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 the final draft.

another huge area of concern, of course, is parking demand. and here we find that the consultants and the city consistently point to the ineffective existing residential permit parking program as a swlugs to parking demand. -- solution to parking demand. one of the big problems with that program is it doesn't work which is one reason the city has been attempting to revise it the past few years. the other big problem with it is that it puts the entire burden of cost on existing residents. the coast for the permits and the time to collect signatures. the program should be borne by the developers just as the shuttle to operate during the city college and balboa park station should be included. thank you.

>> chair peskin: next speaker. >> public: steve park. the balboa reservoir project will bring a traffic bomb the likes of which the neighborhood has never seen before. it is crucial that this be managed correctly. the tdm reports to reviews vehicle mile trips in the balboa project site. it makes no real effort to improve the existing transportation infrastructure or provide viable transportation alternatives for the residents and future students of this project. the existing kjm and other bus lines such as the 43 and eight are inadequate to meet current demand, let alone the expected future demand and will see a decline in service quality due to impeded traffic flow because of the balboa reservoir project. these items have not been

addressed to our community's satisfaction. i strongly encourage that the board reject the tdm until further accurate analysis is complete. thank you. >> public: my name is ace washington and i'm hoping i can be as serious as much as you are curious what i'm doing up here with green glasses on, hat and this is the most historical part of the history of san francisco. but i wanted to be known for the record because i helped put this charter together. i don't want credit. right now i'm here to tell you as a black man -- first let me say something not out of order. i support -- excuse me. i support whatever you are doing over there. fine. you can't stop me. i got one minute. but i'm here to say directly to whoever is in room 200 -- because you know i'm not going

to say something about somebody. i ain't going to do it. room 200 is a total different game and it's a shame that i, ace washington, born and raised in the fillmore. i wasn't born and raised in the projects. >> chair peskin: mr. washington -- >> public: excuse me, sir. i already said i supported that. i got two minutes now. just listen. [microphone turned off] >> chair peskin: mr. washington, this is about item number seven, the balboa transportation. >> public: i have another minute to talk, sir. >> chair peskin: you can speak during the general public comment at the end of the meeting. ace, you can speak during general public comment. >> public: this is my moment. [bell]. >> public: i'm able to get up here and speak because you have white boy -- >> chair peskin: ace, would you sit down, please. >> public: give me my time back,

sir. >> chair peskin: you will have two minutes at the end of the meeting which will be a total of three and then that's enough. all right. next speaker, please. >> public: down here at silly hall. i done seen it all and i'm going to tell it all. i will be back and i'm going to say what i have to say about them -- >> chair peskin: ace! next speaker. >> public: is it on? my name is michael errands. i'm a member of the westwood park association and i'm appointed to the cac balboa reservoir committee. i gave my comments last night and i will just incorporate them. the main thing is that this report is not based in any fact. it's not based on any numbers. mr. shaw and supervisor yee, i think has acknowledged that. mr. shaw said to the cac early

in november that this document is not a binding document. he said today that this is on the starting the discussion. so often yee says it is not based on numbers. because of this, the very important facilities commit at city college of san francisco has stated that they do not support at all this report. and they say they reject this report in it's entirety because it is not based on any numbers. it is not based on any analysis. city college just last month in november authorized hiring somebody to do an analysis. what's going to happen when you lose all 2,000 parking spaces for a college they want to increase the enrollment? it's now free. so, they said that there is no basis in fact on this report and they reject it in it's entirety. but they are going forward to do a study and i think they are going to conclude there is no alternative other than to retain that parking space. but we submit this commission shouldn't approve this report and it's already stated it's

preliminary and without basis in numbers. and you're going to increase 1,100 new units that this area? the traffic is going to be horrible. what we submit is look at the resolution. the resolution says the transportation authority adocuments this report. how can -- adopts this report. how can you adopt something without any basis in facts or numbers? we suggest that need to be paid. that's what you should be doing here. not putting a rubber stamp on this document that everybody says is without basis in numbers of facts. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. seeing no other members of the public on item number seven, we will close public comment. commissioner cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i'll speak after commissioner yee. >> chair peskin: commissioner yee. >> supervisor yee: mr. shaw, can you come up. i have a question. so, this tdm, i guess i'm looking at as a framework and

for city college and in particular, balboa reservoir development, did you mention that they are going to also do their own tdm to account for their impacts? >> absolutely. >> supervisor yee: how long are they going to be doing that? some of the things that i heard that were not included from the public today and that's not included, i know i've talked about it. like even though it's not mentioned, for instance, the shuttle, the possible shuttle that the developers may want to implement, is it on their table? >> i believe so. >> supervisor cohen: i'm sorry. you believe so? yes or no? >> i can't speak for the developers, but they're certainly aware of the comments from the public. and i think the recommendation in the report said recommended

doing an analysis because for any sort of private form of transportation, there's a rigorous process that has to go through mta to understand the existing impact on public transportation, loading et cetera. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. >> supervisor yee: thanks. >> chair peskin: commissioner cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i walked in today to support this. i'm thinking i'm going to be voting no on this. i am uncomfortable on many fronts. i think we need more parking. i think we need to provide more infrastructure for the college. i think there needs to be more due diligence. i think it's curious we don't have any stakeholders to talk about this from city college. i personally have experience with avalon bay, the very difficult development company. we will have problems with them. this is just like the beginning, yes. it's a study. but that's how things start. and that's how development happens in this city. it starts with a study and then we build from that point on and

on, developing facts that as you heard earlier from some of our public comment testimony that are not solid facts. this body transitions. supervisor yee will no longer be the supervisor. things get lost. i want to go on the record early. i believe avalon bay will create a lot of problems for us, those of us who have relationships in labor. many times our labor partners have come raising concerns that they haven't hired union labor to do the job. i'm talking something that is years down the line. but i just think that -- that funding -- that this is just not the right direction we need to go in and we need to re-evaluate. supervisor yee did a great job getting city college free. and now we have all these people

that want to go there. we need to be mindful and respectful of the people who have been living around the college for generations. and we've heard from our citizens advisory commission, a policy body used to advise us. they are against it. i don't know anybody in support of this other than the police department -- planning department. i'm going to be voting no on this and i hope you will consider joining me. >> chair peskin: commissioner yee, any final words as this is the result of your end tip allocation? >> supervisor yee: no. i appreciate commissioner cohen's point of view. but as i mentioned, to me it's the beginning of a discussion and i think the framework's there. the issues of parking, the issue of improving the transportation

really does need further study. one of the things i've been pretty consistent about in terms of discussing with the balboa reservoir development is that between them and city college and the city, we need to city down and solve future sort of parking issues. and that if it doesn't get solved, there's not going to be any development. so, i know people, whether at city college or the developers, in having informal discussions, they have taken it very seriously. it's be on the agenda with the developers pretty much up front and talking about these issues. have they come up with solutions? not yet. we're several years away from that development. has city college come up with

their final analysis? no. they are only beginning because their doing their facilities master plan right now. so, you're correct in saying that if this were the only thing that's going to be used to solve these issues, i would say -- i would agree with you. but to me, it's not -- this document does not even try to say it solves everything that's going to be in the future. some of the things that i've talked about and this seems like, again, informally. i mentioned the shuttle. i mentioned -- one of the things i didn't mention -- i think one of the residents mentioned it. if we are going to go into residential parking permits, i'm going to ask, for instance, for them to pay for that because it is forcing certain areas further

away from city college but still in the neighborhoods that will have students parking further away. there are many things in discussion. can city college, for instance -- i'm not going to speak for city college. but my observation is they have also other land around city college that can be developed as a parking lot. so, that's my comment. i'm going to go ahead and ask my colleagues to support this sort of framework piece so we can move on and have both the developers and city college come up with concrete solutions. >> chair peskin: commissioner safai, do i see your name? >> supervisor safai: yes. i think these are all good points brought up today. i have been listening as supervisor yee, our districts are bound by this project in

this area and it is a traffic nightmare. there's a lot of concern. i know the balboa cac and city college cac and others have reservations about this. but i think some of the reservations aren't necessarily about this particular plan, but they're more about the long term plan. and i think both supervisor yee and i've heard very strongly that there's desires for certain things that because this is going to be a development agreement, ultimately, those things can be negotiated into the final package, such as a shuttle, the amount of parking and otherwise. i think the concerns of the neighbors are very real and this will have a big impact. but i think there's a lot of opportunity and i know supervisor yee has been leading this and i've been kind of backing him up in many ways. so, i feel comfortable moving forward with this. i do have a lot of reservations that supervisor cohen brought up. but i think we can finalize that. >> chair peskin: commissioner

yee. >> supervisor yee: i also want to mention that i have been asking -- ting this is a ta meeting, one of the things that's really long term and -- but i'm willing to push the discussion. i've pushed it with the m-line in terms of potentially moving from -- whether it's from the st. francis circle or from west portal tunnel to go under ground. and so, with that discussion, i also was broadening the discussion that we study -- the city study the possibility of keeping the k under ground from the same point. and that would to me -- if you put the k-line under ground all the way to the bart station, that to me would really reduce the traffic congestion around

that area. again, it's only possibilities. maybe when they study it, they will find out that my statement was totally ridiculous or not. if we don't study it, we won't know. >> chair peskin: all right. is that a motion commissioner yee? >> supervisor yee: yes. >> chair peskin: is there a second for that? seconded by commissioner kim on the item. a roll call please. commissioner breed. >> thank you. i have some questions about outreach specifically because there is information in the resolution that talks about an extensive outreach process as it relates to this particular plan with community input. and i was hoping to get more information on the follow through specifically that was highlighted in the resolution here. specifically based on public

input received after this advisory committee meeting. commissioner yee requested concerns expressed by members of the public and resulting feedback was in the final report. i just want a little more information about that additional outreach and what was incorporated into the report as a result of that outreach. >> mr. shaw. >> thank you commissioner breed. at commissioner yee's request, we did return to the community a number of times to hear the concerns. i think part of the challenge was how do we stick with what's the written scope of a transportation demand management while acknowledging a lot of community concerns that maybe a tdm can't address. we changed a lot of the tdm recommendations or refined them to make sure the community's concerns are addressed. for example, the data challenge

that's been mentioned. there was additional data collected a second time and then recommendations were added to refine data collection in the future when city college or balboa reservoir go for their analysis. and for things that the tdm can't really address, we wanted to make sure that those concerns were included. for example, safety at transit stops at night is a significant concern. that needs to be addressed at transit stops throughout the neighborhood and beyond. and so, it was included in here. but this is not a capital plan. and so, there's limits to what the tdm framework could do. we tried to focus on strategies that could provide a foundation for and acknowledge those that it couldn't. one last comment. response that the third or fourth edit i think we invited many community members to come in to the planning department and workshop and talk about ways

to get more of community concerns into the document and you'll see that in the most recent version. >> and i think part of the concern is because the plan is the plan. it talks somewhat about community input, but it just seems as if there's a plan that was put together with certain recommendations. but it appears that many of the recommendations are based on the planning department's recommendation of the community of what could be done and that information is actually what's put into the report. is that accurate? >> i think it comes from a variety of sources of input. the recommendations were from the consultant. so, it started with best practices and their knowledge of san francisco. there was input from city college staff at the time. there was input from the two cac's and then that last round of edits focused on a lot more

details around data and around so things beyond tdm. we acknowledge there's always more outreach that needs to be done and our intent and hope is that the process and the feedback that we've gotten about the process will inform the future planning. so, when we have an implementable plan, a real plan that the developers at city college are obligated to fulfill, that outreach will be done, reflecting all the comments we have heard over the last two years. >> can you talk a little more about the outreach to city college specifically? because i heard in the comments that there was only one presentation at their board meeting. but can you give me clarity in terms of the board meeting, the students, the staff and the people impacted most by this. >> sure. so, the document was first initiated and scoped if this late 2015. so, since that point, there were ongoing coordination meetings and vetting with facility's staff at city college.

and we were happy to present at many times -- i think at the same time part of the challenge was city college was going through their own facility's master plan effort. so, there were limited opportunities for the city to present. we are happy to return. another note and opportunity is i think the facility's master plan is going through a reboot. there's a new chancellor. there's a new project manager dedicated just to the reservoir and parking concerns. and we are very excited to work with them. so, i think all those changes represent an opportunity to improve on the outreach process. >> and i just want for clarity, this is just a guide. this is not written in stone. there could be changes as any project progresses. but this was basically used a road map to have a better understanding of what the challenges are in the area, what some recommendations can be to

fix those challenges. but there's still a lengthy process associated with moving anything forward of this magnitude in general. so, i just wanted to make sure that that was clear. >> that is absolutely correct. if i could just add one more point. i think the framework created the space or the opportunity for really an unprecedented collaboration. i don't think there's has been to this point in my knowledge around the planning or transportation issue, the consistent coordination between staff of both city college and the city. so, i think it's a big step forward and again, it's not the only step. we're just starting and it has created a foundation for more collaboration. >> thank you. >> chair peskin: commissioner cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. mr. shaw, you said there was a second meeting, an outreach meeting that you reached out to folks in the city college community. when was that? >> the second city college meeting?

i'm not -- there were a number of city college staff meetings. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> maybe i need to clarify. there was the one presentation mentioned to the board of trustees and the additional meetings were primarily for neighbors or folks coming to the reservoir cac meetings. >> supervisor cohen: and what was the attendance like? >> the cac meetings are always well attended. the smaller workshops were intended to have neighbor hood representatives and dig into the text and ideas. there were two or three of those meetings if i recall, with five or seven neighborhood representatives. >> supervisor cohen: maybe perhaps instead of voting no, maybe we could continue this and there could be a little more due diligence and outreach given. the reason why i was thinking about this because something you said to commissioner's breed

question, this would allow city college to fullidy jers the report that you are proposing. i don't know if you're open to that, supervisor yee. i'm sorry. what did you say? trustee. i don't know. commissioner. sorry. [laughter] >> chair peskin: used to be a school board member. never a trustee. >> supervisor cohen: i know. i was thinking about the new faculty and facility. you could say, hey, trustee cohen -- commissioner cohen, stop losing your mind over this. the reality this is how things start. this is how change happens. i sat seven years on the land use committee. this is my eighth year.

i have seen this before. i know a thing or two. and i'm certainly not one to prevent growth and development from happening. but it's with that wisdom that i'm asking these questions and i think that it's important that one of the things -- areas that we as city employees and county employees fall short on is outreach. we don't have a large budget. we have got largely people volunteering their time and they're coming in and doing this outreach. i just want to make sure we are doing our due diligence and pulling in the information so we have a report that has some substance and some thoughtful conclusions. now mr. shaw, i'm in no way saying, commissioner yee, not saying this isn't substantive. there are very few facts in here and there are questions and i would imagine we need more study, which means we need more time. perhaps we can continue this and give them another month or two to go out and get some feedback?

i find it interesting not one person is here speaking in favor of this. everyone is against this? i would imagine it has to do with outreach. so, colleagues, maybe instead of joining me with a no vote, maybe you'll join me with a continuance so that we can get this level of feedback and get it done and get it right. >> chair peskin: commissioner, is that a motion? >> supervisor cohen: yes, i would like to make a motion -- >> chair peskin: i'm sorry. a motion would take precedence. if she's making a motion and gets a second we would vote on the continuance first and then go to your motion. so, motion by commissioner cohen. is there a second for that motion? seconded by commissioner breed on the motion to continue a roll call, please. to what date? >> supervisor cohen: thank you for asking. i'm open to suggestions. mr. shaw, do you have any suggestions to what date or

commissioner yee how much time do you think? i can go a full week. >> chair peskin: commissioner cohen. >> supervisor cohen: perhaps the next meeting? >> supervisor yee: this item was actually going to be brought to this board more than six months ago. i said let's continue it so we can do further outreach. in many ways i've taken those steps much earlier. so, for me to have continued this long -- actually, it's been more than six months where we asked the staff to go out and do more. and i don't think doing it one more week will change things. as i mentioned, the reason why

i'm okay with this is because i know -- well i don't know. but according to mr. shaw, there's going to be other studies being done. and when they do the study, they're going to take into consideration some of maybe the drawbacks or the issues that have been raised. which is like, okay, rather than me always saying do more community outreach, they will vote it into their next process. rather than -- what's the other thing that he mentioned? >> supervisor cohen: i mentioned there was no one in support of these. the way the reports works is they work and built off each other. sounds like -- when the question was raised what was the

outreach, what was the strategy, the answer wufrnt -- wasn't thorough. it was we had a couple of meetings, maybe five or six. i want to know when was it scheduled, where was it scheduled, sign-in sheets. there's ways we capture information. this is how we do it when i'm doing community meetings. i'm able to say here's a document of every single meeting we held. i don't see that. >> if we could show the screen quickly. >> supervisor cohen: there it is. thank you. >> i think part of the challenge that we discovered part way through the reservoir process and this framework document is that they're very interrelated prompts, but they are distinct. so, some arguments -- there are arguments and questions that need to be addressed by the reservoir. we all acknowledge we are not

done discussing the reservoir. absolutely. this framework was not designed to resolve the reservoir challenges. it was meant to be a strong foundation so different agencies and particularly city college and the city could begin talking. it was intended to have robust discussion of what tdm is, because it is a pretty technical term. these meetings were at both cac's in the neighborhood. some focused on the transportation in general. but in some way they all touched on or focused on tdm. and i think -- well, i acknowledge the comments we have heard today. they are significant and we take them seriously. there are a number of people who support the framework. i don't think it is only opposition in the neighborhood. there were a couple of the cac meetings that are on the slide before you, we went with previous drafts of the document. there were no comments or

objections to advancing that document to this body. but at the time, supervisor yee felt like we needed to do more outreach and we agreed and did that. so, i just want to confirm supervisor yee's comments that we have done a number of outreach efforts but by no means is it the end and our intent is to focus the outreach on the actionable plans, the things that will have -- on future data collection. the things we can hold folks to through the environmental process. there are plenty of opportunities and our eyes are looking forward to ensuring the outreach and technical requirements for those. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. shaw. commissioner cohen. >> supervisor cohen: i would like to withdraw my request to continue this. you want this to go forward. i will support it and vote for it. >> chair peskin: thank you. that works for the second.

commissioner breed? the motion to continue is withdrawn and on the motion made by commissioner yee, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on item seven, commissioner breed. breed aye. commissioner cohen. cohen aye. commissioner fewer. fewer aye. commissioner peskin. >> chair peskin: aye. >> clerk: commissioner kim. kim aye. commissioner ronen. ronen aye. safai aye. commissioner sheehy. aye. tang aye. commissioner yee. yee aye. we have first approval. >> chair peskin: all right. before we read item eight, i want to thank you mr. hartnet for patience. i have had a request by a commissioner to make -- ask for a motion to rescind the vote on item number four. commissioner yee, would you luke to make -- like to make that

motion? >> supervisor yee: move. >> chair peskin: seconded by commissioner safai. mr. clerk, we will take that without objection and mr. clerk, if you could please read item four. >> clerk: item four election of chair and vice chair for 2018. >> chair peskin: is there a nomination for chair and vice chair? commissioner cohen again. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much. i would like to nominate commissioner aaron peskin for chair and nominate commissioner katy tang for vice chair. >> chair peskin: is there a second for that motion? seconded by commissioner breed. is there any -- are there any additional nominations? seeing none. we will close nominations. seeing no public comment on that motion made and seconded. a roll call please. >> clerk: on the motion in favor of electing commissioner peskin for chair and commissioner tang

for voice chair? breed aye. commissioner fewer aye. commissioner kim, kim aye. commissioner peskin. >> chair peskin: aye. >> clerk: commissioner ronen. ronen aye. commissioner safai, safai aye. commissioner tang. tang aye. commissioner yee. yee aye. motion is approved. >> chair peskin: all right. thank you again colleagues and with that, item number eight. >> clerk: item eight, update on the caltrain pennisula corridor electric -- electrification project. this is an information item. >> chair peskin: mr. hartnet thank you for your patience. and i want to thank ms. broussard for the meeting we had yesterday in my office. for those who don't know mr. hartnet, he is the general manager and ceo of the san mateo

county cta as well as the chief officer of caltrain as well as the head of san trans. with that in his capacity as the head of caltrain. he is hear. welcome and thank you for coming to our chambers here in san francisco county. >> thank you mr. chair and commissioners. it is a pleasure to be here. we are happy to report on the status of our electrification project. i would like to thank you for the great partnership we've had in bringing forward improvements to caltrain. not just with the electrification project, but since its origination. we preserved rail service and developed a robust community rail service on the pennisula. the electrification project would not have happened without the team work and support of chair peskin and the board and

the mayor's offers. we stayed together and united and with regional state and federal support, we've been able to move it forward. i would like to acknowledge also san francisco's own michael burns, who was chief officer of our electrification project and will be up until this end of this month. as of february 1st, another of san francisco's own, john fungy will become chief officer of the project. and the next time we report to the board, he will be here to join us in reporting. so, i would like to thank you for the great partnership and support and i would like to introduce michelle broussard who is the chief officer to

>> thank you. so, we have for you a brief presentation in support of the document you have in your agenda. to talk a little about the whys of electrification. back in the early' 90s the caltrain board supported the average weekday riders and in the last fiscal year 2017 we have in excess 62,000, which really demonstrates the exploding demand for rail service on the pennisula that has much to do with the congestion on the parallel highways of 280 and 101. really, the growing economy all up and down the pennisula.

our electrification program really was slated to be completed back in 2014, but took us a little time to get our funding together and our plan together. but really what it does is it puts us in a situation where we have an aging fleet. the majority of which is more than seven years past its useful life. we are doing a great job keeping service on the road, but for the reasons that we really need to replace that aging fleet, we're moving forward with the electrification program inner -- in earnest. the project is comprised of the overhead cat mary system and traction power system as well as what we call our electric multiple units. those are the electric trains that will replace that aging fleet. we will still have a portion of the fleet that is diesel and

that is because the age of that fleet is not 1985 vintage, but 2000 vintage. this will provide for us once implemented remain with speeds up to 79 miles per hour and we will also be able to provide more service to stations on the pennisula and that really will be able to, i think, just begin the era of electrification. we see the potential of electrification something to allow for expansion way beyond what is contemplated with the initiation of pcep. something that could not be attained with the diesel technology we have been operating. this project is fully funded at $1.9 billion. san francisco has made a significant contribution. we received a core capacity grant in a grant agreement we

received in may of this past year. in order to ensure that we had the project moving guard, we issued -- forward, we issued a limited notice to proceed to two specific contractors. the first was to stadler and the second was to ballford, following the receipt of the full funding grant agreement, we issued full notices that allowed for us to have these two special ground-breaking events in july and in october respectively. one was locally at the train station and one was out in salt lake city where our vehicles are going to be built. with the notice to proceed issued to ballford beatty for the construction of the work, we began constructing. you will see we are constructing the job in phases. we've got four separate geographic areas that we are working in. currently we're working in areas

two and four. you'll notice that san francisco is located in segment one. what we're doing right now in terms of the infrastructure is we've pursued all field constructed field activities. we've also been already installing foundations in the ground. we've got more than 100 foundations currently poured. and it's a bit of a moveable project. so, what we've been doing is as we're constructing, we're also working on design and we're also pursuing the other contracts that are required as part of this project, which include a remote monitoring of the electrified system. and we've got to make some modifications to our maintenance facility. and all of this is accompanied by a series of public meetings

and outreach to advise local communities that we'll be constructing in their area. just a couple of things to talk about specific to san francisco. as i mentioned we haven't started in segment one, yet. but you will see in the summer of 2018 through the spring of 2019, we will be pursuing in activities in parallel and you see them listed here in this slide. just a couple of pictures here. proof positive that we're out working in the field. this work is largely done in the evenings. we also changed our weekend schedule from hourly to every 90 minutes to allow for full weekends of single tracking to enable us to work around the clock on the weekends. just a word about the electric trains. again i mentioned they're called electrical multiple units. you saw in the first graph that caltrain has experienced explosive growth over the course

of the last few years. in many ways, it is a pleasant problem to have, but it has made planning for the initial phase of pcep somewhat interesting. we have been pursuing this design in a way that seeks to balance the needs of the various rider groups, including bikes, ada's et cetera. one thing i will emphasize is one of the criteria of the full funding grant agreement was that with the implementation of the pcep, that we would have a 10% increase in capacity. we will be achieving that, although it has to be said in order to continue to not only drive demand, but satisfy demand, we are going to be seeking opportunities to be increasing capacity by lengthening. i will talk about that in a moment. so, you see in front of you i mentioned the $1.9 billion is

completed funded. there are essentially -- i will call it five trenches that require the funding. the first is electrification. the second the scada. there are a bunch of separate contracts dealing with tunnel as well as the support we require in order to delivering the program. this set of numbers here is from november of this year. there is an oversight protocol that governs the business of this project. and certainly on the budget and expenditure side, this is overseeing certainly on a monthly basis with the report we provide to the caltrain board. it is a subject of review on a monthly basis by the configuration management board that is comprised of members from all of the funding partners. so, moving on to the schedule. you will see here it's a bit

small. the gray represents milestones that have been achieved. the blue represents "to be achieved" milestones. where we're at now is we're in this intensive construction phase. we look to receive our first train set on property in late 2019. and then from the time that we receive that first train through the commencement of passenger service we will be completing the electrified system. we will be completing it and bring us to passenger service in early 2022. so, if you have certainly any questions in between updates to this body, this is the project contact information. we run an office out of our project office down in san mateo. but as i mentioned, this is really the first in what we see as a series of improvements that hopefully will not be too far

down the pike, including making full use of the downtown extension, fully electrifying the corridor so there will be no more diesel fleet, as well as extending the trains to provide for more capacity. much what are you're seeing here is supported by a tircp grant application that is being submitted to the state at the end of this week. we certainly appreciate letters of support from san francisco and the sfcta. and most notably, many of you've heard about the caltrain business planning effort that we have ticked off which seeks to really outline the strategic vision for the next many years of caltrain through 2040. much of what is applied for in that grant will support these business plan processes. so, moving on to what we consider to be the third project

of the caltrain modernization program is the communications based signal system which is caltrain positive train control project. we've been working at this project for slightly longer time. and it's as a result of this federally mandated need that it was legislation passed in 2008, the rail safety improvement act. we awarded a contract in 2011 to install a ptc system. but it is important that we always talk about ptc project projects by context yul liezing that -- tennessee connectionu -- contextulizing. it has provided for a time

deadline and so there's fierce competition for all sorts of things, including funding and resources both in terms of people and for the very few vendors that provide this technology. caltrain has made significant progress. we awarded a contract in 2011. the budget for that program was $239 million. you'll' there's much we have completed on the caltrain corrid corridor. but our program was not without its issues. after making several attempts to finish the project with the prime contractor that we initially awarded to, we terminated that contract in february 2017. since then, what we've done is we've obviously kept our funding

partners in the loop. we've also contacted our regulators in the form of fra and fta in order to seek their counsel and advise. i will mention there's litigation currently underway. there's not much detail we can talk about but caltrain takes the need to get into revenue service demonstration, the federal deadline, very seriously and we are pursuing several different paths to get back into a long term contract and get our service and our ptc program up and running by the federal deadline. so, with that, what i'd like to do is just talk a little bit about project oversight. the pcep and ptc program are overseen by oversight that provides for what you see here. there are 16 elements to it.

it is a very active oversight program. want to thank luis for contributing very much to that process. that process is contributed to by all of our funding partners and i think it provides for a level of transparency that certainly is unprecedented with respect to projects that we've delivered at caltrain. so, with that, this slide is real busy. we do have the link to the website as far as the entire oversight protocol and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> chair peskin: thank you, ms. broussard. are there any questions from members? commissioner kim? no. okay. are there any members of the public who would like to testify on this matter? mr. lebrong

>> public: thank you. i would like to close off with light at the end of the tunnel. first of all, if you google the fra ptc and you see the rail lines in the united states and scroll down to caltrain which is known as pcjx, you will find out there's no progress whatsoever in the last year. they've got zero in operations and the plan has not been approved by the authority. that was over three years ago. specially you are look -- with regards to the rail cost in your packets, you have a letter from shirley johnson that basically

highlights the issues with the emu's. there's nothing wrong with them except they don't have anywhere near the capacity we need. the 2012 capacity analysis used for the model, these new trains have got 400 feet short. how are we going to increase capacity is anybody's guess. the last thing i would like to touch on is the electrify case issues themselves. there are issues with the activations. [bell]. >> public: that has been known for ten years. this hasn't been addressed. they haven't got solutions and the main issue is cost. it's about three to four times the cost of elect -- electrification of four corridors. in closing, the only light i see

at the end of the tunnel is john fungy. i'm hoping he will put this project back on track. thank you very much. >> chair peskin: thank you. seeing no other members of the public for public comment, i would like to go to our executive director. >> thank you to the team for coming. this is a critical project. we now how important it is what a critical service it is and it was a pleasure to help to bring the federal funding forward. we commit to continuing to partner with you and the business plan that you've involved us in. we appreciate the support that caltrain also showed for the regional measure three plan. we hope the voters will see fit to approve that funding going forward and want to commit to partnering on blended service. all the things necessary for that, the level boarding, the

grade separations, all the different pieces of it. coordinating with the state rail plan. just wanted to thank you very much and to continue to commit to partnering with you on those goals going forward. >> chair peskin: do you want to mention anything about doors? >> i think the level boarding and the upper doors mentioned in the slides will be part of that conversation. we continue to participate in the technical groups. it is important to be sure they are compatible between the two services. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you again mr. hartnet. thank you for your patience this morning. and with that, item number eight is just an out date. so, we are done -- update. so we are done with item eight. items number nine and ten are very important. but i'm afraid that we are about to lose quorum. so, i would like to continue those two items, numbers nine

and ten to our next meeting. but they are on the agenda. some of you have waited patiently. i have speaker cards for items nine and ten. if you could call those two items, mr. quintanilla, we can hear from mr. strauss on both those items. >> clerk: item nine, presentation on the voters survey prepared for the san francisco task force 2045. item ten, update on the transportation network companies regulatory landscape and across the country. also an information item. >> chair peskin: mr. strauss. and i apologize that we have to continue these, but these are interesting times at city hall this week. >> i'm sorry. i missed the prelude because i was talking to the last presenters. you are continuing these items? >> chair peskin: yes, sir. >> i will continue my testimony. >> chair peskin: thank you. are there any other members of

the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there any introduction of new items? seeing none. general public comment. mr. yip. >> public: good morning. seeking a wealthy nation in great unity for the people. seeking of civil liberty and civil justice of human rights for the people. the principle of lively hood is the seeking of prosperity and benefits for the people. the principle progressive leadership is the seeking of progress of human civilization and improvements for the people. [indiscernible] >> public: these principles are the goals and objectives of management in the seeking of

true perfection and happiness of our people. political leaders should in heart and consistency in two studies an extension for the right path of -- [indiscernible] >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker please. >> public: i want to touch base on -- follow up on the congesti congestion. people complain about congestion. part of this is caltrans and the commissioner of transportation to spend trillions and billions of dollars on the destruction of

the bay bridge. you have two bridges that are right alongside of each other and i believe it was a false narrative to make it look like that bridge needed to be torn down. truth of the matter is that any weak spot locations on that bridge could have been reinforced with diagonal braces and pressure tested and that bridge could have been used to reduce the flow of traffic for people who are commuting back and forth and forth and back across the bridge. and then for caltrans and the transportation commissioner after the last explosion where tnt was used to blow up that bridge, they have the audacity to give a press conference claiming they're going to raise the taxes on the price of gasoline in order to preserve our bridges and our roads after you completed just blowing up the bay bridge. this is an insult on the

commuters' intelligence and they should be held accountable for that and included when you are trying to remedy the problem of congestion in the city pertaining to parking and traffic jams. >> chair peskin: thank you, sir. next speaker please. >> public: excuse me. i was a little out of line. i will recognize i was a little upset. but forgive me. >> chair peskin: you are forgiven, ace. >> public: i want to excuse people for my appearance. i'm working hard. i'm at city hall. i'm working day and night without no pay. but that's okay. i'm going to show this community with my new website called ace on the case.net i got them all. so, that's my property now. and i'm going to fulfill the whole city on information that they have not gotten. what i'm going to do first thing is because this tv thing, i created is