the park merced area >> thank you. >> yes. glen rogers again. when they originally came up with the plan of the skyway for the young streetcar they didn't include the fact there was going to be 2 or 4 rows of trees quite

at all that would be at least 20 or thirty or 50 feet high >> sorry about that. >> the skyway would never be viewed even when there was a streetcar on the sky way. it's disingenuous and create a hedge that would block it so the public would not be invented by the bad view. i was present when the 1953 bridge was built in my neighborhood. i have to tell you it took forever for that thing to get built the traffic jams that occurred were tremendous. that's nothing compared to what happens in my district when k -

this is built. san francisco is ged with the research they have a good lawyer and good case. this project enters a quiet and peaceful community that causes blight and noise it didn't go through park merced creating a loop system it's a dogleg system that didn't priority in my opinion enough ridership. also it produces city kwauns for the largest community in san francisco. park merced has been recognized by many prestige organizations as praise worthy and historic interest. and lastly the management has offered low rate housing to properties in manhattan.

this project went out of business and at the end they were charging the residents there 3 times the market rate. so this is the history. thank you >> thank you, mr. rogers. next speaker >> good morning. i'm henry i'm here to voice any support of the feasibility study with one transcript on the avenue some not where the m lines are at there are a lot of students who ride the 28 everyday during the rush hour there's congestion in the north direction and if the questing right-of-way were there it would improve where their ride the m or