pole -- challenges around the pole location and requesting structural analysis and support to support the overhead cables. and permitting to the city to tear up the roads and repair these conduits and infrastructure is complicated. some quick data points about the system. it is a very densely geographic distribution of these call boxes. no person is more than two blocks away from a box. 2300 boxes in total. 2014 are working. that's 87%. sf fire department responded to approximately 283,000 alarm boxes over the last two years. and this -- i mean alarms in general over the last two years and this street alarm account

for approximately .02% of the call volume. to look at this another way, the working call boxes in the district are summarized in this table. and what you're going to see is the number that we are required to be repaired. and we're working hard to repair these. what affects this infrastructure so much is rain. also construction. also vandalism. all contribute to the outages. when we look at the demand for these emergency boxes and look at it by call district, by district, the calls show a declining number of poles across the city. and the decline in poles may be a result of cell phone use and reporting 911 calls through cell phones. emergency management has shown that 67% of their emergency calls come in off of wireless phones.

which is a 12% jump over 2011. the types of calls that we experience with these boxes are 41%, are rescue and emergencies, 23% are service calls and 6% are fire calls. when we look at the number of valid emergencies, which i think you would be interested in, less than 5% of the calls from these boxes are valid emergencies. this is in line with what other systems are experiencing, such as new york which reported approximately #.6% -- 2.6% of the their 90,000 poles per year are valid emergencies. what is interesting about the numbers is the percentage of the valid calls is increasing. so numbers are going down, valid calls are increasing, but it's still a low percentage of the

total number of emergency calls that the city receives and it's a low number of the total poles that are activated and responders respond to. so recognizing that the system is 150 years old, that parts are unavailable, and there is an increasing cost to do repairs, we have them looking at some modern options. wireless, radio-based or cellular communications instead of the copper cables. solar powered instead of electric powered. possibly fiber. all of these modern systems provide a much more flexible system that will allow us to daily check to see which of the devices are out of service instead of having to do field work. these systems in this type of technology configuration are more likely to be available during emergency. these systems are not bleeding edge technology.

this type of radio-based system is used by the coast guard, walter reed medical hospital and over 100 municipal systems are in place, so it's tested technology. so the next steps that we are recommending is of course we will be continuing to prioritize maintenance of the alarm boxes, based on the highest use areas and also with consultation of the fire department. we would like to work collaboratively with the fire department to conduct a study of the street alarm call boxes, frequency of use, the distribution of use, and how best to serve emergency response in the city. the department of technology has invested in a small pilot of this new radio-based technology. and we will be looking at the results of that and sharing that

with the fire department and emergency management, who would be part of the pilot. we do have a capital planning request to fund the modernization of the alarm boxes in the 2018-19 budget. so with that, i would like to thank you for having us here today to share this information with you. i'd like to thank nina, joseph, gis team out of the department of technology for their help in preparing this presentation. and also thank you to our partners in the fire department and emergency management, who we work with to deliver service to the community. >> supervisor peskin: these were never a fire department asset? >> these are a -- who owns the asset? so we would have owned the asset as department of electricity. a service of the fire department. >> supervisor peskin: and boxes

compared to blue boxes, what is the ratio? >> the ratio i don't know, but the blue boxes are no longer used, so it is just the red boxes. what is very interesting, this system used to carry the infrastructure used to carry more emergency systems, communication systems in the past. now it is only the fire alarm box that is on the old infrastructure. so we're in the past -- in the past when you maintained and invested in the infrastructure, you were supporting more systems. now you're just supporting the alarm boxes with any investment. >> supervisor peskin: in other words, by my house there is a red and blue box. one side is blue, one side red. you're telling me if i pull on the blue side -- >> those are actually phones that the police would use to call in. those are no longer used. actually the alarm boxes themselves are actually

telegraph technology. so 1860, over 150 years old. >> supervisor peskin: is it true we used to manufacture the boxes in the city? >> we used to manufacture boxes in the city? jack says yes. >> how many years were at this, jack? >> i retired five years ago. >> relative to the 286 boxes that are out, what is your projections for repair times? >> this is an ongoing battle. we do our best with two crews to repair them daily. as soon as we repair them, another part of it could go out. this is a complex network and it very, very old. so you repair one part. it may not stay repaired. that's the problem with this. it's deteriorating, the cables and conduit are deteriorating.

>> the percentage of bombs out -- boxes out of service is increasing over time? >> i would say it will increase over time with the same level of staffing. it is a deteriorating system. we will invest and always have outage, but your question is, will you have increasing number of outage? and i would say yes. >> so i mean, has there been a percentage that have always been out at any given time? is this notion that 13% are out, has that been a standard number? >> there is a percentage that is always out, that is related to construction. people will do construction and they all up the box, they cut through the cable, we estimate around 7-10% are out because of construction. >> so the only new advent is the fact that you started putting bags on them and everybody realized they were out of

service? >> they were out of service, yes, sir. >> so there was a change of policy within the department that led to people knowing which boxes were out? and historically you would not have known that? >> no, we always have had bags on the boxes that are out of service. in fact, they're custom-made bags for the devices. and people find them attractive and take them. so we actually have had to put locks on the bags. we ran out of the bags and the teams use what they had in the trucks. and tried to keep the public from using the box that was out of service. it wasn't clear, i think to the public that meant that the boxes were out of service by putting the towels on them. so we now have big orange bags that say out of service. so those are now in place and are going up around the city. and we're making sure it's clear to the public that the box

cannot be used. >> supervisor peskin: is there policy consensus, that despite the declining usage, albeit the validity rate is going up, that it's a redundant system we want to continue to have? >> we haven't entered into that conversation. i think that's what the study would be about, to really understand. i think it would be good to poll the community, good to get a citizens group to help as well to understand value. it may be of high value in areas that are very dense in the city. it may be of less value when you look at the call and the distribution of the call data in other parts of the city. i think that's a study that needs to be done. because times have changed. >> yeah, i also offer in the context of that study, it's not just about density, it's about what the population is. older population, less

well-to-do population are less likely to have cell phones, so those are areas you want that. but there is the larger safety question n a major catastrophe, do you want a redundant system when cell towers, if not working, people can't use cell phones and you want to send all those points to turk, so they know where to deploy. >> right. >> supervisor peskin: i guess that has to be discussed. >> that will be discussed and quantified. i think you would want to see numbers on that, values and cost of maintenance. >> supervisor peskin: what are the other major municipalities doing about their call boxes? >> from what i understand, one municipality has turned them into art instead of call boxes. so i think it depends on the community. >> supervisor peskin: i know, as you said, you're testing new technology and actually my

office recently received as a result of the press attention, an overview from a company i've never heard of kay systems, that have off the shelf products as well as ways that they could use our existing fire boxes. >> excellent. >> so i'll share that with you. but any idea about what cost looks like for 2000 plus boxes? >> not at this time. i budgeted -- put in for capital and i think we would want to value a number of options and the choice if we keep the boxes themselves. so we would of course be looking at a range of options and when i had that cost, i would predict how many we could replace in a year and how long that changeout would take.

>> supervisor peskin: relative to the expiration of our agreement with at&t, which agreement seems to have last since the beginning of time, what implication does that have? >> it does have significant implication, because we would need a bit more staff to replace all the boxes within three years. >> supervisor peskin: you said that at&t is getting out of the the copper cable business and into fiber, does that mean they would want us to remove our copper from the conduit? >> i think that is the conversation and possibly an additional cost. >> supervisor peskin: copper is worth a lot. >> yes, but it's underground. >> but can start pulling it, right? just like pulling fiber. just pull the copper, am i wrong? >> some of it you can pull, but

some is difficult. because the conduits are collapsed and bitter brittle. it's going to pull apart. we would try to recover the copper costs. >> supervisor peskin: if you have questions, if not, we can here from the deputy chief. good afternoon, assistant deputy with the san francisco fire department. supervisors, i just like to say on behalf of the fire department, we feel that having street boxes available to our citizens and our firefighters is a redundant system, but it is a tool that we see is useful. i think you brought up use of cell phone. we've had times where maybe a small child pulls a street box

for grandma who is short of breath. they might not have the information how to use a cell phone, but with the red box, they know help is on the way. we're open to working to find options available. this is an aging system and there is great technology out there, so we're open to working with the departments and see federal government there is -- seeing if there is a more cost effective way to keep the boxes and have that available for citizens and our department members. >> supervisor peskin: excellent. i'll get together and make that happen youf line. -- offline. >> thank you. see if we can get that into the 2018-19. budget. any questions, colleagues? any members of the public would like to testify on this tantalizing item?

hopefully this will go the way of 911, where we are past the 90% threshold and that has worked out well. that was the project in 2017, maybe that will be the project of 2018. no members of public? public comment is closed and we can file the item and i will work with dem and fire offline and, linda, i will give you this thing that came in my e-mail. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you, supervisor peskin. this hearing is filed. and that was the last item. so the committee is adjourned, yes?

>> >>[music] >> i came in with her impression of what i thought it was good >> what i knew about auditing with the irs spears i actually knew nothing about auditing >> in my mind it was purely financial. with people that audited the pain no one wants to deal with it >> now i see a lot of time explaining auditing is not just about taxes. >> oftentimes most students believe that auditing is only financial whereas when they come into a government environment we do much more than financial audits. we do operational audits that were looking at the operations of the department for economy and efficiency and effectiveness.

>> when i hire an intern some of the things that i am looking for first of all is is this individual agile and flexible because i am our environment is so fast-paced and where are switching from project to project depending on what's going on in the government at any given time. >> primarily i didn't with audits on utilities management across city departments. >> citywide this ods management audit was also been assisting with housing authority audit program >> the homelessness audit >> the it functions >> [inaudible] >> were starting any water on the department of public housing environment allows >> i also assist with the [inaudible] program. >> then additionally i really enjoyed having staff who have some critical thinking skills. because i believe the basis of auditing is not do you know how to audit, but to have critical

thinking skills [inaudible] >> [inaudible] even though i've only been here for short time our quick in-depth analysis and research >> analytical skills there's a lot of taking enlargement of information a compacting it a very concise report because we've a big focus on [inaudible] if you're transmitting this information to the audience you need him to be able to understand it. >> so i work with the sparrow program primarily. broadway stan abused [inaudible] they prepare me for full-time employment because i knew i could not to challenge myself in order to be an auditor. >> at the [inaudible] we are a content feedback and communication and they pointed out areas where i need to grow. >> one of the things i like about working at [inaudible] is that they actually give you

quite a bit of autonomy i feel like kevin sage trusted me. >> the environment really [inaudible] to everyone feeling super collaborative and wanting to get to know one another. which i think at the end of the date is a better work environment and gives you a better workflow. >> i believe that a really is a great experience because it provides an opportunity to have a better understanding of how government works. >> i think what i've learned so far is that every audit is unique everyday. different learning opportunities. >> the recordation we make in on its i can honestly go home at the end of the day and zack and treated [inaudible] in a better way. >> even of not familiar with what auditing is you should deftly find out. it's been really really awesome he was it turns out there's a whole world of auditing that i cannot open file oriented performance and [inaudible] and that's an exciting. audit is a lot broader than i ever knew before. >>

>> supervisor peskin: good morning welcome to the transportation authority meeting for today february 27th. mr. clerk, if you could call the role. >> clerk: (calling roll) we have quorum. >> supervisor peskin: we have a

motion to excuse commissioner safai made by commissioner breed and seconded by commissioner stephanie. we'll take that without objectjectiobjec objection. i'm going to talk about two issues we have been discussing here at the ta with increasing frequency, transportation network companies and driverless vehicles which have significant overlap. at the january meeting, we had a presentation of our tnc regulatory landscape study that staff outlined the regulatory arrangements. one of the findings of the report, the regulatory fees, tnc like uber and lyft pay to the commissions was a subject of an action proposing the rate on the

state agenda a week later. uber and lyft wanted fees reduced even though there was no data to justify the decrease. the san francisco tna and i wrote opposition letters why we believe it is another give-away to companies unwilling to work with local governments. despite the ta, los angeles's department of transportation, all giving strong testimony at the february puc meeting, the state puc acted to lower them from 0.33 to 0.25%. while we managed to prevent them from reducing them lower to the original staff recommendation 0.2%, we remain disappointed and determined to pursue the right sizing of fees and enforcement given the congestion and public

safety conflicts we see on the streets. if the cupc is unable to perform the regulatory sector, we urge them to give it to locals like san francisco who will. the message is clear, let us manage our public streets for the public good. in a related development, i was pleased to see the city attorney's announcement that lyft has agreed to allow transportation experts such as transportation authority staff to look at the data under the agreed to protective order rules. it's long overdue. i hope uber will join soon as well. for far too long our constituents have dealt with congested streets, cyclist issues, double parking and muni stops. coupled with lack of adequate background checks and reporting by tnc's, discriminatory pick up

practices, the regulatory system has clearly failed the public. i'm hopeful the data can at least scale back the number of vehicles on city streets. as for driverless cars, you all saw the california department of motor vehicles announced the final regulations they have developed for driverless vehicles. the dmv will give permits for testing and deployment in april. subject to permit conditions, including the requirement to coordinate with locals on law enforcement interaction plans. while this technology could lead to less cars overtime, the future impacts are uncertain. the permit process appears to be dominated by self-certification procedures, as a result and based on the past, we are concerned that local coordination and input be taken seriously and not just be a check the box exercise.

we must also ensure that the dmv and california highway patrol are equip with the necessary resources to play their effective role and hold them accountable. i'm glad we're setting up meetings with first responders to get ahead of the operational issues that will inevitably arise. questions must be answered quickly, like how do you pull over an autonomous vehicle. who will be given access to the black box in the event of crash. how do you report collisions and who is accountable. additional emerging technology will pop up, including the latest, private stationless motor rised scooters. i'm prepared to introduce division one to create a permit requirement as we have for stationless bicycles. for any company aiming to place

these in the public right of way. and to create conditions for that permit to minimize potential harm to the public. we have heard other cities where the scooters have dropped. in santa monica it has had hundreds of criminal stops. they have raised over $$15 million and expanded to los angeles and san diego. it is important for us to get ahead of this so they're not blocking our downtown sidewalks and so we can be sure they come with a plan to distribute them in communities of need. i look forward to further discussions about how to anticipate the emerging technologies going forward. in january the bay area toll authority voted to place regional measure three, the traffic relief plan on the

ballot for 99 days from today. this proposal to increase the tolls on the seven various state owned bridges except for the golden gate bridge by different fees. the revenues would be used to fund transportation projects and programs that aleave congestion in the bridge corridors as detailed in senate bill 595, consistent with requirements, the board of supervisors, our board of supervisors passed the resolution to put it on the ballot here in san francisco. all the other bay area counties are expected to take similar actions by the end of the week. including 4.45 billion for transportation capital across the region, including san francisco priorities, half a billion for new bart cars, 325 million for downtown extension, muni vehicles and facilities and includes 60 million per year to

help support regional bus and transit operations. finally colleagues, in an effort to truly get at the widening gap in our transportation task force, i will be introducing a tnc tax at the board of supervisors this afternoon to finally ensure that a sector that had profound impact on our public streets starts paying their fair share. other sectors contribute to the general operating budget of the city and need for revenue to manage local issues has never been greater. it is an exercise in equity and i'm looking forward to gain your support. that concludes the chair's remarks. >> clerk: public comment? >> supervisor peskin: seeing none, public comment is closed. next item please. >> clerk: executive director report, information item. >> good morning commissioners. my report is before you and pleased to follow the chair's excellent remark, thank you for

placing it on the ballot here in san francisco. we're excited to see if the voters agree that these are critical transportation projects to help prepare us for the future. staying at the state level for a moment, the dmv work that the chair mentioned, we will continue to work under the group with their own enforcement groups as well as pd and fire and california highway patrol and members of industry i believe who we need at the table to cooperate in developing the law enforcement interaction plans. turning to another funding topic. senate bill one, i wanted to report that january was a busy month for a number of the agencies around bay area, seeking sb-1 funds, this is a set of programs that was passed -- by the funding package last year that includes congestion relief and local partnership program and other funds.

we put forward mission bay ferry landing, jefferson street and better market street projects. the largest of the pots is the transit and inner city rail program. we saw $10.9 billion in need as expressed through applications for the pot. we're going to continue to advocate for the vehicles and extension funds for downtown to meet current and future needs. we want to thank at the state level, david shoe, he introduced a spot bill for us earlier in february in the 101, to seek administration for the potential lanes should the body decide to pursue in the future. this is for the totalling

authority, similar to what was included in sb-595 for it to be extended. no decision has been made but the bill helps us to be a part of that policy conversation, should those two other counties continue to make progress on the managed lanes in san mataeo and other aspects in this corridor. and i wanted to talk about the regional agencies kick off of the futures planning effort at m.p.c. you'll see later on the agenda, our own connect sf update that corresponds with the regional effort. every four years our agencies try to look forward into the future and take land use and technology and other types of demographic type forecasts and

create a long range plan to help us navigate all the known and unknown trends. this could include manmade disasters, economic booms and busts and even things such as political volatility around revenues and funds for transportation. i look forward to the presentation later today and your feedback on the work. this month they are beginning outreach on their efforts, futures project, an 18 month series of events looking at the trends and trying to prepare the region to navigate them as well as using that as a platform to identify projects and investment priorities. we'll continue to work with them and together with the four agencies you'll hear about later. the outreach is robust, conducted in english, spanish and chinese. there will be pop-ups, state holder feedback will be possible

through multiple means, including text surveys and a like. we'll keep you updated as it unfolds. turning to local, the lifeline call for projects is now out. i want to thank staff for getting this out. this is the source for low income residence and addresses gaps and barriers through equity, analysis and other needs assessments. for this cycle we'll prioritize projects that support communities of concern. since this is one of the few funding sources we can use for the purpose. transit operators are the only recipients and applications are due march 23rd. for more information go to sfcta.org or contact april smith the project manager. we have other outreach, including design outreach workshops. this fast evolving era with

technology and policy moving at rapid pace, it's important to stay connected and keep the dialogue up. i they we have made clear what our hopes and expectations are and that's a good way to engage with industry partners and other agencies grappling with the complexity of new technologies and hopefully the benefits they bring to our city. the muni equity strategy is underway. you have seen that through notifications through your offices and online and other outreach that mta has been doing. this is the final phase of the 2018 service equity strategy. this began in 2013 actually under a prior county-wide plan and mta's own strategic plan, focusing on eight equity neighborhoods and making sure we close gaps and improve conditions for those most dependant on public

transportation. mta has administered general surveys and received quite a few responses and will recommend to their board and plan to come to our board as well to brief you all and the public through our board. please stand by...

and set up any debt needed and update the debt strategy from the cash flow needed, for the larger projects. over the next two months, we'll reach out to your offices to schedule briefings with you and your staff about this fro ses and how you would like to weigh in on the use of these sales tax funds over the next five years, we look forward to that work as well. turning to project delivery, thank the deputy for capital project and his team, peer review of the technical questions related to the cal train extension projects, question of two versus three tracks for that portion that leads up to the station itself as requested by chair peskin.

so we have convened a host of a strong panel of experts, as well as stakeholders from multiple agencies, cal train itself, high speed rail, planning department and other land owners in the area to try and sort through multiple reports that had analyzed these questions and so good news is, we plan to bring a report back to you in march that reflects the consensus that we are hearing, i don't want to preempt that big news but we are making really great progress and consensus emerging, so we look forward to bringing that in march. thank the participants for their efforts input and contributions to the collaborative process. finally, thank our finance and admin team, for the workshop. this is our disadvantaged business enterprise and our local business enterprise outreach workshop to ensure all

of our contracting is as inclusive as possible. on february 22nd, hosted a workshop with approximately 60, 70 attendees and brought together the prime consultants as well as the subcontractors to learn how they may connect with one another and what's coming up at the transportation authority and the treasure island management agency work program. and appreciate san francisco public works, m.t.a., m.t.c., and cal trans as well. so great feedback and we look forward to doing these on a regular basis. thank you very much. >> chairman peskin: any questions, commissioner kim. >> supervisor kim: when you talked about the lifeline program and the application opening, could you tell the commission some of the priorities for sfcta for the grant funding for the lifeline? >> thank you very much, commissioner kim.

reflecting on what i'm aware of, not as aware of all the needs. i know the sfmta in particular has an interest in closing some equity gaps from the equity strategy that they are conducting right now. they want to close late night service gaps as well, some of the owl network around town. in the past they have used the funds to do work in those types of corridors that serve, for example, the overnight market and s.f.o. to city corridor. let me let anna maybe add to that. >> thank you. to your question, commissioner tang. this has been a very erratic -- >> commissioner tang is not here. >> i'm sorry, commissioners kim. i was thinking i need to type an email to commissioner tang. >> this has been a relatively erratic funding source, this is the smallest pot of funds we

have had available to program to projects, and one of the very few funding sources we can program to operating projects. so, we have prioritized funding projects that provide access to and in communities of concern and she highlighted some of the platforms that we expect projects to spring from. so -- that's -- >> mainly around filling gap services in certain neighborhoods that are prioritized as he can with it at this neighborhoods, is that what i'm hearing? >> we are not sure -- prior equity strategy identified some gaps, so i would assume they are in the top priority. we are not privy to all their analysis. >> i was asking for -- i know the applications have not gone in yet, wondering what we are prioritizing as the lifeline funds. >> sponsors are the only ones

eligible, so we do expect to receive most of them from sfmta. >> and not part of your report, but very interested in the regional discount pass that m.t.c. is studying and curious what they are pushing or advocating for with our regional partners. i think it's an incredible opportunity for us to provide our low income transit riders a pass that would work regionally through multiple operators and provide more smooth transition. we know that many low income riders depend on multiple operators to get to work, so i would like to hear the work and what we are advocating for on behalf of the city in that program. >> we'll be happy to bring that back to you, thank you for your leadership at m.t.c. on that question. as we know here in san francisco, muni m.t.a. has a very good discount program, and

coming in to create the means-based fare program. so that is being worked out. happy to report back next month. >> right, thank you. >> chairman peskin: any members of the public who would like to offer public comment on the executive director's report? seeing none, public comment is closed. could you please read the consent agenda. >> items 4-8, consent agenda, 5-8 approved at the board meeting and considered for final approval. remaining items are considered routine. staff is not planning to present on the items but prepared to present if desired. if a member objects, any of the consent items may be removed and considered separately. >> thank you. any public comment on item number four, the february 13, 2018, minutes, seeing none. public comment is closed. move to move the consent agenda, a roll call, please.

[roll call vote taken] we have final approval. >> chairman peskin: next item please. >> clerk: nine, update on the quint street-jerrold road project, information item. >> mr. cordoba. or miss tang. >> hello, just by way of introduction of this item through the chair, just wanted to provide some background to the board. some of you may recall this project, some may not. the quint jerrold connector road is a larger effort to bring a replacement cal train station to the bayview. following the closure of paul

avenue, one of the lower ridership cal train stations closed in the early 2000s. the community came together and had a series of meetings for alternative station and landed near oakdale and third, the oakdale cal train station site. it was not clear that we could build a project there, that it would fit, that the ridership would work out, but in the sales tax plan, we were able to initiate feasibility studies that did confirm a conforming cal train station would here, and the need for access to be preserved and maintained into the south bay with the job opportunities down the peninsula. so, we endeavored to develop this station area concept with the community, with cal train

and local agencies, and the bridges in the vicinity of the site needed to be replaced, 100 years old, quint bridge and jerrold bridge needed to be replaced, and what design we would choose to maintain not only the safety of the bridge area but potential for the future station. i wanted to provide that backdrop at the time in 2012, we decided this body decided to use 20 million out of the available $25 million that cal train had for a berm, berm design was going to be affordable as well as wide enough to accommodate a future potential platform for the station, however, the tradeoff was it would close access on quint street. in recognition of the impact of that, we identified a potential mitigation to create connector road, a detour road to connect motorists around this area through the jerrold underpass

and preserved the circulation in the area. now, at the time we knew there were risks to that work because this quint connector road parcel was owned by the u.p.r.r. railway, and it's a difficult endeav endeavor to do, working with the railway, and we did work hard on the plans. now the point many years later the sale of that parcel has actually been made to a private entity and eric cordoba will pick the story up from there. >> good morning, commissioners. we have been leading and coordinating the efforts with the real estate division to try to obtain and purchase the land in question. let's talk about the road itself. two-lane connector, very simple, lighting, landscaping and sidewalk that we are planning to ultimately construct. a little more history here. we did pursue and the city

planning department prepared a mitigated negative declaration in august of 2015. there were engineering and right-of-way funds allocated in september of 2015 to the tune of over $2 million. conceptual design completed in fall of 2016 and as executive director chang indicated, negotiations with u.p. railway over three plus years of trying to negotiate to purchase the land, unbe known to us, and to the real estate division, they basically sold it to a private entity 1880 jerrold avenue, manager partner by the name of trans metro, who the city knows and has a good working relationship, that was done in the summer 2017. also in that regard, they actually very quickly set up a concrete plant which is in violation d.b.i. issued a notice in that regard, so that's been stopped. and since then, though, a lot of

activity in terms of discussion with the private report owner. and they have indicated in essence a willingness to allow us to start the environmental testing we need to as required per the environmental document, so we are pursuing that right now. we are going ahead and working with our consultants to go ahead and come up with the planning and get them out there to perform the appropriate archaeological testing, as well as hazardous materials testing. survey crews out there, spot checks on utilities, due diligence for the engineering work we need to go ahead and this will inform the appraisal. ordered an appraisal. so moving positively in that regard. so, even though the bad news is u.p. railroad sold it but ultimately we have an entity we are working with a little more collaboratively in that regard. so, what lies ahead in terms of future abbing -- activities,

come up with an appraisal, that will inform the overall cost in the summer of this year and hopefully negotiate a land purchase by the fall. we anticipate having to come back here in that regard to go ahead and give you an update once we have an appraise al. as part of that, that will also -- the costs have gone up, it's been a few years, i think the challenge here is pursue the funding and plan later this year and come back with implementation plan. so that completes my update on the project. >> chairman peskin: thank you, and thank you for the briefing you and other staff gave me earlier. is there any questions or comments from commissioners?

are there any members of the public who would like to testify on this informational item? please come forward. >> good morning, commissioners. chris wadling, district ten representative of the c.a.c. i have been involved in this project since it began and our community when miss chang came out to speak to us. and this is really the reason why i asked to join the c.a.c. while i'm encouraged by the comments, i will take it i'll believe it when i see it approach to this. we were told despite built as a transportation company, trans metro is more a company that is described as having a lot of real estate holdings that also has a couple of shuttle busses. so, this is a company that the

city knows and i hope we can figure out a way to get the land back from them without too much extra money. the land was cost a little over a million dollars, and the road roughly 5 million, that was in the budget, it's looking like it's going to be maybe 3 to 4 times that now, the numbers we were given at the last c.a.c. meeting. also asked mr. cordoba to work with the p.u.c. and the c.a.c. for upcoming land use and projects to impact all parts of the bayview. roads closed for the next ten years off and on and access to, and within and out of our community is severely impacted by all these projects and we don't have a lot of major roots, so bay shore and 3rd street are the only ways to get out of the

bayview and getting around some places is becoming quite difficult. so, i appreciate you taking the time to listen to this, and look forward to further on this. thank you. >> chairman peskin: and your chairperson has his eyes on this matter. is there any other member of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed and we will file that item. next item, please. >> clerk: update on the connect sf vision document, this is an information. >> chairman peskin: miss mickel. commissioner tang's favorite subject. >> good morning, chair peskin and commissioners, linda mecel,

i'm joined with doug johnson from the planning department also involved in the multi-agency effort. put this into presentation mode, excuse me. ok. so connect sf is a multi-agency partnership to build effective and equitable sustainable transportation system for san francisco's future. and the purpose is to align our agencies through a ground up process to identify our long-term transportation projects and policies. the program has three-phases, the first of which is a 50-year vision. that is creating goals and objectives that will guide phases 2 and 3 of the process. phase 2 is about the projects and policies, we need to achieve the vision, and phase 3 is about the policy and action oriented documents to codify the projects

and policies. update to the county-wide transportation plan and update to the element of the general plan. the project includes three streams of outreach. yellow is the public, the green is the futures task force and the blue is the connect sf multi-agency staff, and we are in the first big bubble there, the long range vision and we will work through the three streams through 2021 when we finish up our, the transportation element update and the county-wide transportation plan. so, we -- since 2016, we have conducted a lot of outreach on this project. we have gone out and had 125 focus group participants, over 5300 survey respondents, and went to over 60 organizations to

speak directly with them, and we definitely want to know if there is any other people that we should be talking to, so please let us know. the issues that are guiding this process, we are calling the drivers of change. these include both givens, as well as uncertainties and those are things that we are not sure what trajectory those issues will take. we are leveraging the work of our inner agency working groups that are looking at topics like emerging mobility, climate change resiliency and tilly mentioned earlier, future trends or drivers of change. this visioning process involved exploring different plausible futures and the inherent tradeoffs between those different futures. and this slide shows the overwhelming support for the

building bridges scenario. it was identified by both the public, the futures task force, as well as the focus groups. so our vision includes five goal areas. those are equity, economic vitality, environmental sustainability, safety and liveability, and a fifth goal added as a result result of engagement called accountability and engagement. and i will ask you to refer to the fact sheet online at connectsf.org for more information. but i will say the three main points, high growth focus on equity, and strong civic engagement and government alignment.

so what's next? we are already starting our phase 2 which involves looking at our transportation needs, figuring out what our needs will be to reach the vision, and then we will look at transit corridor study and streets and freeway study we will figure out the projects and policies needed to get to the vision. and then later we will go into phase 3, which includes again our policy and action-oriented documents, the san francisco county-wide transportation plan, otherwise known as sftp2050, and transportation element update. with that, i'm happy to take any questions. >> chairman peskin: any questions from commissioners? seeing none, i have one speaker card from mr. ted olson. please come forward.

>> my name is ted olson, third generation san franciscan, and sit on the task force of connectsf, and chairman of the transbay joint powers authority for the transit center. so, i'm very interested in this proposal. i would say a couple of things to all of you that number one, it's consistent with and coordinated with vision 0. so that i think is extremely important. number two, we need to continually, even though this is planned for 50 years, we need to continue to look at it and that's in part of the plan, certainly at least every five years, we need to have an extension