process that i've had the honor and privilege of serving on. we talk about budget, we talk about services, we talk about schedule, we talk about mitigation strategies and so on and so on, but the reality at the end of the day is we're going to have a transbay sales force transit center with sales force and retail and so on. so we didn't want -- i was so excited about the five local service starting on december 26th, my wife and i were out of town with the inlaws over christmas. we got back about 3:00 in the afternoon on tuesday, the 26th. i told my wife i'm going down to the transit center. you want to go with me? she said okay, so we went down there, got to the boarding platform area, and who was there? it was just a fabulous sight.

it was fantastic. there was a transit inspector, there was a muni service planner, there was a security guard and a pco, and several buses. and my wife was a bit reluctant to join, but after she saw the smiles on everybody's faces, we held a little ribbon cutting ceremony. so i know that the real ribbon cutting ceremony's going to be awesome, but we couldn't let this go without a little celebration. so had a little christmas ribbon leftover from one of the present. the six of us held the ribbon. my wife turned to the director -- the production director, and she said well, let's take this picture, let's take that picture. that evening, i posted it on facebook, and guess how small the world is? one of my inlaws husband's

cousins was the director -- was the muni driver who's in that picture, so the guy on the -- the guy on the right is -- is a cousin of one of my relatives. crazy. world small. so it was really fantastic. and the pride -- i just want to share with you, the pride of the folks that was there, it was awesome. i spent 15 minutes talking to the muni service planner, matt. i want to publicly say i was so impressed with his enthusiasm, thoughtfulness, commitment. being there, he explained the entire operations of how the 5 local was going to work during this interim, how it was going to work in the actual permanent service, how all the other lines that are going to come in and how they're going to be staged, and why they're staged the way they are. the focus was on safety, the

focus was on passenger experience, and operations efficiency. and director reiskin, it was awesome. i couldn't stop smiling. i was listening to him talk, and my face was just -- it was an awesome experience. so i just wanted to share this. it was -- obviously you can tell by my excitement and enthusiasm, it was really an awesome experience. the only feedback that we provided at the cac was just -- you know, right now knowing when we went down there, it was a very slow period downtown, would be the communication of transitioning of passengers from the temporary terminal to the actual transit center is to ensure it's really clear for both. just ask that maybe muni to check in and kind of see what the ridership looks like to

really be taking advantage of the service at the new transit center because there are -- even with the ambassadors, you still kind of have to maneuver your way through and so on. but again, it was just a real positive experience. the next thing i want to move on in the staff report was that the tjpa team as a -- as indicated, is applying for the application, $275 million of tircp funding for phase two, and the cac submitted a letter of support and assisted in reaching out to other advocacy groups to do the same. moving onto the annual report, i'll just touch on a few items briefly. the accomplishments, the cac wanted to acknowledge and compliment the project team, contractors, and the skilled union labor for their skilled work and progress to date in 2017. safety is critical, and although metrics for recordable

injuries are comparable on osha recordables, the fact that lost time injuries are 25% of industry average was excellent. and so good to see as we can't celebrate the success of this project if we're saddled with injuries impacting the lives of our workforce. a specific highlight that was mentioned was the community engagement, and we wanted to applaud the project team. the fact that there were only 12 customer complaints in 2017 as compared to 68 in 2015 and 48 in 2016 really showed the effective engagement. and the cost after the challenges on the life of the project, the team has been holding the line on eac. there were a few areas of

concern that were already talked about, and then, other items that the cac would really like to keep a close eye on over the coming months. again, we were disappointed to see the slippage of the substantial completion date from april 23rd to may 11th, and what was immediate concern and director harper, you mentioned it, and executive director issapiti, you mention they wanted to get it ready to go in june, with substantial completion in april. the fact that it's pushed out to may really becomes a problem for the june start-up. the focus has always been on substantial completion, and we know that the project team is continuing to work with webcore to pull that back in. one thing that the cac wanted to make a recommendation is on

the construction schedule, when you're looking at substantial completion and you're looking at a few key dates of muni transit starting -- and right now, that shows the end of april, and we just talked about the june implementation for ac transit, the fact that the schedule's pushed out to may 11th, we actually have muni bus service starting before. if you look at the schedule, that's what it appears, so interestfrom a tran parency perspective, even though the operators will be ready and are planning to be ready on those dates, if you can't start service, you can't really show that as implementation, so we recommend that as a change of how the schedule is prepared. the cac is also interested in a presentation at an up coming meeting on the status of pop ups. what is the mix of offerings? how much of the space is already committed? although it's understanding

that this is or will be -- this aspect of the center will be ready, we would like to be able to provide input prior to the plans being finalized and brought to the board for approval. we're also recommending more visible and specificity of planning for the retail during 2018, insight into the schedule, forecast versus actuals, month to month changes from baseline, in addition to the types of retailers who are expressing interests in committing in contracts of interests to the cac. public interest strategies. the cac requested a presentation at a future meeting of the overall elements involved and the narratives that are being highlighted. the center -- the real center opening ribbon cutting, we're pleased to here that the comprehensive ceremony will be planned, including all neighbors, city and region wide, and the cac looks forward in participating in this

ceremony. one last item i wanted to mention is i wanted to follow up on our discussion regarding the integrated planning effort to address and compassionately support any issues with potential homeless population which could be attracted to the center. the cac at this last meeting had a robust and passionate discussion. regarding the discussion the panel presented last month. although overall we were pleased with the progress to this point, we are working on a set of recommendations that we will provide to the board, our district six supervisor and the department of homelessness for consideration hopefully in the next few weeks. sorry for going on so long here, but tr for the opportunity to provi -- thank you for the opportunity to provide this update. >> if i could, i just want to thampg t thank the chair for his full and comprehensive report of the

cac, but in particular for the ad hoc ribbon cutting ceremony. i also wanted to commend the staff, ron and mark and the project team for all the work they did with the whole team to get ready for the 26th. when i went back and asked my folks how things went, it seemed that things went off smoothly and well. i asked them to make sure that the rider experience would be positive and not make them feel like they were in the middle of a construction site, and from the photos, i feel you guys did a good job, get an early attest of what the full experience will be when the center opens. please convey to the whole team or gratitude on behalf of our riders for making that happen. >> will do. thank you. >> great. thanks. >> item 7 is a public comment. opportunity for members of the

public to address you on matters that are not on today's calendar. we have jim patrick. >> thank you. jim patrick, patrick and company. to the board of directors here. i'd like to call your attention to the san francisco transit authority that agreed to spend $188,000 on a peer rephrase for the design to bring together the rav report, two track versus one track, and the proposal to the tjpa has been made, and i believe mark or one of our representatives are going to sit on that board. that's a strategic thing, and as this peer group reviews it, they're going to finally make a recommendation. it seems to me, from an outsider looking in, that no one can do what the peer group doesn't want to do, so it will essentially be a decision about how the dtx and the connection on down the line is going to go. it's a clever political move,

but i'd like to see reporting and i had i'd like to see an agenda item on this board as to how this process is going. we have to pay attention to this, and i'm also curious what the board policy direction is to our staff relative to what we should be reporting and promoting to this peer group. i've heard nothing from this board and that i've seen, so what is our plan and can we bring a report back to this board as to how this peer review is going so we can influence it necessarily if we need to. otherwise we sit like a dummy in the back of the truck, and the truck leaves town and we're without. thank you. >> at this time, you are scheduled to go into closed session. we've not received any indication that a member of the public wishes to address you on th

. >> all right. the tjpa regularly scheduled meeting of january is 1, 2018 is back in session. there are no further items on the calendar that need your support. >> okay. we are adjourned. >> thank

>> chair peskin: good morning and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority meeting for today, tuesday, january 9, 2018. happy new year. our clerk is mr. alberto quintanilla. mr. clerk, if you could please call the roll. >> clerk: item one, commissioner breed. cohen present. commissioner farrell. farrell absent. commissioner fewer. fewer absent. commissioner kim. kim absent. commissioner peskin. >> chair peskin: present. >> clerk: commissioner ronen, present. commissioner safai.

present. commissioner sheehy present. tang present. we have quorum. >> chair peskin: all right. could you, please, read the consent agenda and then we'll take public comment on the minutes. >> clerk: items two to three compromise the consent agenda. item three was approved at december 12th board meeting and considered for final approval. staff is not planning to present, but presenting if desired. if a member objects, any items can be removed and considered separately. >> chair peskin: is there anyp on item two, the minutes of december 2017 meeting, mr. rice? >> public: yeah. i want to point out and explain part problem is transportation roads are deteriorating. next time you talk to caltrans, charge them. they spend billions of dollars tearing down the bay bridge when

all it needed was renovation -- >> chair peskin: mr. rice, there will be an opportunity for general public comment. this is just public comment on the minutes of december 12, 2017. >> public: all right. >> chair peskin: thank you, sir. seeing no other members of the public for public comment on the minutes, we'll close public comment and a roll call please. a motion to move the consent agenda made by commissioner tang. seconded by commissioner breed. and on that, a roll call please. >> clerk: on the consent agenda, commissioner breed. breed aye. cohen aye. commissioner peskin. >> chair peskin: aye. >> clerk: peskin aye. ronen aye. commissioner sheehy. sheehy i. commissioner tang. >> vice chair tang: aye. >> clerk: tang aye. we have approval. >> chair peskin: all right. next item. >> clerk: item four, election of

chair and vice chair for 2018. this is an action item. >> chair peskin: okay. nominations are now in order for the office of chair. are there any nominations for said position? commissioner cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. good morning. happy new year. i would like to make the nomination to nominate commissioner peskin to be chair of this body. and correct me if i'm wrong, chair, i'm able to make a nomination for vice chair at this time as well? >> chair peskin: we can also open the nominations for vice chair at the same time if you would like to do that. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. you would have nominated to nominate our same colleague, katy tang, for vice chair. >> chair peskin: seconded by commissioner breed. are there any other nominations? is there any public comment on item number four?

seeing none, public comment is closed. nobody else wants this job. what? [laughter] >> chair peskin: we do have a new house. that is true. we will call the roll. so, with that on the nominations for peskin as chair and commissioner tang as vice chair -- commissioner ronen. >> supervisor ronen: i just wanted to thank you, chair peskin and vice chair tang for doing this jb all last year and being willing to do it again this year -- job all last year and being willing to do it again this year. you taking this leadership means a lot to the city and i know it takes a lot of work and a lot of sacrifice in addition to your jobs as members of the board of supervisors. i just wanted to on behalf of the board thank you for that work. >> chair peskin: thank you commissioner. commissioner tang. >> vice chair tang: thank you so often ronen. we didn't have a chance to speak much about it at the december 12th meeting because it was just a little bit crazy

inside here. and i forgot to mention it during item three. but i wanted to say that together with chair peskin, really doing a huge overhaul of schools has been meaningful. thank you to the staff and all the city departments. i hope everyone will take a look at the new staffing structure. all that information should be in item three. and if you have any further comments, suggestions, please let us know. but changes will be coming forth and fully implemented by 2019 i believe. >> chair peskin: so, i guess if voice chair tang saying some words, i'll say a few as well. i want to thank vice chair tang for her leadership on reforming safe routes to school, which i think was a major accomplishment. and we also celebrated a milestone that we all read about relative to the city wide vision zero strategy ending last year with a 41% reduction in pedestrian and cyclists

fatalities since 2013. and i think that is really remarkable. but we are not going to stop until we get to zero. we've engaged i think in thoughtful discussions around project delivery, including the downtown caltrain extension, better market street, van ness vrt. we have initiated independent expenditure plan. we've learned a lot about transportation network companies and their impact on our public transit system and city streets and kon jucongestion. we've undertaken a really remarkable and ambitious identify a local contribution that we will get before the voters in november before the $20 billion projected need for transportation and operations through 2045. i want to thank the folks from

the transportation task force who spent the last half year getting critical neighborhood feedback after the sales tax failed in 2016. so, i think it's been a very good year and i'm honored to continue to be your chair and look forward to working with all of you and our citizens. and with that, a roll call please. >> clerk: on the motion in favor of elects commissioner peskin for chair and commissioner tang for vice chair. commissioner breed. breed aye. commissioner cohen. cohen aye. commissioner fewer. fewer aye. commissioner peskin. peskin aye. commissioner ronen. ronen aye. commissioner sheehy. sheehy aye. tang aye. the motions are approved. >> chair peskin: all right. next item please. >> clerk: item five allocation of $110,000 in prop k funds with

one requested and approach yaths of $180,000 in funds. this is ana item. >> chair peskin: mr. pickford. good morning. we are going to turn your microphone on. >> thank you. i mr. present -- i will present the first request and hand it over to my colleague. circulation improvements of the daly city bart station. this includes upgrading exiting pedestrians ramps that provides access to the bart station including the 14 r mission rapid to make it ada compliant. currently, the muni bus drops passengers at a lower level bus stop which you can hopefully see on the screen. it lays over in the upper level parking lot before looping back to the lower level. this ramp will allow the 28 to leave directly from the upper level stop, which mta will save

about 23 minutes a route which could end up in $150,000 per year in operations cost. the operation will be separate with san mateo county, expected to be open in summer of 2018. i will pass it off to eric. >> good morning commissioners. on your screen you see there the dpx project overview that's already been environmentally cleared. i want to give you a background as it relates to this request. the dtx was cleared and has three tracks from fourth street to transbay transit center. they have performed various analysis. some concluding three tracks are appropriate and others are concluding three are appropriate. in this record, commissioner peskin thank you for the request

for us to perform an independent peer review. the purpose of the request is to evaluate three rail operation studies as i've indicated and form key policy decision makers on the two versus three track issue. the request is for $180,000 of prop k. the three studies in question, one performed by a private property owner and his consultants, the other prepared by t.j.p. and consultant partners. and the feasibility study analysis prepared by sma rail consulting under the direction of the city planning department. we've assembled a peer review panel that we believe is first -- we want to make sure there's no conflict of interests. we searched into the database of consultants and selected the following panel there. representatives from t.y. lynn we was from the director of rail

transit in new york and new jersey. the and the, elliott group and david nelson, all of them are significant -- have significant rail commuter and inner city rail operations expertise. we are happy with the team we have assembled in that regard. key stake holders, tjpa and the property owner who represents various properties on second street and all the way down the line. caltrain and most important too, the high speed rail, including the early train operator. we envisioned -- what you have in front of you is a schedule. we have already started the document review in that regard to get a head start on this because we know that schedule is very important here. we will have stakeholder meetings in the january time frame and have a workshop in

february. the plan is to go ahead and have a draft report in february and a final report in march and come back to this board no later than april. that's the plan ahead of us. and i'm available for questions on this item or the item prior with mike. >> chair peskin: are there any questions on item number five to mr. mr. pickford or mr. cordova? if not, before we go to public comment, i just want to thank you for the peer review. i know it's on a tight time frame and i also want to acknowledge the t.j.p.a. who have agreed to delay the record of decision until we can have a real honest, meaningful peer review. and let me just say, it's my profound hope that we are able to figure out a way where there's no cut and cover at the throat or on townsend street where we don't have that level of surface disruption for years

as well as resolving the two-track, three-track issue and look forward to your work and the results in april. is there any public comment on item number five? mr. lebrong. >> public: good morning chair peskin. happy new year. congratulations on your re-election and supervisor tang. this is great news. definitely spending money much better than the way we were -- last time we blew $5.5 million. i think it is important none of the members of public have been involved. but understand that you can have some kind of presentation of a workshop. again, assure you this is going to work. because five years ago, what i

did is i took the timetable for london olympics, which basically was the same scenario which you have here and actually on the they use -- actually they used three platforms, not six. and in so doing, 25,000 passengers per direction, 50,000 passengers an hour. actually as people were getting on and off, we were really carrying 100,000 passengers. then i figured out a way to somehow do the same track configuration into soma without any surface impacts. i can assure you this is going to work but i don't know this is what you're going to look at. in closing, i'd like to remind you that whatever you come up with, there are some existing legislation and case law which

mandates what you have to achieve if you want to qualify for prop k bonds. half billion dollars for dtx and half a million dollars for beautify case. i will be writing again to you to remind you what the issues are. thank you very much. >> chair peskin: thank you for your constant attention to this project. is there any other member of the public, members of the public who would like to testify? seeing none. public comment is closed. on that item a roll call please. >> clerk: motion. >> chair peskin: motion to move item number five made by commissioner cohen. seconded by commissioner yee and now roll call. >> clerk: on item five, commissioner breed. breed aye. commissioner cohen. cohen aye. commissioner fewer. >> chair peskin: commissioner

fewer. >> clerk: fewer aye. commissioner peskin. aye. commissioner ronen. ronen aye. commissioner sheehy. sheehy aye. commissioner tang. tang aye. commissioner yee. yee aye. we have first approval. >> chair peskin: all right. next item, please. >> clerk: item six. approve san francisco project priorities for the local partnership program, competitive grant program. this is an action item. >> chair peskin: okay. the other mr. quintanilla. >> good morning. i'm a transportation planner. as you may recall last december, this body program, san francisco's form last year of the local partnership program for three tree resurfacing projects, today's presentation is about the other half of this state program. the competitive portion. the local partnership program rewards jurisdictions that have sought and received voter approval of taxes, tolls and fees or have fees solely

dedicated to transportation. the california transportation commission administers this program and 50% is distributed through formula and prop aa administrator, it is eligible for both portions. the initial funding cycle for the competitive program covers years 2017-18 through 2019-20 and will distribute up to $300 million state and wide. funds available for construction only. requires a dollar for dollar match and minimum grant size of $3 million. project nominations will be considered in two different groups. one group for jurisdictions with water approved measures and one group for jurisdictions with imposed fees. based on the criteria shown on the slide and a potential repeal effort, we believe construction readiness would be a very

important factor in the current call for projects. jurisdictions submitting multiple applications must establish project priority. throughout the guideline development process and in october once the program guidelines were released, we directed information about the program and call for projects. the city department regional transportation operators and other project sponsors, and we received requests to support nomination of three projects shown on the slide. jefferson street improvements and better market street segment one. all projects have challenges. but staff priority tried to reflect the most construction ready and most competitive projects to make the most for san francisco. number one, mission base ferry landing is close to 65% designed with environment clearance expected in may. we believe that the original benefits including bmt reduction

and air quality benefits will make it competitive. the main challenge is securing funding from private sources. number two, jefferson street improvements phase two. it is at 95% design. but we believe that air quality and benefits are a little more challenging to quantify and might make it less competitive. the funding plan also depending on securing the $6.1 million in local match. and number three, better market street segment one which would be between six6 and eighth stre. since san francisco is an eligibility applicant to the portion through the transportation sustainability fee, we've been working with the mayor's office. we expect the city to submit the

same projects but swapping the orders for jefferson as number one and terminal number two to maximize san francisco's potential in this funding source. project applications are due on january 30th. and we expect cpc to adopt a program of projects on may 16th. and with that, we'll take any questions. there's also project managers from san francisco port and dpw to answer questions. >> chair peskin: colleagues, are there any questions for all of the assembled staff from variation departments? seeing none, is there any public comment on item number six? seeing none, public comment is closed. i guess staff, you got it right. is there a motion to move this item made by commissioner fewer? seconded by commissioner ronen. and on the item a roll call

please. >> clerk: same house? >> chair peskin: same house. same call. it is approved on first reading. next item. >> clerk: item seven, adopt the balboa area transportation demand framework. final report. this is an action item. >> chair peskin: commissioner yee, would you like to start? >> supervisor yee: thank you, chair peskin. colleagues, the framework document before you today was conceived during an earlier committee meeting on the balboa development. this is by city college. the balboa area has been increasingly facing challenges with traffic congestion and parking. we have seen in many other of our neighborhoods, we have seen this. the area is constricted by

roadway capacity. the i-280 freeway where people exit and enter and existing topography. in addition to that, you have challenges even with transportation of bart, the balboa bart station. it's transportation in the morning when i stand there, there's actually a lot of people being dropped off using vehicles to get to the bart station. we have sort of a growing city college. we have new housing developments and existing neighborhoods that are all feeling the impacts of the changes. since the balboa reservoir is currently being utilized by city college as parking, any forthcoming development raises the issue of how the area can further accommodate the students, faculty, new residents and existing residents,

transportation needs. this is why i requested an initial study on existing conditions and to help identify short term and long term solutions for the area. the concept of transportation demand management was presented as a tool to start the conversations. the framework document aims to identify some of the major concerns and often potential recommendations on parking and transportation needs. i understand that many committee members were hoping that the framework would deliver more or provide a different set of recommendations. it is not meant to solve the parking demand or execute any recommendations without further analysis. however, from this process we have learned how to improve upon med ol apology and how to -- method ol -- methodology.

as an institution that serves working students, many of whom need to drive, we cannot ignore this as a major issue. during the development of the tdm framework, city college has been more engaged as a partner and we will be placing focused attention on parking needs in their facility's master plan. i strongly believe this framework has elevated many of the concerns about parking and traffic. especially the consideration of how recommendations will be burdensome to students and residents. this needs to be addressed if any development is going to be successful on the reservoir. i want to emphasize that the balboa reservoir developers who have since been identified will be undergoing their own extensive process to develop their own transportation and

parking analysis. in fact, they are using the lesson learned from this framework to inform their process. while not everyone may agree upon the recommendation or how these recommendations were developed, the framework starts as a starting point. i would like to request that the ta staff to also include the memo as part of the tdm framework when it is established. i want to thank the staff a planning, especially jeremy shaw, who has spent several months and hours pouring over this document, meeting with community stakeholders and incorporating different feedback. i also want to thank the members of the balboa reservoir, as well as the balboa station area and the many community members who

have engaged with this process from the very beginning. i look forward to these ongoing conversations on how to improve the balboa area. this is a community of change and we have a real opportunity for transforming this area for the better. right now, i would like to call up jeremy shaw. >> chair peskin: before we hear from mr. shaw, ms. cohen is on the roster. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i just have some questions. i will speak after mr. shaw. >> thank you commissioner yee. i name is jeremy shaw from the san francisco planning department. today i'm going to provide a brief overview of the tdm framework, which was funded at the request of supervisor yee by a neighborhood transportation improvement program. to set the context, there many, many land you and planned use

initiatives going on. they include the balboa reservoir, and city college as well as transportation improvements for the balboa station area, pedestrian safety and transit operations. the balboa area tdm framework discussed today complements all these projects. but it's focus is limited to a -- its focus is limited, which i imagine you are all particular. to summarize, it supports people in making the choice for sustainable transportation. it is designed to use the existing transportation system more efficiently. they must accommodate the diversity of many modes of transportation that people use to get to and around san francisco. as you are familiar, the city's tdm program which was approved

last february, there's policy and programs in place for city of san francisco. that policy focuses on individual new development projects in the city. rather than single building like the policy focuses on, this framework focuses on an entire neighborhood. in this case, the study area you see before you. the purpose of the framework document was to start the conversation and provide information and backgrounds to coordinate the balboa reservoir's future plan, to coordinate city college's future plan and the surrounding neighborhoods. our consultant associating were retained to provide an existing conditions report, to provide a series of recommendations for each of those areas and to suggest complementary capital improvements for the short term, and for longer term study.

i just want to reiterate the framework is not in itself a plan. the recommendations are conception -- conceptual. they are not yet complete. however, once they are complete, they will be required to do their own transportation plans and their own tdm strategies. this document helps coordinate them. the framework has proved fruitful in bringing city college to the table as commissioner yee mentioned. and we look forward to ongoing conversations. many conversations have already taken place in the public. you see over the last two years we have discussed tdm and the framework in particular with both cac's in the neighborhood. and the document went through several rounds of edits and smaller scale workshops based on community comments. some of the community concerns

focus on first last mile access to the balboa park station area and the station itself, personal security at local transit stops, particularly at night, student parking demand and the impact on neighborhood parking as well as ongoing coordination between the city, city college and the public. just to give you a sense of what's in the document. there are about 45 recommendations again for each of the three sub areas. all the recommendations are either physical or operational. they include case study, best practices, conceptual targets. not actual targets since we are not quite at the point where we can have numbers. and monitoring programs to ensure the targets are met. since weer still in the conceptual phase of tdm, the document acknowledges that further data and analysis will be necessary before an actionable plan is put together. and the document includes some lessons learned on how to

collect that data in the future. just a couple of examples of those 45 recommendations include student transit pass similar to what sf state passed last year. shared parking project on the balboa reservoir for student parking as well as residents, as well as senior ride matching programs and other services like escort services to serve the neighborhoods in city college itself. and the final chapter gets to one of the community's most clear concerns and that is the first mile access along ocean avenue. and their recommendations about improving pedestrian and bicycle safety on ocean avenue. and so, ultimately, this is the start of an ongoing conversation and there are many public venues to continue that conversation. primarily at the balboa reservoir cac, which will be reviewing the reservoir's own future transportation plan and tdm strategy. there will be coordination

necessary between city college and the reservoir collecting data. the city college itself will be undergoing reboot of their master plan. there will be continued public meeting around that as well as a number of projects that are discussed at the balboa park station cac. this is just the beginning of an ongoing conversation. and that summarizes the document. i'm happy to answer any questions about it. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much. i just had -- perhaps we could have a conversation. so, while we've got city college, i think this is going to create a unique impact on district seven, nine, these districts having satellite campuses. so, i'm curious to snow what are the considerations -- know what are the considerations that we are taking to mitigate the impact, the impacts of traffic into the neighborhoods, ensuring that we have students that are

able to travel to the campus safely and efficient and cost effective manner? >> with respect to ocean campus? >> supervisor cohen: also to all of the campuses. i represent a campus out in the bayview that's not far from the t-line if you are hel they have and young. -- healthy and young. but if you are continuing your education and you are a retiree and you quantity to stay up to date with some of the norms, it is quite a healthy walk. it would seem to be more efficient if there was a shuttle or something to connect the campuses together that students would be able to benefit from. >> absolutely. we are very excited to be working with city college as you probably know. there's a new chancellor there, new staff and sort of a reboot of their facility's master plan. we have begun, city staff, that

conversation and their facilities master plan and that will continue into the transportation planning realm. i think part of the advantage of tdm is there's been a lot of work done in the city already. some of the measures that are in the city's tdm program as well as other specific recommendations in this document can be used system wide for city college. >> supervisor cohen: so, it sounds like we are still in the conceptional development phase? >> exactly. these concerns around shuttles and first, last mile needs can be, should be and can be addressed at any one of their campuses. >> supervisor cohen: all right. supervisor yee or commissioner yee, curious to hear what your thoughts are around mitigation for traffic impacts around the campuses. >> supervisor yee: i think i made my statement earlier that this is a framework. i don't think it really is meant

to solve every issue. it brings up what the issues are and some potential things. but as jeremy was mentioning a lot of it is going to be contingent on further studies by both city college as they move forward and also the balboa reservoir development. personally, you know, i knew it was a framework. but i was also hoping that there would be more concrete suggestions to mitigate some of the current issues. as i mentioned, this is a situation where -- especially during commute hours, it's like a nightmare down there with everybody coming off the freeway and people going to city college and looking for parking. and also as i mentioned, the traffic -- even though people are taking public

transportation, if you stand in front of balboa bart station, you'll see numerous cars dropping off and picking up people going to bart and coming off bart. and as to the issue -- >> supervisor cohen: the congestion. >> supervisor yee: the congestion. the one good thing that everybody recognizes, it is rich in public transportation around there. many lines converge there, which adds to the problem also. but if you wanted to take public transportation, you could get there. i think in the discussion with city college, a lot of times there's assumptions that one might make that's based on other experiences of people from other campuses. and i went to city college and it hand really changed a heck of a lot. it is a campus of people that

have to go to work. the age of the students are not necessarily all 18 and 19. a lot of them -- a lot of students that go there are family people, that have kids. so, they have to deal with their situation. so, these are -- i'm just pointing out problems. i don't think this tdm solves it. and i think for us to have a good development, for instance, for the housing piece, they need to address many of the issues that are pointed out. and even what you're suggesting. >> supervisor cohen: thank you for that thoughtful answer. >> chair peskin: thank you, colleagues. there are a number of members of the public who would like to testify on this item. christine hanson, harry bernstein, vicky legion, michael

errands, rita evans. if you would like to testify, please come forward. >> public: hi. i'm christine hanson. i'm a native san fran sis can. this tdm could be viewed from a link on the website. now the data built this report is viewable only if you know what to look for. the information on city college's parking was collected during the last week of class and no data exists for the evening class time. your resolution states that once approved, the framework will

serve to advise transportation decision making in the balboa area, in particular for city college and around future development at the balboa reservoir site. and yet, this tdm has only been presented to the board of trustees one time and jeremy shaw did not appear on the agenda. it was a listening session, which means you can listen to the entire tape to hear it and it was listed under 2009 sustainability plan. so, most of the community that will be affected by this doesn't even know it exists yet. a huge number -- i would say it was 45%. i was looking for my data of students randomly chosen who park in the parking lot said that they have 30 minutes or less to get to school. [bell]. >> public: is that a warning? okay.

those students will just lose out. city college is not growing its enrollment. it is trying to return its enrollment. if someone is bleeding to death and you stop the bleeding you do not say they are now growing red blood cells or another leg to put them in. please don't pass this thing. it's going to hurt the school. thank you. >> chair peskin: next speaker please. >> public: good morning. i'm harry bernstein reading the comment on behalf of chair of the city college music department. this is a condensed statement, but the full statement was emailed to you complete with the -- with the resolution passed by the -- i'll get to that. to start with, i wish to

emphasize the process regarding the balboa reservoir land up to this point has been totally fraudulent. nothing possibly valid can follow from the city planner's initial and continuing assertions that student parking area for city college for decades has been and is underutilized. no amount of manipulated photographs or data make this a true statement. parking you have to understand is an absolute life blood of commuter college and city college in san francisco is the largest such entity in the state and it is growing once again thanks to free city college. thanks in part to you. compromising diminishing, even destroying city college was a goal of the accreditation agency, accjc. they were sued, you may recall, by the city of san francisco to prevent the college's closure. former chancellor harris and --

[bell]. >> public: and agencies work to privatize the college. -- privatetize education to bring profit. a puc executive claims that the college has been at the table all these years on the balboa reservoir land. but this is because of the takeover and the appointment of hostile people to our administration. [bell]. >> public: so, please do not go with this incomplete plan. >> public: good morning. my name is vicky legion and i have taught at city college for 22 years and i'm a proud member of the safe city college coalition. and thank you for those of you who fought for the college.

the tdm is flawed and it should be rejected. we think that if this plan is accepted, it is part of a strategy to cannibalize city college property for real estate development, such as the development that is proposed already for the -- by avalon bay on the land of the lower reservoir. and that land has been used by city college for -- since 1957. and once city college's enrollment was at full size, the upper and lower reservoirs would be full five days a week. and i remember walking in from a great distance across the reservoir as the parking lot turned over perhaps five times a day. so, we have 2,100 parking spaces

turning over five, possibly six times a day. that would be 12,000 people a day parking in a space that is about to be evaporated. at the balboa park -- at the cic meetings -- [bell]. >> public: -- we asked why did you count utilization from 10:30 at night to midnight? why did you count utilization during finals week when students are not attending? there were never answers to our questions. so, we believe that this report is part of greasing for a big real estate development that will be a body blow to city college. so, if people who -- as people who love our city, we ask you to ditch this report. >> public: my name is rita evans. i live in the area affected by

the tdm study. the balboa area tdm framework in it's current form is flawed and should not be approved by the sfcta. it does not accurately reflect the views and concerns of residents who have shown up at public hearings the last few years. we know that it is essential that the students use public transportation and bike and walk or this part of the city will be in permanent gridlock. to address this, the local residents have consistently, loudly and repeatedly ask that a developer funded shuttle be part of the proposal, that that operate between the reservoir site and the balboa park station. despite the fact that we have asked for this repeatedly and consistently, there is barely a mention of it in the final document, in thea