>> thank you. [please stand by]

bright bri . >> that's the amount of money that has been submitted to the federal government as of cost of this. and incidentally, as the price of getting $1 billion in federal support. this pennsylvania avenue alignment adds $2.2 billion to the cost of the project, and that is going to have to being paid by somebody. that somebody is the city of san francisco, so right now, there is a very great

ambiguity, and i think the questions that i have will clear that up. may i submit this to the board, what i have, and hopefully to introduce. >> supervisor peskin: our clerk will get it right now. >> thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. jim patrick. i'm with patrick & and company here in san francisco. he's right. we need to divide these two. you try to package them together as a single unit, there's going to be problems down the road. at least that's how i see this, when they try to package this and try to make this come to fruition. number two, we haven't talked about the location of the fourth and king street station. seems to me it should be up at 7th street where it would

appeal to a lot morpassengers and also -- more passengers. and also, we have another issue with the table where we should go a significantly different route. so i don't think we're quite there yet, so i encourage the supervisors to think about this long and hard, but right now, it's a single project on the c.t.x. that's what we have our handle on, and it's a long road ahead. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> mr. chairman, members of the commission, i am gerald kaufman. i am the chair person of the bay area transportation working group. we look at transit projects all over the region. this one -- as mr. rahaim said a little while ago, this is a very important decision that you're being asked to make, and a very long lasting decision. the effect on this

caltransoperation -- caltrain's operation, it's probably a century. i believe the c.t.x. should be allowed to go on first without being tangled up in this uncertainty. i've seen in the press already where they say that. well, that's not true. this is a brand-new thing. the heavy lifting of the transportation part of this study is yet to come because caltrain is currently doing an extensive operational and maintenance study, the results of which are not out here. that involves things like the relationship between that yard and this particular decided. it's certainly better than third street. that doesn't make it the best, nor does it make it necessary to decide it right now. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. kaufman.

miss bokin. >> eileen bokin with speak on my behalf. i would like to concur with the previous two speakers on this issue. i would also like to concur with supervisor fewer about outreach to the outside lands, also known as the western neighborhoods. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on this item, number 7? seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor peskin: would any of you like to respond to the public comments that you have heard? i certainly have made it abundantly clear over time that i share mr. lebrun's concerns as it relates to surface disruption and cut and cover. and i think that we have all but eliminated that, except for

at the throat, whegroat, but w want that to be torn up for years on end, but with that, the floor is yours. >> one of the reasons for doing the study is to look at tunnel boring technology that would prevent and negate the need for a disruption of all of those streets. you are correct for most of its length, the pennsylvania area alignment as we understand it today can be bored just like the central subway was bored. as you approach the terminal, that's simply not part simply because of the opening of the terminal at that point, it will have to be done with a cut and cover operation, but most of the length can be done with a boring machine, and that's one of the things about this piece of analysis, we think it makes sense to do that. the previous proposal would have been not to do that, and there would have been years to disruption to townsend and

second street in that process. >> supervisor peskin: and then with the western outer lands, as you go through the environmental process, are there any other questions or comments from commissioners? ha have any of you had a chance to look at the language suggested by some of the public commenters, and do you have any comments? >> i have not seen that language, i'm sorry to say. i'm happy to look at it. >> supervisor peskin: yeah, i don't know that it is necessary, but staff -- thank you, commissioner fewer. if you want to take a quick look at that and put any responses you would like on the record. >> i need to look at the -- what -- two things.

one is just accepting the pennsylvania avenue alignment certainly makes phasing possible. we are in agreement on the issue of phasing. we have -- one of the reasons for choosing the pennsylvania alignment is the d.t.x. can move forward with its next phase of engineering. i would just want -- i think it's important, however, for the city and this board to make it clear that ultimately, pennsylvania is the way to go, right? that it isn't just -- choosing a phased approach is not about building phase one and walking away. that gets us into the same problem that we have today with the crossings, cutting off mission bay from the rest of the city. we do think it's important if you choose to have language something like that you make it clear that the ultimate goal is to choose an alignment that is basically underground for our farther distance, which is the pennsylvania avenue alignment. >> if i may make a suggestion,

we'd like to take a look at this language carefully, and we will respond to the board with our opinion prior to the next meeting of the board, when this item will come for adoption. >> supervisor peskin: okay. all right. then colleagues, is there a motion relative to item number 7? sorry? commissioner kim? >> supervisor kim: sorry. i was not clear. is that a request -- >> supervisor peskin: insofar as we could pass this on the first reading if the staff collectively thinks that some of this or all of this language makes sense, we could incorporate it at the second reading, which is what he was suggesting, which seems like a reasonable suggestion. >> supervisor kim: so then i'll make the motion to -- well, there's no motion, right? we can just vote on this item?

>> supervisor peskin: so what we have before us is the recommended alignment on pennsylvania avenue, and the c.a.c., of course, voted for it unanimously, and so that is what is before this body. all we need is a motion to adopt the pennsylvania alignment. moved by commissioner kim. is there -- seconded by commissioner yee. colleagues, can we take that on first reading, same house, same call? [ gavel ]. >> supervisor peskin: resolution is adopted. mr. clerk, next item, please. >> clerk: item 8, 2019 year five year project implementation update. this is an informational item. >> good morning, commissioners. i am pleased to present the first of the process to present to you for adoption the

five-year prioritization prom. i'm going to five it the 5-ypp update going forward in the presentation, and the strategic plan, i'm going to refresh why we're doing this. essentially, this is your opportunity, board members, to provide us with feedback on the draft project list for the projects that the agencies have proposed to be funded by prop k over the next five years. once a project is in the five-year prioritization program, 5-y.p.p., it is considered with an encouraging status. so looking forward to your feedback over the next coming weeks and months. so prop k, very high level approved in 2003. this is the expenditure that tells you what are the categories you can fund with prop k, the types of projects, who can request the funds,

however revenue is expected to be generated over the 30 years, how much that revenue is expected to bring in on top of the prop k sales tax, $13 billion in additional funds. including projects like central subway, and itthe only other thing i'll add is the expenditure plan allows for the kmulgs accumulation of debt. we just issued our bond a year ago and we've got 14 more years in the program. the expenditure plan and the strategic plan requires a five-year plan. the board adopted the strategic plan baseline where we did a true up of the last 15 years,

and how we expect things to perform over the next 15 years, we ran our financial model, and that's what ultimately tells us how much each category can expect to receive from their share of revenues peryear over the next 15 years. it does not tell you, however, which projects are going to receive those funds, and that is the purpose of the 5-ypp's, so that you can see the pipeline of projects that are ready to go or be a reasonable expectation of to be ready to go. it lets you see across the different programs, where you might see some overlap, where you might see some complementary projects, and it also allows for board feedback. as i mentioned these are the opportunity to fund those projects over the next five years. we'd like to make sure they reflect your priorities and

your district's priorities, and also what funding is available currently. we need to update this now because we are in year five of the 2014 5-y.p.p.s. so the process of updating this is, you know, i do this circle thing because i see the circle on step two. we are sort of nearing the end of step two and easing into step three. the agencies are going to be telling us how much they are going to be requesting in prop k funds, and we run the models four our strategic plan to see what we can fit within the program and then eventually present to you for adoption the strategic plan, concurrent with the last of the 5ypps, which we

expect to bring to you over october and november . so november , we would ask for adoption of the strategic plan. as i mentioned, we already updated the baseline, and we already brought to you the funding plans for the major capital projects, and the paratransit. basically anything that does not require a 5ypp was presented to the board in the spring. and once the board adopted the baseline for the strategic plan, it allowed us to then issue guidance to the agencies of how much money they would expect to have available and the type of information we would like them to provide to us. we also conducted a survey, an on-line survey, where we received about 1,000 responses, and we have provided you with those responses -- or with the feedback we received, and by the end of this week, we will be posting to our website and also make available to your offices what the agencies are going to do, what their responses are to the public

feedback that they've received, so we'll send a note out to the clerk this week with that information. july, agencies submitted applications to us, over 115 projects with scope, schedule, funding plan information, and we've been working over the last few months to evaluate and refine those proposals. and the proposals are what you will see in your packet. they are attachment three to the main packet, that the next level down is in your enclosure, where you can actually see which fiscal year the agencies are requesting funds, and then, the next project is information forms, which is the next level down, sort of the ground level, we're looking to refine those proposals and present information to you.

this is the basic format of the actual document. there is an actual scoring, the list of the projects with cash flow because that's what we need for debt assumptions, scope, schedule budget plan funding project, and project delivery status is another section where you will see for the 2005, 2009, 2014, 5ypp, as well as a percent complete for all of the projects that we have funded since 2003, so you get a flavor of how the programs are going. we look for how things will be going for these projects, how things are proposed to be going, are the projects ready, do they have a reasonable expectation to receive the other funds that prop k is expected to either match or to set, you know, prop k might be funding the early phases of work. is there a reasonable expectation that the agencies

will receive funding for design and construction, and then, we also look at the category and the whole program, because each category either has to spend its funding on financing costs or capital project costs, so we want to make sure there's enough money in each category to get to something around year 20 of the 30-year program, and that the amount of money that we are spending on financing costs for the program as a whole is not too excessive, so we are paying attention to that. so now, i'm going to get into the highlights. so for the program-wide highlights, the neighborhood transportation improvement program, which has -- which was created in the last 5ypp update in 2014, we are proposing to continue the program with another $100,000 perdistrict of planning funds, and $600,000 perdistrict in capital funds over the five-year period. and then, there are some districts that have used all of their funds, some that have not. for the districts that have

not, what we are proposing is you could carry forward an amount so that the total end funds in your district would be exceed $900,000. so if you have $600,000 now, 300,000 would carry forward into the next five-year period. let's see here...where the status quo and categories with modest changes are listed before you on the slide. as i alluded too earlier, we are proposing to present the 5ypps to you in two groups. this is likely to be group one, and the second group -- so this group would come before you in october, and the final group would come before you in november . on the local -- let's see here. on traffic calming, so you saw the first of the years of the school engineering program. it's proposed to be funded for

another five years, as is the application-based program. m.t.a. is also creating a proactive traffic calming program, the name of which will change. i think it's now referred to advancing equity through safer streets, something to that effect. m.t.a. will be using the department of public health vulnerable populations subset of the high injury corridor to inform the priorities for that program, but more to be determined and to be scene. looking forward to seeing that implemented. lots of corridors, and also for the pedestrian safety category, as well. you can see them on your screen. basic circulation and safety, continuation of bike to workday and classes, as well as several different projects throughout the city. creation of a -- what is the program called? neighborways program, so if you have particular streets that are ripe for traffic calming or for prioritizing bicycles and

pedestrians in your city, by all means, pass that on and we will pass that onto the sfmta, and also some bicycle parking at the transit stations. for the highway narrowing project, we are working with the department of public works and the m.t.a. and the federal highway administration to fund what's called the narrowing gap closure. this is as the great highway approaches the terminus at skyline. there is a portion that is in need of funding. it looks like we'll be able to fund most if not all of the design phase, but the construction funding is to be determined, and you saw the request for the rest up to sloat narrowing in the presentation. you see these other locations, sloat is related to the great highway as well, sister projects, transit enhancements.

and also, some f-line extension to fisherman's wharf that would advance -- that would advance to design. b.a.r.t. categories, lots of good leveraging with b.a.r.t. with their measure rr funds that passed last year. pleased to see improvements, particularly elevator improvements at embarcadero, montgomery, powell, civic center, and balboa park. caltrain, state of good repair categories. the sales tax has been funding the sf -- has been alleviating sfmta of providing the capital member share of caltran's annual capital budget for the last -- since 2003. the funds are predicted to run out in this five-year period,

most notably around fiscal year 2021, so we'll need to be having some additional conversations going forward about -- about that. muni vehicles, facilities, and guide ways, several place holders that you'll see in these categories, these are the biggest cash flow drivers for prop k, and the base drivers of our financing program. you can see the highlights in front of you, muni guide ways includes the quint street-jerrold avenue connector road, which the board approved several years ago to mitigate the impact of the closure of clint street. on the major capital side, each -- [inaudible] >> -- b.a.r.t., caltrain, and muni all have their own set aside, but there is also a discretionary fund and set aside funds, in case the

parties had projects ready to be advanced. we haven't had to tap into those funds yet, but we are proposing to tap into them in this next five-year period. for caltrain electrification, it would wrap that up, and then, for better market industry central subways, we have a long-standing commitment of $61 million to the central subway project. this was included in the original baseline concurrent w

second group, we would be bringing the final strategic plan, and i will also mention that the fiscal year 18-19 projects that are still in year five of the 2014 5ypps, some of projects are advancing, some will not be advancing. so we will be bringing amendments as relevant. either there's different projects that are going to advance different than what they thought they would do five

years ago or projects are not going to advance and they want to put the funds into the next five-year period to fund other priorities. so with that, this is the high level schedule you have seen many times. we are actually on schedule with this project, so looking forward to your feedback, and with that, i can take any questions. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, miss laporte for that presentation. i know as commissioners, we have been individually briefed. are there any members of the public that would like to speak to the five-year funding process? seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor peskin: and we will stay involved as this moved forward. are there any introduction of new items? is there any general public comment? general public comment, mr.

lebrun? >> so i'd like to very briefly address the command earlier. [inaudible] >> -- that is true if you are at the beginning of any economic cycle, that is absolutely true. but however, the reverse is true when you essentially are headed towards a recession. and in the letter that i sent to the board earlier this week, i quoted two examples, which was the wall of the central subway contract which is an absolutely project, and also, the -- [inaudible] >> -- 13 miles is $25 billion. all i want to say is let's just think about where we are with the economic cycle, whether we are headed for a recession, how

deep this recession is going to be, and tread carefully before we go around rushing around awarding multibillion-dollar contracts. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for your comments, next speaker, please. >> hi. jim patrick, patrick & company. the salesforce tower, we really put that on-line, and jane kim, who's not here, led that effort for quite a while, and i think that system is working well, and seems to be playing out. i encourage you to take a walk around the park, i encourage you to take a walk around the food trucks and see the system is working, number two, now we have the alignment for the train that will come in there. that's a great idea. i see a tremendous void, where will a train go? what are we going to do about going across the bay?

no one, by choice, seems to want to talk about that. that's a strategic point that we need to talk about as a transportation authority. in order to complete this transportation, we need to complete the trains and get them onward to sacramento, san jose, you'eureka, chicago, etc. i think we need to look at that as part of the equation. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. is there any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor peskin: and the transportation authority hearing is adjourned. .

>> working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the art and social change we've been

on the edge after all we're at the meeting of land and sea world-class style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the city's information technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for

considering a career with the city and county of san francisco

>> hi. i am cory with san francisco and we're doing stay safe and we're going to talk about what shelter in place or safe enough to stay in your home means. we're here at the urban

center on mission street in san francisco and joined by carla, the deputy director of spur and one of the persons who pushed this shelter in place and safe enough to stay concept and we want to talk about what it means and why it's important to san francisco. >> as you know the bay area as 63% chance of having a major earthquake and it's serious and going to impact a lot of people and particularly people in san francisco because we live on a major fault so what does this mean for us? part of what it means is that potentially 25% of san francisco's building stock will be uninhibit tabl and

people can't stay in their homes after an earthquake. they may have to go to shelters or leave entirely and we don't want that to happen. >> we want a building stock to encourage them to stay in the homes and encourage them to stay and not relocate to other locations and shelters. >> that's right so that means the housing needs to be safe enough to stay and we have been focused in trying to define what that means and you as a former building official knows better than anybody the code says if an earthquake happens it won't kill you but doesn't necessarily say that can you stay in your home and we set out to define what that might mean and you know because you built this house we're in now and this shows what it's like to be in a place safe

enough to stay. it's not going to be perfect. there maybe cracks in the walls and not have gas or electricity within a while but can you essentially camp out within your unit. what's it going to take to get the housing stock up to this standard? we spent time talking about this and one of the building types we talk about was soft story buildings and the ground floor is vulnerable because there are openings for garages or windows and during the earthquake we saw in the marina they went right over and those are -- >> very vulnerable buildings. >> very and there are a lot of apartment buildings in san that that are like that. >> and time to. >> >> retrofit the buildings so

people can stay in them after the earthquake. >> what do they need? do they need information? do they need incentives? mandates? >> that's a good question. i think it starts with information. people think that new buildings are earthquake proof and don't understand the performance the building will have so we want a transparent of letting people know is my building going to be safe in it after an earthquake? is my building so dangers i should be afraid of being injured? so developing a ranking system for buildings would be very important and i think for some of the larger apartment buildings that are soft story we need a mandatory program to fix the buildings, not over night and not without financial help or incentive, but a phased program over time that is

reasonable so we can fix those buildings, and for the smaller soft story buildings and especially in san francisco and the houses over garages we need information and incentives and coaxing the people along and each of the owners want their house to be safe enough. >> we want the system and not just mandate everybody. >> that's right. >> i hear about people talking about this concept of resiliency. as you're fixing your knowledge you're adding to the city wide resiliency. >> >> what does that mean? >> that's a great question. what spur has done is look at that in terms of recovery and in new orleans with katrina and lost many of the people, hasn't recovered the building stock.

it's not a good situation. i think we can agree and in san we want to rebuild well and quickly after a major disaster so we have defined what that means for our life lines. how do we need the gasolines to perform and water perform after an earthquake and the building stock as well, so we have the goal of 95% of our homes to be ready for shelter in place after a major earthquake, and that way people can stay within the city. we don't lose our work force. we don't lose the people that make san francisco so special. we keep everybody here and that allow us to recover our economy, and everything because it's so interdependent. >> so that is a difficult goal but i think we can achieve it over the long time so thank you very much for hosting us and hosting this great exhibit, and thank you very much for joining

>> this is one place you can always count on to give you what you had before and remind you of what your san francisco history used to be. >> we hear that all the time, people bring their kids here and their grandparents brought them here and down the line. >> even though people move

away, whenever they come back to the city, they make it here. and they tell us that. >> you're going to get something made fresh, made by hand and made with quality products and something that's very, very good. ♪ >> the legacy bars and restaurants was something that was begun by san francisco simply to recognize and draw attention to the establishments. it really provides for san francisco's unique character. ♪ >> and that morphed into a request that we work with the city to develop a legacy business registration. >> i'm michael cirocco and the owner of an area bakery. ♪ the bakery started in 191.

my grandfather came over from italy and opened it up then. it is a small operation. it's not big. so everything is kind of quality that way. so i see every piece and cut every piece that comes in and out of that oven. >> i'm leslie cirocco-mitchell, a fourth generation baker here with my family. ♪ so we get up pretty early in the morning. i usually start baking around 5:00. and then you just start doing rounds of dough. loaves. >> my mom and sister basically handle the front and then i have my nephew james helps and then my two daughters and my wife come in and we actually do the baking. after that, my mom and my sister stay and sell the product, retail it. ♪

you know, i don't really think about it. but then when i -- sometimes when i go places and i look and see places put up, oh this is our 50th anniversary and everything and we've been over 100 and that is when it kind of hits me. you know, that geez, we've been here a long time. [applause] ♪ >> a lot of people might ask why our legacy business is important. we all have our own stories to tell about our ancestry. our lineage and i'll use one example of tommy's joint. tommy's joint is a place that my husband went to as a child and he's a fourth generation san franciscan. it's a place we can still go to today with our children or grandchildren and share the stories of what was san francisco like back in the 1950s.

>> i'm the general manager at tommy's joint. people mostly recognize tommy's joint for its murals on the outside of the building. very bright blue. you drive down and see what it is. they know the building. tommy's is a san francisco hoffa, which is a german-style presenting food. we have five different carved meats and we carve it by hand at the station. you prefer it to be carved whether you like your brisket fatty or want it lean. you want your pastrami to be very lean. you can say i want that piece of corn beef and want it cut, you know, very thick and i want it with some sauerkraut. tell the guys how you want to prepare it and they will do it right in front of you.

san francisco's a place that's changing restaurants, except for tommy's joint. tommy's joint has been the same since it opened and that is important. san francisco in general that we don't lose a grip of what san francisco's came from. tommy's is a place that you'll always recognize whenever you lock in the door. you'll see the same staff, the same bartender and have the same meal and that is great. that's important. ♪ >> the service that san francisco heritage offers to the legacy businesses is to help them with that application process, to make sure that they really recognize about them what it is that makes them so special here in san francisco.

♪ so we'll help them with that application process if, in fact, the board of supervisors does recognize them as a legacy business, then that does entitle them to certain financial benefits from the city of san francisco. but i say really, more importantly, it really brings them public recognition that this is a business in san francisco that has history and that is unique to san francisco. >> it started in june of 1953. ♪ and we make everything from scratch. everything. we started a you -- we started a off with 12 flavors and mango fruits from the philippines and then started

trying them one by one and the family had a whole new clientele. the business really boomed after that. >> i think that the flavors we make reflect the diversity of san francisco. we were really surprised about the legacy project but we were thrilled to be a part of it. businesses come and go in the city. pretty tough for businesss to stay here because it is so expensive and there's so much competition. so for us who have been here all these years and still be popular and to be recognized by the city has been really a huge honor. >> we got a phone call from a woman who was 91 and she wanted to know if the mitchells still owned it and she was so happy that we were still involved,

still the owners. she was our customer in 1953. and she still comes in. but she was just making sure that we were still around and it just makes us feel, you know, very proud that we're carrying on our father's legacy. and that we mean so much to so many people. ♪ >> it provides a perspective. and i think if you only looked at it in the here and now, you're missing the context. for me, legacy businesses, legacy bars and restaurants are really about setting the context for how we come to be where we are today. >> i just think it's part of san francisco. people like to see familiar stuff. at least i know i do. >> in the 1950s, you could see a picture of tommy's joint and looks exactly the same. we haven't change add thing. >> i remember one lady saying, you know, i've been eating this ice cream since before i was born. and i thought, wow!

we have, too. ♪ there any

announcements? >> clerk: silence all electronic devices. complete speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will be on the september 18th board of supervisors agenda. >> supervisor tang: thank you. call items one through five together. >> clerk: yes. [reading agenda item]