like to be in, like hey, we like you to change $7 million in the middle of your dollars or stop it all together to wait for this to happen. the focus has been merging those funding streams and aligning them, and the question of who maintains it, what the final design is, where the construction, the construction will be funded through this funding stream at transbay terminal and the question of who is going to maintain it is an open one. that's driven in part by the final competition of uses. it has been unclear to the extent of whether it will be a park or plaza and that's an open conversation. >> i would encourage the park to be involved with mta and trans bay since there's talks of a park, but there's not really a discussion of what the park design is going

to look like, who is going to pay for it and what's the maintenance. who is going to build it. we have to come up with a name for that, but for a name, we'll call it the uncle phil park. in trans bay, there's oscar park, the word "park" is associated with the open space plans but no one has had a discussion about what's the future use, maintenance and programming as well as city park, the giant park that's right next to trans bay. >> amen commissioner. this is a larger and really important philosophical issue. what role is this department and this commission going to play in the stewardship of the parks in the 21st century. i don't think we want

a park system that has new parks and old parks with the newest parks being managed by a variety of -- i think that leads to the dissolution of the protection of our open space in the long term. and combret we all know that for a variety of financial reasons and jurisdiction reasons, these new parks are cropping up with different entities other than us, and i do think it's important and i think it would be great for the commission to kind of start to tackle that issue and make sure that we have a consolidated and coherent open -- the city has an open and coherent open space into the 21st central. >> i would encourage the commission and the parks to

take leadership on that issue especially if it's going to be a privately operated -- i can't remember what ppo stands for, public open space. the expectation is this is rec and park property and if you can't walk your dog in the park, who is going to receive the complaint? and it's going to be phil and phil said it's not our park. >> i'm reminded that sidney is one of the parks that's maintained but has a lot of restrictions and i don't know if we get a lot calls when people can't do what they want to do. commissioner bonum. >> i wanted to state cold heartedly that the slake

project has some really extremely high expectations in terms of the community as regards to its development and i think if we can be successful in acquiring that property to develop it, that it should be done under any circumstance because the -- i can tell you, living out in that area that the expectations are great in terms of its development and its been talked about for, many, many years and i hope to see in the next couple of years or so that we'll be going to a ground breaking there. so i wanted to express a great deal of support for

that project. >> thank you, commissioner, i think we have heard very strongly from fran martin and other advocates from individual vigitation valley and they have asked the city to become involved because they want to insure the development around it occurs at the speed or rate which the market affords at the very least, the open space amenity will be delivered. there are legitimate trade-offs around that decision but i wanted to echo our statement that we have heard very clearly from the community strong support and hope that working together, we can work out a deal that works for everyone. >> we're on item 10 which is general public comment continued. i have two cards. mrs. tony and

vanessa banks. if you want to come forward. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm mrs. tony, frenld of young [inaudible] park. i want vaness to to begin and i'll take my turn. >> good afternoon. thanks commissioners, glad to be here. i want to let you know that friends of young blood colmen has been working hard and we're going to apply for the opportunity funding, the forth cycle and we've been working hard with architects and the community came out all inter generation

support. it was awesome. we came out here to let you know what we're doing, and hope we'll be supported by our city officials and our general manager and then throughout the three meetings, there was a lot of complaints and that's where antwanette will let you know. >> we had issues at the park. last year, the parks and rec through the 2008 bond money, right, phil, we have brand new tennis courts and basketball courts. >> through the commissioners. >> thank you. we have state of the art, tennis and basketball courts. but guess what, someone came out and stole our or removed our state of the art glass back board at the half court and the net gone. our brand new tennis

nets, gone. and the neighbor next door to the park reported to us that staff from park and rec and vans were responsible for the removal of these items. i'm making a report. so we wonder what in the world happened to our equipment. it was brand new and whoever took it, please return it. that's one of our request. our second item is that -- this is awesome. this park has been closed for maybe ten years or so. and we're now we're getting new staffing in there, we're getting ready to reopen our clubhouse, we got a couple of repairs to happen before we launch new programs, we're hoping this summer, and we just -- we're doing everything that we can to be good park stewarts but every time we come in to do something good like graffiti, someone comes back into the

park in august and shot out the windows in park house. we're letting you know, security issues, vandalism is going on at the park. as much as we're trying to be there, but with the clubhouse being closed, it's hard to do that and with no cameras in the park. i wanted to put that in note. we have trees that sit at keith and hudson avenue. these trees, we've called 311, just recently and there are diseased trees, especially the pine ones ask there's over growth trees that's obstructing the views of the homeowners and they've been there for 30 years and the reason they selected the homes was because of the vista so we want someone to come out there. they did send folks to look at it and they gave me a

phone call but they're not responsible for the trees inside the park. i want to put that on note if someone can take care of that and get rid of the disease trees and create a way where the homeowners can have their view again, okay. there's a broken sprinkler system that has been broken for a long time. we're in a water drop at the northwest baseball field, someone needs to take a look at those. those are the concerns that came up out of our community meetings that we recently held at the park. okay. thank you. >> thank you. thank you, thank you. >> anyone else who would like to make general comment that did not comment on item 4? seeing none, this item is closed. >> we're going to be going into an executive session, but before we do, there's one person here who may have thought an item coming

up under new agenda where it says lincoln park course, but there's nothing on the agenda. this is a n misnomer. i don't want you to wait around in the hall and come back in. anybody else that's waiting on items that are listed new agenda, new business agenda setting, they're not going to be discussed. with that, i think -- go ahead margaret. >> before we -- we're on item 11 which is closed session, conference with legal council is existing litigation, i have one card for public comment, so if jean can come forward. anyone else who wants to comment on this, please come up now. >> thank you very much, again. i wasn't going to speak in anticipation of your closed session on the litigation. some you know, i have been involved with the golden gate for several

years but i heard things today that just compelled me to come up once again and comment on things that are policy related that i want you to take into consideration when discussing the pending litigation. there was a presentation on the ground water supply issue. if this project goes through, they'll be $4 million gallons of water going into the osafer and you're going to pump into our drinking water. we're interesting in getting water from our aquafer and it will eliminate 4 million gallons water. i heard about green to greener, i think that's when he said it was which has to do with parks and the importance of greening the

city, and yet you're going to be taking ten acres green material and replacing it with green plastic. there's a program that supervisor tang and the sunset district is promoting and i believe it's pavement to parks. it's great. it's advocating that people tear up the concrete and put plants and other materials and once again to replenish the aqufer. the amount of ground that will be removed for this golden gate park will be the equivalent 30,000 homes. you're painting over golden gate park. there was a ban on plastic bottles that can't be sold in public parks. people will not -- for good reason -- be able to buy

plastic bottle water while watching a soccer game being played on plastic turf. it just makes no sense to me that you take a natural grass feed, which is an echo system for a lot of wild life, pave it over and turn it into a dump for 100,000 rubber tires. it's easy. you could choose to drop the litigation. i would encourage you to do that and we can go about having a beautiful area in golden gate park where kids can play soccer. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else who would like to comment on this item? being none, public comment is closed. commissioners, we now need a motion and a vote on whether to hold closed session. >> second. >> moved and seconded. >> we're now in closed session and i do need to ask everyone here to

>> commissioners, we're back in session and we do need a vote on whether to disclose our non disclose any or all discussions held in closed session. >> i'll make a motion not to disclose. >> sec.. >> moved and seconded. all in favor. >> aye. >> moved. >> we're on item 12, commissioner, any commissioner matters. new public comment. being none. we're on business agenda setting. new public comment. we're on item

14, communications. public enter, being none. item 15 is closed and we're on adjourn. >> move to adjourn. >> hold on commissioner buell. >> i would like to say we adjourn in former of willy brown's 80 birth day which is today. >> happy birthday. >> motion to adjourn. >> motion to adjourn. >> all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> thank you.

>> 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 a