coordinates with the mta. we have folks at the mta do design work. how do you coordinate between the two agencies? >> it depends on the project. for any project in our work plan, we will work with mta on their role in the project. in some cases, like in neighborhood transportation plan, mta will sort of on the technical advisory committee and but they might not be scoped to do any of the work. it's a discussion with mta what role you would like to have on the project, what make sense for your capacity is there and what works in their work program at the time. there have been cases where we have actually contracted with mta to do the design because it's something they've wanted to do or had the staff capacity to do. it varies by project. the scope and role of mta design staff say versus consultant staff is negotiated on project by basis. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i think this is -- i think consultants can be pros and cons and there are times when you can save money by allowing the t.a. not to have additional staffing. i think it's just an

i ask the mta board what are your latest project costs? and how can we continue this new project when our present and regular equipment are continually breaking down, as was mentioned yesterday when 250,000 people were put out of work because of faulty equipment that had not been kept up. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> richard hanlon followed by james bosworth and craig funero. >> good afternoon. >>> good afternoon, directors. my name is richard hanlon. the extraction pit is done at the pagoda and ultimately at some point a station is put there, it would make me very happy. >> thank you. okay. next speaker, please. >> james bosworth, craig fonaro, lance carnes. >> good afternoon. >>> hello, my name is james bosworth and i am here in support of the chinatown and north beach business communities in their opposition to the central subway. ever since the construction of this project, this organization known as the mta has been using lies, trickery and deception to economically terrorize the chinatown and north beach business

mta traffic engineer. it was subsequently thoroughly reviewed by two planning department transportation planners. analysis was conducted by a -- as part of the transportation impact study it would show the same los level of result as in the categorical exemption certificate. in other words the planning department required the same level of analysis to be conducted by mta as it would require for private consultants. in conclusion i'd like to restate the department's categorical exemption fully addressed issues raised in the appellants submittal and no further issues have been raised regarding the accuracy of the categorcategorical exemption. under ceqa guidelines for class 1 and 4 exemptions. the appeal letters do not raise any new issues that were not disclosed or discussed in the exemption and do not provide evidence to substantiate a finding the project would result in it significant environmental impact. therefore, i urge you to uphold the department's categorical exemption and deny the appeal. this con

and that plan went before the mta board. they considered the policy merits of it and decided to pass it unanimously on october 16. again, i just wanted to emphasize because i think it's so important that we were able to engage so many people throughout the community and to come up with a plan that was balanced. and we considered several options. we considered removing a lane of traffic on oak street but oak street is very important for vehicle traffic and people throughout the city, in the western neighborhoods and as well in the eastern neighborhoods who use this street to access, you know, 19th avenue to get to the golden gate bridge or octavia to the 101 that it was important we not increase congestion. i know appellants have stated this project will somehow increase congestion in the neighborhood but our detailed thorough analyze plainly states it won't. we are minimally affecting the road capacity by just removing a travel lane for two hours of the day. currently there's a fourth lane on two blocks of oak street for two

[speaker not understood], san francisco mta. this report requests your approval to execute the emission agreement for the current lease between the city and county of san francisco and the downtown parking corporation. by the way of background, downtown parking corporation, a nonprofit entity, was formed in 1955 to assist the city with the construction of the 5th and mission garage. in 1957 the city and the downtown parking corporation entered into a long-term lease by which the corporation maintained the garage day-to-day operations while getting [speaker not understood] oversight and the policy reaction from the mta. the garage has about 2600 spaces and about 25,000 square feet of retail and [speaker not understood] 18 million in annual gross revenues. * generates in july 2012 mta issued revenue bonds which paid off the debt held by the corporation. subsequently the corporation requested that the lease be terminated and [speaker not understood] the duty that they currently have. so, the last few months the mta staff and the co

but we're just here to speak on the issue of the sf mta.rrounding the sf mta, the budget, how everything's going over there. now, one can say that prop g changed muni, depending on whose glasses you're using. proposition a, you know, we just want to make sure that you, the board members, particularly the new board members when they do come in, really step up to the plate, and have the agency conduct business for the residents of this city like they're supposed to be. no one's paying attention to prop a, transit first. no one. so when we take that into context, this system should be really -- yeah. mr. elsbernd brung up prop g but did it affect anything? i don't know. we have to look at those numbers today because in two weeks they're talking about cutting service to your constituents in the outer neighborhoods. yet take care of the visitors that's coming to shop in union square but what about the individuals in the outer neighborhoods. service is going to be affected deeply with these cuts. so we just ask for you and we are trying to work w

i wanted to call to your attention what the mta is doing with regard to drivers. this is extremely important in terms of service because the drivers are the ones who provide the service. if you don't have good drivers, you don't have good service. if you don't have experienced drivers, you don't have good service. so far they have taken more than $25 million out of the taxi industries, they have approved the leasing of medallions to cab companies, 150 to 200 medallions that are being leased by cab companies cutting off the drivers who have waited for these medallions for up to 17 years. in the next year alone they will receive a minimum of 20 to 25 million dollars from the taxi industry and possibly as much as 50 or 75 million or more. i am not making these numbers up, they are real numbers, i can pencil them out for you. they have taken drivers' futures and thrown them into the gutter. this is what this agency is about. i'm not laying this on staff, i think staff is trying to do their job within the constraints but the pressure is from above and it's all based on

absolutely disappointed with the mta.hip and leadership of this program is a failure and i think if they go forward to the electorate saying we want to raise parking meters, we want to raise more taxes and this program is on the books, good luck. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. president. i( ]9 want to be clear about something first. in terms of the mtc and supervisor campos is correct, that i'm not in any way suggesting that it is somehow prohibited or inappropriate legally to use this money for the free youth pass program. this is one of the allowed uses. but as supervisor elsbernd stawtd stated so is maintenance procurement or rehabs and this is a choice, not a false choice. we heard that yesterday. we heard it today. that is absolutely rhetoric.82( and -- well i don't like it, but the fact is that transit funding is a limited thing. it's not this growing asset. you don't just use the money for something, and then it magically appears from somewhere else. it is a -- for -- i d

mta and mea have not demonstrated class 1 or a categorical exemption exists. there is no bike lane that currently exists. the changes are not minor alterations because onstreet parking will be removed, concrete plantares and buffers added and a commute lane added -- during commute hours. in order to rely on a categorical exemption agency must provide substantial echedz thaevidence that the project is within the exempt category. they have not conducted a transit analysis that cover the second area and cumulative impacts only rhetoric. the city has a duty to investigate the impacts a project will have. categorical exemptions are not absolute. an exemption must be denied if there is reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. or if, quote, significant cumulative impacts from projects of the same type will result. this plan will cause significant direct secondary and cumulative impacts, increase delays on oak, fell, and intersecting streets due to direct and secondary parking impacts, signal timing changes amount

. >> president chiu: colleagues, any other questions to the mta? seeing none, why don't we hear now from members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the project sponsor, ask folks if you can keep your comments to less than two minutes. first speaker please. >> my name is lawrence lee, i'm on the board of lower haight merchants and neighbors association. i would like to reiterate that yeah, we were involved with extensive outreach that the city put on. and during all that outreach, members of the community were invited to weigh in on various options, and elements. and the solution that was eventually approved was something that we were in favor of, which included minor alterations to the existing conditions that namely traded parking for safer travel for bicycles and pedestrians. so with that in mind, we support planning department determination of the project's exemption because the appeal does not support our neighborhood's need for improved safety for the residents, or visitors coming into our neighborhood. and this project is very impo

the leadership on the ground, i think a lot of it is coming from the mta board. but the ground that i'm literally standing on here is ground that used to be here for vehicles, and now it's here for people, for people to walk, to sit, to enjoy. making those decisions are sometimes difficult. they're sometimes controversial. there are trade-offs involved. but we have a very strong board of directors at the mta that has been making these decisions to repurpose, to rethink our rights-of-way, to reorient them back towards pedestrians, to make it safer for pedestrians, to narrow streets so that the crossing distances are shorter, and to really focus on the safety aspects of improving our public rights-of-way. so, i'm happy to have one of my boss as a member of the mta board of directors, jerry lee. >> thank you, thank you. i know that when i speak on behalf of the board of directors, we're really encouraged of the efforts that we're involved with in terms of being at the starting point of square one. this is a critical moment for our city in terms of the efforts of mak

mta traffic engineer.equently thoroughly reviewed by two planning department transportation planners. analysis was conducted by a -- as part of the transportation impact study it would show the same los level of result as in the categorical exemption certificate. in other words the planning department required the same level of analysis to be conducted by mta as it would require for private consultants. in conclusion i'd like to restate the department's categorical exemption fully addressed issues raised in the appellants submittal and no further issues have been raised regarding the accuracy of the categorcategorical exemption. under ceqa guidelines for class 1 and 4x

i ask the mta board what are your latest project costs? and how can we continue this new project when our present and regular equipment are continually breaking down,

and this is a occasion for mta and this is the first rubber tire fa tillty that mta has built in the last 6 years and it is of course, a state of the art facility. in the discussions with the authority, they agreed that was a good idea that they would be able to service all kinds of vehicles and this is significant because it provides an opportunity to service the fleet. which are 60 footers. s and they face one,. the fuel wash facility on the site and the maintenance building itself will be built next year. the next project is the placement of the rail facility, this has been in the works for a lot of years, unfortunately, that facility, was over crowded, and therefore it was difficult to replace that track with the over capacity. and now that it has taken some of the load off they have been able to make room so to speak to be able to replace the track. now, the construct of this also includes, the construction of the east side collection project. funded for the allocation and also coordination of the other district improvements for the balboa station area. and a key aspect of this

brian who advises this board and julia, who advises the mta, the mta being a party to the proceeding and as a result, i don't believe that you received independent and objective advoice on this issue. i think there should have been a firewall between the advice entered to the counsel and this board and the meeting between the executive director and president of this board touching upon similar subject matter. we put in a public records request to the board and the mta requesting among other things records that of meeting or meetings and got nothing back in that record s. it plausible there was no documentation in relationship to those meetings or is that document again hiding behind the veil of attorney-client privilege? last i must note at the hearing that mta actually the director was allowed more than 10 additional minutes to explain the mta's position in response to questions from the president. we had only the initial three minutes allotted to each of the parties. i understand that at times board members may have questions for one party and not the other. but these seem to be cr