community at large sort of pointed out what the phelan name represented. mta agreed and eventually called it the ocean avenue loop. this process for me was several years old. and it came up again, it popped up again mainly because of what the usf students were able to point out. and i said you know something, if usf will be brave enough to take this on, then i should step up myself. you know, history is history and nobody is trying to sweep history under the rug. in fact, the gentleman that came up and talked about we should make this one big learning moment, if i didn't bring this up, we wouldn't have

this discussion, so it is a learning moment. i appreciate the people that actually participated in the renaming, even though it was set up for a short time. and again, i have no pathway, there was no official process. a resolution to change is i the name. that's all i had to do. instead, i want today give some input from the community at the ti time. in fact, i really had no particular name i wanted to name it. when the committee met, we game up with five names and i thought they were pretty good suggestions. thelma johnson street was one. the native americans that were living around that area at the time before people took -- the western world sort of took it

over. i suggested a personal favorite of mine. somebody suggested freedom way. and then frida kahlo was the fifth name that was put out there. they said we've been thinking about this for a while and this is what we've come up with. let's just do it that way.

if you -- i just want to put it out there and make sure everyone knows we're doing this. and whether the issue of somebody saying it's a business issue, i have no idea. at least that was not my intent. my intent is very clear. i've been clear all along. and i'm sorry that my outreach to the school, i did it with the principal will -- there early on. we invited the school to be part of the renaming council and there was no response, so i didn't know what to make of it. as i was talking to the president on the phone one day, i tried to explain that. it's one thing for me to just invite.

i can't force anybody to come to the table. i kept on asking, why are they passing this out. and it's part of their history. it's part of the history of the

association next door to phelan. eventually, at a meeting, i was able to bring it up again and talk about it. say, why did we have this. people tried to say don't worry, that was back then. you don't have to worry about it now. i said, why are you passing this out? i was very persistent because my kids were at the age where they're gonna ask questions. i don't want to sit here and say i did nothing to prevent this. eventually, some of the people that were -- dt want to be inconvenienced, they were saying it's gonna cost us money. fin finally, a young lawyer stands up and says i'll do it for free. and then they kept on

objecting. only after that, people claiming inconvenience and so forth, that i was able to get them to change the language to reflect the values of the day 30 years ago. again, i acknowledge that there's gonna be inconvenience. i try to do my best to lay out a process for us to have some input, having really no template to go on.

i will work with the community and try to help you as much as possib possible. that's my commitment. hopefully you will understand what my intentions are. and that it's not about a business issue. i have no idea what's that about. it's not about trying to say chinese fighting. nobody said chinese fighting the irish. i'm sorry, that's a little bizarre to me. e.'ll just leave it at thank you. thank you, supervisor yee. i'd like to add my name as a co-sponsor to this item. and you know, i think the dialogue that we heard today really resembles the national

dialogue around the removal of the confederate statues. and we heard it on the debate about removing the statue in front of the main library. there's a whole dialogue about remembering our history. but i think the mayor of new orleans really hit it on the nail when he s that we must distinguish remembrance and reverence of history. and when we name streets and put monuments of names, it is not just remembering the history.

it is part of what is the making of this nation. we still live with the consequences of those decisions, the pain that followed. and to remember that during this time, the chinese exclusion act was more than just the chinese exclusion act. and the statement of keeping california white and san francisco white was a lot more than just a statement. there were deaths, there was terror,

it's very clear that this name would be name d -- both are part of a history that was particularly involved in institutional racism. they were particularly involved in acting and codifying and behaving in an extremely exclusive and racist way toward a segment of our population that has been an important part of our history. so this is not the scrubbing of history, this is actually righting history that should never have taken place in the first place. i mean, i personally believe if not for that political connection, the street might

never have been named for the ther. might have been a philanthropist and might have been involved in other things. but at the end of the day, that is what we do. cities evolve, they're constantly growing, constantly reflecting and constantly making positive change. i see this as a positive change. i appreciate your leadership on this and would love to be added as a sponsor as well. thank you. and so we have a motion on the floor. motion on the floor, do we have a second that? i second that wholeheartedly. we have a second and a wholehearted motion and we can do that without objection. i want to thank the members of the public for coming out to speak on this item. madam clerk, any other items before this board? there's no further business. meeting is adjourned. thank you very much. we closed public comment, there's no public comment once we close it. women's network f

sustainable future . >> san francisco streets and puffs make up 25 percent of cities e city's land area more than all the parks combined they're far two wide and have large flight area the pavement to parks is to test the variants by ininexpensive changing did

new open spaces the city made up of streets in you think about the potential of having this space for a purpose it isands for the best for bikes and families to gather. >> through a collaborative effort with the department we the public works and the municipal transportation agency pavement to parks is bringing initiative ideas to our streets. >> so the face of the street is the core of our program we have in the public right-of-way meaning streets that can have areas perpetrated for something else. >> i'm here with john francis pavement to parks manager and this parklet on van ness street first of all, what is a parklet and part of pavement to parks program basically an expense of the walk

in a public realm for peopleo hang anti nor a urban acceptable space for people to use. >> parkletspons ss have to apply to be considered for the program but they come to us you know want to do this and create a new space on our s i a community driven program. >> the program goes beyond just parklets vacant lots and other spacesre converted we're here at playland on 43 this is place is cool with loots things to and plenty of space to play so we came up with that idea to revitalizations this underutilized yard by gng to the community and what they said want to see here we saw that

everybody wants to see everything to we want this to be a space for everyone. >> yeah. >> we partnered with the pavement to parks program and so we had the contract for building 236 blot community garden it start with a lot of jacuzzi hammers and bulldozer and now the point we're planting trees and flowers we have basketball courts there is so much to do here. >> there's a very full program that they simply joy that and meet the community and friends and about be about the lighter side of city people are more engaged not just the customers. >> with the help of community pavement to parks is reimagining

the potential of our student streets if you want more information visit them as the pavement to parks or contact pavement to parks at sfgovtv.org

>> supervisor peskin: good morning and welcome to the san francisco county transportation meeting for today, tuesday, may 22nd. could you please call the role? w -- [roll call] >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i will give the chair support. colleagues, at this time, please

ensure the news of several major state -- state branches received from the real capital program and california transportation commission. senate bill one, competitive grant program. as you recall, it is a package that was approved last year and maintained and improved our streets and transport system. the transit in the inter- -- intercity rail program was funded by trade revenues. as a result of these grants, san francisco transit passengers will greatly benefit from three key rail improvement projects including $318 million for new cars and train system. hundred 65 million for additional retro cars. and capacity improvements and $27 million for eight new mini light rail vehicles. the state also were awarded 6.8 million from local partnership programs, a

competitive program, to san francisco public works of construction of jefferson street improvements which have to be in district three at fisherman's wharf, which i am crate -- quite grateful for. in addition, other branches benefiting, 14 million for a transit for zero emission buses and 50 million for purchasing vehicles for new express routes to and from san francisco, and 200 million for the county to construct express lands along u.s. highway 101. i want to thank the mayor and the san francisco public works and the staff to helping us pull this altogether as our legislative delegation. and, of course,, as we all know, we are under attack in the subject of repeal on november's ballot. it is just one piece of the package that is helping to address the billions of dollars in transportation infrastructure needs here in the city. there is, also as we all know, regional measure three. but even if a majority of voters

in all nine counties vote to increase revenues in order to finance a four and a half billion dollar program of highway and regional transit improvements, we still have a long way to go to accommodating the growing mobiity needs of the bay area. so i want to take a second and thank the land use committee which voted yesterday to move forward with an increase to our local transit sustainability f fee. and an acknowledgement that are blooming office market will pay more towards the infrastructure that benefits their workers and their buildings and with that, let us proceed to. is there any public comment on the chair's report? being none, publmments closed. madam executive director, your report, please. >> supervisor tang: staying with the state funding picture,

welding on the chair's remarks, the active transportation program, cycle four is another state fp1funded program and this c project we can expect to build about $217 million available statewide with a program for about 37 million for the ba bay area region. and from what we've heard, public works are preparing to submit a number of great multimodal project applications. definitely want to get the ball rolling to ensure these are pretty involved with the application project. very important to the criteria. the most recent cycle, which was a first augmented by the fund. san francisco was awarded a $.8 million for a vision zero safety program. for more information you can go to mcc's website.

as well i wanted to report last week i had the pleasure of joining with several colleagues from around the state and the region with our transit direct director. he was retiring. he was with the -- th departmendepartment for over the decades. and district four and oversaw some of the largest projects and largest projects in the region. within san francisco, he was a tremendous partner to us on the presidio parkway project as well as he sat on our trans bay joint powers authority, directing the terminal project. as well as partnered with us on another project. we are grateful to his leadership and great -- wish him all the best in his future endeavours. staying with the regional picture, mpc continues to

develop their horizons initiative, this is a future scenario planning project that began earlier this spring and they held it -- held a workshop in may to contemplate a er of plausible scenarios. looking at sea level rise and resilience as well as all kinds of demographic and technological -- technological trends to see which kind of futures we can envision and best position our trans persuasion infrastructure investment to service in any of those scenarios. they will be issuing a call for transformative projects. projects and programs that are costing potentially over a billion dollars to test again some of these scenarios. things like a second to you, major rail investment, for example, for the bay area. for more inmation go to the connect s.f. website and you can also contact any of our staff here at the transportation authority.

and, on the local scene, survey is underway for the reduce of the sales tax over the next five years. i wanted to think a lot of the board members commissioners for circulating our survey on your sights and in your newsletters. we are certainly interested in the public feedback on how we spend the next five years on the programs and funds for a number of categories. pedestrian and bicycle improvements, traffic measurement, resurfacing, traffic calming and the like. we've launched a multilingual survey to gather input which is available online. it is also available in hard wewill make that available to a number of community-based organizations and can also send that to any neighbourhood group or organization that still would like to pass those out. so far we have been able to receive, already 400 completed responses, each of these will be conveyed to sponsoring agencies to incorporate the public

feedback. for more information you can contact our staff, and the survey does close on june 1st. in terms of our project delivery work, westbound ramps improvement project has received an outstanding construction project award. we were appreciative of the recognition and the effort of managing and a team of contractors including golden state bridge. we are going to continue to deploy the program over the summer and i want to look for the r.f.p. for this work coming up very soon. and the next stage of the rapper's project. on the transit side, the bart daly city pedestrian rapid bus circulation treatment program is anticipated to finish in june. we continue to upgrade to the bus area, the station will be

expected to finish construction next month and the project to extend the pedestrian pathway to meet the standards that are necessary there. the new rabble not only provide a better way to navigate the station for people with disabilities but improved operation for limiting the need of the 28 lying to stop at two place is in the station. it will actually save the community about hundred 50 million a year in costs. finally, in terms of our and finch -- efficiency improvement initiative and customer service initiative i wanted to thank the team for deploying our web-based funding request form. it sponsors... we are accepting all new applications through our online grant management system known as the portal. it will improve not only commune occasion between the agencies but also efficiency, speed, and accuracy of all of our funder's request. at thank you very much for the

team. i conclude my remarks. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. is there any public comment on the executive director's report? being none, comment is closed. can you please read the consent agenda? >> clerk: items five through nine were approved at the may 8th board meeting and are being considered for final approval. the remaining items are considered routine. they are prepared to present if required. >> supervisor peskin: okay. is there any public comment on item number 4? seeing none, a public comment on the minutes is close. i do have a speaker card on item number 8 which has been previously heard, but because we do not have -- do not want to discourage public testimony, we will sever item h. from the consent agenda and take the public testimony on the balance of the consent agenda and you

items 4-9. a roll call, please. >> clerk: roll call. [roll call] >> supervisor peskin: could you please read item number 8? >> clerk: item h., adopt a ramp intersection study, phase one, final report. >> supervisor peskin:, mr olson, the floor is yours. >> thank you mr president. my name is ted olsen and i'm a third generation san franciscan and sit on the division zero task force.

-- sit on the division zero task force. i want to support the approval of this. we've made such progress with vision zero. i think what's really impressive about it is how the departments of the city have come together, acting on such and an important thing. especially how they've been using surveys, media, to conduct such a survey and gather community impressions.i ok the survey and i'm sure many others did. there's much discussion in the community, i know it certainly has been on the market. it has been discussed about removing freeways and stuff like that. i commend division zero team and command your approval. >> supervisor peskin: thank you mr olson. seeing no other public comment, i will close public comment, i

think you have one more commissioner thacommissioner tho solicit a vote from on the consent agenda. if you could please ask commissioner kim how she would like to vote on items 4-9? >> clerk: commissioner kim? >> supervisor kim: yes. >> supervisor peskin: on item eight, is there a motion from item h. made by commissioner kim and seconded by commissioner yee agreed that item is finally approved. can you please read item number 10? >> clerk: update on the rail alignment benefit study. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. we welcome director john around the from the san francisco planning department. mr ram, i said you would be on at 10.09. i am eight minutes off. my apologies. for the long-awaited rail

alignment, and is now renamed, benefit study. the floor is yours, and with you is susan geeky wh kiki who has e program manager on this long-awaited study. we look forward to your presentation. >> thank you. i'd also like to recognize a man in the audience who is our chairman of our citizens working group who will make a few short comments after my presentation. thank you. drawn ram, planning department. i'm pleased to present to you the update on the rail alignment. i want to thank the staff and the tee -- tee dot a dot. we think there are serious land-use implications and analyses we wanted to make as part of this process. it was a great joint partnership. i am here today to not only give me the update, but to give you stats, and a recommendation for our preferred alignment.

so that has been something that we have not presented in the past. we want to give you that. our thoughts on that, and why we think we chose this alignment and why this should be the one to go within the future. i will start by giving you, it was important to us to take a step back, and remind ourselves why we are doing this to begin with. and the importance of rail in the future of this state and in this ron what you see in this slide is some of the gross numbers that are happening over the -- in the state over the next 50 years. we did a broad brush, 50 year projection on growth recognizing these numbers and that timeframe can vary somewhat over time. and broad strokes, you see some of the extraordinary numbers that could be happening in the state over the next 50 years in both population and jobs. really, the point i want to make here, as we have two choices to make to accommodate growth. either build a rail, or expand highways and airports. i don't think the latter is

something that is going to value the city and state. with decisions to make about how we accommodate growth, and they responsibly and act environmentally careful way. zooming in on the bay area, same thoughts. our population could grow by as much as 3 million people over the next 50 years. with a comparable increase in jobs, and really, again, the choices are expand the rail or look at highway expansions which i can't imagine this region would accept in this day and age. it is important for us to think as a region about a rail as well. zooming in at the city level, again, same thing. i think the important thing to remember here, is this corner of the city, if you will, the southeast quadrant as we call it, will contain about 75% of the city's growth. the vast majority of the city's population and job growth will happen in this quadrant of the city, along this rail corridor.

again, to accommodate that growth, we have the opposite -- option of expanding the highway which is absurd in our anchor -- in our current environment, nor do we think it is environmentally sustainable or friendly to our neighbourhoods. it is interesting for us to look back at the city's growth patterns and you can see the numbers. like most u.s. cities, there was little growth in the sixties and seventies. very little growth in either jobs or population. of course in the eighties and nineties that all started to change andthat is true of cities across the country. even my hometown of detroit, which has seen some devastating economic conditions, is seeing growth now for the first time in many decades. we are seeing a substantial turnaround in urban preferences in terms of living and job locations. and we do think that by 2065, the city could have a population that is approaching 1.5 million people.

getting down to the tangible level of this particular corridor, the area essentially from mission bay to the north, we want to look more carefully at the growth in this area. you see the extraordinary growth numbers in the population here. almost 200% growth in a population in this corner of the city. you also see the value that we have placed in terms of trying to reconnect, or actually connect for the first time these neighbourhoods to the other neighborhoods of the city. mission bay and it's entirety as a neighborhood has been cut off from the rest of the city. we believe we have a major opportunity to correct that. we could connect as many as six roads in the east-west direction between mission bay and dogpatch and the neighborhoods to the west and connect those neighborhoods to mission bay and the bay. for all those reasons, adds that one of the primary reasons for

us taking on this study is to look at how we can get to the trains underground sooner and farther south than what has previously been proposed. so in that light, we of course the alignments.think, looked at we initially had a fourth alignment week considered and rejected which was the alignment which would have threaded between the columns of the highway. that alignment proved to be infeasible. we looked at three scenarios. one is the existing which we called the future with surface rail, with one addition to that existing alignment, which was the trenching of the streets underneath the rail. if you recall, the proposal that had been put forward by high-speed rail was to maintain the grade crossings -- crossings at 16th street and seventh street. the city for many, many years said that is an unacceptable solution to actually have those conditions with the vastly increasing the number of trains that will be coming in the

future. in the rush hour, for each hour of rush hour, we anticipate that as many as 20 minutes of the hour, the streets would be closed with trains, with an ambulance route on 16, access to east and west wasunceptable con. the proposal that had been put on the table was taking the streets under the trains. so that scenario, and we will talk about the financial implications of that, is the first scenario. the second scenario is simply taking the existing alignment and extending it farther south and that is what we call the pennsylvania avenue alignment which is shown in orange. it expect - extends the tunnel farther south to a point south of mariposa, perhaps around the location of the current 22n 22nd street station. the third alignment is what we call the mission bay alignment which is the third alignment that would take -- veer off towards the bay and tunnel under third street. under the third straight line, and connect, as you can see, with second street tunnel around

at&t park. why do we need this? we think there are a number of important projects may need to coordinate. we think it's important to reconnect these neighbourhoods, it as you can see from this image, this is the type of condition we would have if the proposal, as currently proposed, would move forward with moving the streets under the trains. this is actually less impactful than the actual reality, because there's a large piece, the outfall in this area, we would have to dive down as much as 50 feet in some locations in order to transport the streets under the trains, which we do not think his away with that we want our city to go in the future. so we looked at these three majoojec. these three projects alone, just in this quadrant of the city, while probably -- probably in the range of 6-$8 billion of public investment in the city. it is so important for us to get this right and make sure these are coordinated. as we look at the various alternatives, we wanted to make sure we were looking at a range

of issues ranging from equity to transportation issues and our transportation planning. looking at operational issues, looking at existing plans and policies, of which, of course,, there are many. looking at construction schedules, potential development and, of course,, cost. as a reminder, we initially looked at five components of the study. the alignment, as i've been talking about, the actual railyard itself, urban form and land use issues with respect to the rail yard, and the surrounding areas. and then we also looked at what would happen if we extended the alignment beyond the salesforce transit centre. and we looked at the issue of 280 and weather it made sense to consider modifying or removing it. i will start by saying that the last two items on this list have essentially been taken off the table. we looked at an extension of the alignment which could happen in the future and we think it has positive benefits. and we looked at whether if we

are moving to this portion of 280 made any sense in terms of the overall transit system. whether the freeway would get in the way, if you will, a rail alignment or vice versa. whether it would have to be modified. we have concluded there is no reason. there is no real connection, but we can acommodate the alignments that we need without touching the freeway. for now, that is not under consideration. again, just a little more detail, the alignments that i talked about, again, the green is the existing alignment with grade separations they are hitedin the lower part of the slide. the orange being pennsylvania and the blue being mission bay. with a station in it somewhere in the vicinity of the mission rock development. the second was to look at the railyard itself. it is 20 acres of land in the middle of the city. it is an important part here that many people don't realize. the railyard is actually privately owned. it is owned by a large industrial developer that is based in san francisco but it

is, and actually -- actuality, the largest industrial property owner in the world. bait air rights are under the control of that company. if the trains were to go away, they would have the rights to develop that property with the change in zoning. we looked at possibilities. what if we separated the actual operations that they do on that site from the storage and maintenance and staging creeks two separate functions that happen on that sight? we looked at locations and we believe that there are some locations a railyard could locate to. they are within the ten minute travel time to the terminus which is the requirement that the company has. we think there are two sites that could be possible to relocate the terminal. we looked at urban form and land use considerations and made some very broad assumptions about what would happen here if the railyard was to be removed, or lowered, or modified. we could of course restore the

street graded and have much improved bicycle connections and deal with environmental issues and obviously, housing open space and other uses if that was the way we wanted to go. and then these last two items, again, as i mentioned, we did a very preliminary analysis about extension to the rail, which is shown here. whether it comes out of the salesforce terminal and gog across the bay, or looping back nd. we looked at whether there was the potential for making this connection via the mission bay alignment. we frankly don't know enough about where the connection should go to the east, yet, to really understand that, and so we think all of these are possible in the future. we know that much, but we don't think, at this point, there is an urgency to making this decision. i will say that breaking through, if you will, the eastern end of the terminal to the east, does not only increase

the capacity of the terminal and -- in the long run but it adds a whole new ridership to the terminal from oakland and the east bay. it is something to consider in the future. as i said, we had initially looked at weather this one and a half or 1.2 miles of 280 were in effect preventing us from a rail alignments that we would offer. we do not believe that it does. we don't believe there is a real connection functionally -- functionally or traffic -wise between 280 and the transit system. so we did not take this any further and are not proposing any changes to 280 at this time. so, getting down to brass tacks on the cost. these are the high-level numbers of the three alternatives. what these numbers include, are full construction costs, they include for the pennsylvania and mission bay alignment, they include a relocated caltrain it yard, and they also include

potential revenues that would accrue from land value recapture on the railyard. similarly to what we did in the transit centre plant. the one qualification on that latter point, is that because the land of the railyar is privately owned, we are not able to capture the land value. the land sales, as we did in the transit centre plan. it is the number -- the revenue generated from that site are not as great as they would be if it was similar to the transit centre area. you will see there is some pretty big differences between the pennsylvania and mission avenue, mission bay alignment. and again, these are comparative costs, and i think an dollars. they could be inflated easily and could all rise proportionally. so, given those numbers, and given a number of considerations, that staffs of all of the agencies have put forward the pennsylvania avenue alignments as being our

preferred alignment, and our recommendation to you and the mayor about the city's preferred alignment on this project. let me just give you a number of reasons. it actually solves one of the fundamental problems that we have seen that it is eliminating the possibility of closing streets. it avoids the trenching problem i mentioned, and most, i think very significantly and a concern we heard when we first started this study, it does not delay the btx design and construction. the reason for that is one of the advantages of the pennsylvania avenue alignments is the dpx ntribute -- proceed through engineering on its current schedule while we build to the rest of the tunnel to the south. so we are able to accommodate them on its current schedule without any delay while we further, through the environmental work and

engineering work to build a tunnel through the south. it allows all the trains utilize the transit centre they are. clearly, land use benefits over last -- a mile of the city. and we think, we would like to further study the location of the 22nd street station in order to find -- utilize that land. it is the fastest-growing station in terms of ridership in the caltrain system and yet is not even accessible at this point. it is a very challenging location for a station. there are clearly operational benefits, and it allows the possibility, which we did not include in the cost estimate, of even expanding underground at the fourth at townsend station which would be an underground station at that location. there are obvious negatives to this alignment. there is some increase in cost, about 900 million, we think, that requires additional environmental review of the segment that is south of the railyar it requires relocating storage

and maintenance facilities, as i said, and probably requires some relocation of utilities. so where are we headed here? we think this is a reasonable, doable timeline, obviously there are factors, that will come into play here, that might affect s tithiline. but we are, of course unit may, updating you, on tuesday of next week, we will presenting the same pub -- presentation to the public. over the next five or six weeks, we'll be doing presentations and we will hope to bring a recommendation for your approval either in july or right after your break in august. and finally, and this is, you had this in hard copy before, and this is a little hard to reach, what we are also doing now with our partner agencies is developing an overall strategy, a pram