to the m.t.a. board? >> it is a permit process, and we are working on some changes as we went through in the presentation. those changes we are intending to spring before the m.t.a. board in mid-december. updates to the transportation code. it is not an r.f.p. it is a permit process. >> no longer temporary, it is permanent? >> permits issued up to one year if the m.t.a. board approves the recommendation to approve the permits up to two years, that would be the timeframe. it is one or two year permit. it is a buffer present process. -- different process. the transportation code will be considered in mid-december. the elements of the application process will be updated as appropriate and issued in january so they will be the chance for interested parties to apply to let m.t.a. know how they will meet our standards and help us meet our goals. >> your point, the application itself has a detailed scoring criteria as well. we haven't figured out the metrics for the rounds yet. in the past we had 66 separate cri

to the m.t.a. board? >> it is a permit process, and we are working on some changes as we went through in the presentation. those changes we are intending to spring before the m.t.a. board in mid-december. updates to the transportation code. it is not an r.f.p. it is a permit process. >> no longer temporary, it is permanent? >> permits issued up to one year if the m.t.a. board approves the recommendation to approve the permits up to two years, that would be the timeframe. it is one or two year permit. it is a buffer present process. -- different process. the transportation code will be considered in mid-december. the elements of the application process will be updated as appropriate and issued in january so they will be the chance for interested parties to apply to let m.t.a. know how they will meet our standards and help us meet our goals. >> your point, the application itself has a detailed scoring criteria as well. we haven't figured out the metrics for the rounds yet. in the past we had 66 separate cri

to the m.t.a. board? >> it is a permit process, and we are working on some changes as we went through in the presentation. those changes we are intending to spring before the m.t.a. board in mid-december. updates to the transportation code. it is not an r.f.p. it is a permit process. >> no longer temporary, it is permanent? >> permits issued up to one year if the m.t.a. board approves the recommendation to approve the permits up to two years, that would be the timeframe. it is one or two year permit. it is a buffer present process. -- different process. the transportation code will be considered in mid-december. the elements of the application process will be updated as appropriate and issued in january so they will be the chance for interested parties to apply to let m.t.a. know how they will meet our standards and help us meet our goals. >> your point, the application itself has a detailed scoring criteria as well. we haven't figured out the metrics for the rounds yet. in the past we had 66 separate cri

i just have to ask that the m.t.a. board of directors look into the transfer and bring it to the public's attention. >> you have six questions remaining. >> how is it going? i am calling in regards to the great walkway. i urge the m.t.a. to get this right according to supervisor mar's office. they are taking heat and families and friends use the great highway on a regular basis. just tired of the back and forth between public agencies during the public health crisis. this should be a slam-dunk, but it turned into a quagmire. let's get this right. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> you have five questions remaining. >> good afternoon. i am cynthia. i am with the housing rights committee of san francisco. it is an organization that supports renters in city and through the clinic we serve thousands every year half of which are extremely low income. more and more of san francisco is falling into this as a result of covid-19 and the economic recession. now is not the time to site people again. we are very concerned to hear th

so just to remind the public, the m.t.a. board -- i mean, we were prepared for this as director tumlin has noted. so we did provide the board with a number of options that we would execute if we saw our revenues were coming in at a pace not matching expenditures. so we do look at that monthly. that data is available on sfmta.com for the public. the first is it eliminate the board reserve, if the revenues came in higher than we anticipated. so that was an easy move, unallocated expenditures that we immediately reduced. we impelemented overtime controls so that's about $37 million in savings, almost 50% less than the prior fiscal year. we have a hiring freeze for all positions except mission critical positions. a lot of people ask us what that is. you know, those are specific trade positions, position positt have a long lead time to hire. and some specific classifications around overheadlines or stationary engineers that could take us two years to fill a position of that type, based on the list and the number of candidates available

so just to remind the public, the m.t.a. board -- i mean, we were prepared for this as director tumlin has noted. so we did provide the board with a number of options that we would execute if we saw our revenues were coming in at a pace not matching expenditures. so we do look at that monthly. that data is available on sfmta.com for the public. the first is it eliminate the board reserve, if the revenues came in higher than we anticipated. so that was an easy move, unallocated expenditures that we immediately reduced. we impelemented overtime controls so that's about $37 million in savings, almost 50% less than the prior fiscal year. we have a hiring freeze for all positions except mission critical positions. a lot of people ask us what that is. you know, those are specific trade positions, position positt have a long lead time to hire. and some specific classifications around overheadlines or stationary engineers that could take us two years to fill a position of that type, based on the list and the number of candidates available

has submitted proposed resolution language yesterday for the board's consideration into the final resolution. safeway is supportive of m.t.a.'s effort to restoring muni and appreciative of this opportunity to highlight couple of things that we have questions on and to present the proposed resolution along for incorporation by the board. if there's any questions regarding the proposed language, i'm available for any questions. that concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> chair borden: thank you. next speaker please. >> good evening. i'm kelly mill. i'm a resident of the marina boulevard. i'm here to put stamp on number 30 extension. i heard mr. kennedy to speak this meeting. we weren't able to give our inquiries. in addition to the weight limit to the zero people on the bus, the expense that they've locked the city into for the next five years for outhouse i in -- no oe taken into consideration the danger to the pedestrian and the cyclist. you see the stops on mason street and per study yeo -- -- e this to heart and reevaluate this whole misappropriation of funds. thank you. >> chair borden

m.t.a. budget rather than central subway program. the amount available in the central subway project. we do recommend approval with a recommendation that this committee and the board request a written report from m.t.a. on revisedded budget for the central subway project no later than february 2021. i am available for any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. supervisors, any comments or questions on this item? >> i think they are disappointing delays. seeing no one in the queue we will open this up for public comment. >> operations, please let us know if callers are ready press star three to be added to the queue. if you are on hold wait until you are unmuted. let us know if there are callers for item 15. >> we have no caller in the queue. >> public comment is closedded on item 15. i may being a motion to approve the recommendation from the bla. >> yes for clarification would you like to include that recommendation instead of resolution? >> thank you. to request a written report. no later than february 1, 2021. and it is included in the legislative file. >> is that separate motion? >> yes. >> vote on that, please. >> the motion by supervisor fewer to am

m.t.a. budget rather than central subway program. the amount available in the central subway project. we do recommend approval with a recommendation that this committee and the board request a written report from m.t.a. on revisedded budget for the central subway project no later than february 2021. i am available for any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. supervisors, any comments or questions on this item? >> i think they are disappointing delays. seeing no one in the queue we will open this up for public comment. >> operations, please let us know if callers are ready press star three to be added to the queue. if you are on hold wait until you are unmuted. let us know if there are callers for item 15. >> we have no caller in the queue. >> public comment is closedded on item 15. i may being a motion to approve the recommendation from the bla. >> yes for clarification would you like to include that recommendation instead of resolution? >> thank you. to request a written report. no later than february 1, 2021. and it is included in the legislative file. >> is that separate motion? >> yes. >> vote on that, please. >> the motion by supervisor fewer to am

m.t.a. are also frustrated, also seems like we've been -- i mean, i've been here a few times. people who have been on the board longer than me have been in conversations like this for a very long time. and it can't continue like this. i guess -- i mean, i noticed -- and i thank you for the briefing on the ballast issue. i may have just forgotten this. i noticed the path to construction, a decision was made to not -- to neither use new ballast or used the old ballast to -- who made -- it doesn't have to be a person. how did that decision get made? how did it get reviewed? who ultimately is responsible for that decision? >> i can -- >> tom, why don't you. >> i'll start and julie can fill in more of the details. so that -- yeah. so that decision was made -- it was made jointly by m.t.a. staff and the contractor. they had to weigh a couple of tricky issues in the field, including the possibility that some of the material might be contaminated and might need to be removed. however, that critical decision i think needed to have been elevated sooner and faster and talked about with the more comprehensive view of all

m.t.a. would release this in early 2021, depending on the outcome of this process and also some legislation from the board of supervisors that i'll get to in just a minute. the proposers would be selected next summer. the funding would also be used to evaluate the request and there's some requests until 2023, when the project is expected to be completed. over and our work would be funded in part through this request. this is in recognition of the scale and the impact of this project as well as the novelty of the joint project delivery method the building is seismically insufficient, and we must retrofit it as a safe location for our employees. the project strives to an exemplar of the sfmta's complete policy vision, with fully developed streetscape enhancements, urban design that supports transit riders, pedestrians, and cyclists. we also support the citywide vision for housing on this site and has provided a transparent forum for all stakeholders to engage in developing the housing program. the purpose of today's request is to advocate requests to allow the project to proceed and to continue conversation

m.t.a. would release this in early 2021, depending on the outcome of this process and also some legislation from the board of supervisors that i'll get to in just a minute. the proposers would be selected next summer. the funding would also be used to evaluate the request and there's some requests until 2023, when the project is expected to be completed. over and our work would be funded in part through this request. this is in recognition of the scale and the impact of this project as well as the novelty of the joint project delivery method the building is seismically insufficient, and we must retrofit it as a safe location for our employees. the project strives to an exemplar of the sfmta's complete policy vision, with fully developed streetscape enhancements, urban design that supports transit riders, pedestrians, and cyclists. we also support the citywide vision for housing on this site and has provided a transparent forum for all stakeholders to engage in developing the housing program. the purpose of today's request is to advocate requests to allow the project to proceed and to continue conversation

m.t.a. would release this in early 2021, depending on the outcome of this process and also some legislation from the board of supervisors that i'll get to in just a minute. the proposers would be selected next summer. the funding would also be used to evaluate the request and there's some requests until 2023, when the project is expected to be completed. over and our work would be funded in part through this request. this is in recognition of the scale and the impact of this project as well as the novelty of the joint project delivery method the building is seismically insufficient, and we must retrofit it as a safe location for our employees. the project strives to an exemplar of the sfmta's complete policy vision, with fully developed streetscape enhancements, urban design that supports transit riders, pedestrians, and cyclists. we also support the citywide vision for housing on this site and has provided a transparent forum for all stakeholders to engage in developing the housing program. the purpose of today's request is to advocate requests to allow the project to proceed and to continue conversation

m.t.a. would release this in early 2021, depending on the outcome of this process and also some legislation from the boardat i'll get to in just a minute. the proposers would be selected next summer. the funding would also be used to evaluate the request and there's some requests until 2023, when the project is expected to be completed. over and our work would be funded in part through this request. this is in recognition of the scale and the impact of this project as well as the novelty of the joint project delivery method the building is seismically insufficient, and we must retrofit it as a safe location for our employees. the project strives to an exemplar of the sfmta's complete policy vision, with fully developed streetscape enhancements, urban design that supports transit riders, pedestrians, and cyclists. we also support the citywide vision for housing on this site and has provided a transparent forum for all stakeholders to engage in developing the housing program. the purpose of today's request is to advocate requests to allow the project to proceed and to continue conversation about the overall

m.t.a. we understand for all these projects where we have a project agreement that has to be signed where there's a lease that has to be signed, that has to go before the board of supervisors. that is a very essential part of the process. the community conversations, we have similar balboa reservoir and we have a working group that's been meeting over two years now. the checking with the board of supervisors is very important. we've been having regular monthly meetings with districts 9 and 10. it's very technical, it's really about procurement path and this joint development partnership approach that we're looking to pursue for delivering bus yard. one of the recommendations that the b.l.a. put in the legislation, it's early check-in with the board of supervisors. that the project details and we can spend 30 minutes talking about project detail an, early n in the process, go before the board of supervisors for board of supervisors review. it's not an up-down vote. we're a week away from signing the lease. we're kind of getting to some consensus with the board at that time in terms of what that project looks like. all of those projects and specific details an

m.t.a. we understand for all these projects where we have a project agreement that has to be signed where there's a lease that has to be signed, that has to go before the board of supervisors. that is a very essential part of the process. the community conversations, we have similar balboa reservoir and we have a working group that's been meeting over two years now. the checking with the board of supervisors is very important. we've been having regular monthly meetings with districts 9 and 10. it's very technical, it's really about procurement path and this joint development partnership approach that we're looking to pursue for delivering bus yard. one of the recommendations that the b.l.a. put in the legislation, it's early check-in with the board of supervisors. that the project details and we can spend 30 minutes talking about project detail an, early n in the process, go before the board of supervisors for board of supervisors review. it's not an up-down vote. we're a week away from signing the lease. we're kind of getting to some consensus with the board at that time in terms of what that project looks like. all of those projects and specific details an

m.t.a. would release this in early 2021, depending on the outcome of this process and also some legislation from the board of supervisors that i'll get to in just a minute. the proposers would be selected next summer. the funding would also be used to evaluate the request and there's some requests until 2023, when the project is expected to be completed. over and our work would be funded in part through this request. this is in recognition of the scale and the impact of this project as well as the novelty of the joint project delivery method the building is seismically insufficient, and we must retrofit it as a safe location for our employees. the project strives to an exemplar of the sfmta's complete policy vision, with fully developed streetscape enhancements, urban design that supports transit riders, pedestrians, and cyclists. we also support the citywide vision for housing on this site and has provided a transparent forum for all stakeholders to engage in developing the housing program. the purpose of today's request is to advocate requests to allow the project to proceed and to continue conversation

m.t.a. we understand for all these projects where we have a project agreement that has to be signed where there's a lease that has to be signed, that has to go before the board of supervisors. that is a very essential part of the process. the community conversations, we have similar balboa reservoir and we have a working group that's been meeting over two years now. the checking with the board of supervisors is very important. we've been having regular monthly meetings with districts 9 and 10. it's very technical, it's really about procurement path and this joint development partnership approach that we're looking to pursue for delivering bus yard. one of the recommendations that the b.l.a. put in the legislation, it's early check-in with the board of supervisors. that the project details and we can spend 30 minutes talking about project detail an, early n in the process, go before the board of supervisors for board of supervisors review. it's not an up-down vote. we're a week away from signing the lease. we're kind of getting to some consensus with the board at that time in terms of what that project looks like. all of those projects and specific details an