tv Transportation Authority Plans and Programs Committee 102015 SFGTV October 25, 2015 1:00am-2:06am PDT
seeing none, public comment on consent calendar. seeing none public comment is closed. sorry. >> good morning chair tang. just to note that after we mailed the packet, the staff did provide another revised version of the one bay area grant formula fund. san francisco did receive a share cut. we're investigating the basis for that. we want to let you know and will report back to you next month. >> thank you for that update. any members of the public on the consent calendar? okay, seeing none, public comment closed. >> on the consent calendar, commissioner breed, christian christensen, farrell, tang, commissioner yee, consent calendar is approved.
>> consent calendar approved. item six please. >> item six recommend appointment of one member to the transit advisory committee. this is an action time. -- item. >> good morning commissioners. this item is appointment of one member to the citizens advisory committee. items on the page 37 of your packet. he's seeking to approve transit service in the garry correspond -- gearry corridor. we have our draft environmental impact statement and environmental impact report out for public comment. we are seeking public comment on that through november 16th. we do have a meeting on n ovember 5th at st. mary's
cathedral. the item for you today is the c ac appointment for the project. meets bimonthly. the structure is shown in your memo. the current vacancy is for one member, paul chance, who has expired. he's seeking reappointment to one of the at large seats. there are 12 other members that are also shown in your attachment. in addition to paul, there are 25 additional candidate have applied to the seat. their applications can be found in the enclosure as well as summarized in the matrix in your attachment. all of the candidates, just to note, regardless of the n eighbor, are eligible for the at large seat. having encouraged applicants to appear today. paul is here and possibly some other others.
we at staff don't endorse candidates. thank you. >> thank you very much. at this time, we'll call up any of the candidate who are here for the gearry cac. there's one person here today. please come up to the podium. >> good morning commissioners. i'm paul that collin mentioned. my chairmanship expired and i'm seeking your support for my reappointment. first i like to thank the committee for your previous recommendations that i was appointed to the cac. it's been a great experience for me. i want to get reappointed for the reasons being three fold. the first is -- i would like to be a part of the process. i'm a transit rider. i think that san francisco is such great city, it should have
a topnotch mass transit system. it needs it, because we're a good city for that. gearry brt is a good starting point including the others to get in the rights direction. i would be proud to be a part of that process. secondly, i think that i will benefit the cac in the sensation i'm a engineer by profession. i bring analytical skills to the process. i'm a good communicator and i'm good with people. i found that helps in terms of dealing with interactions with the public. trying to make the project a success for everyone. thirdly, i also feel -- i'm s eeking reappointment because i feel a sense of responsibility and duty to finish this. as colin mention, the draft er
has been an issue. it's estimated this committee will end in spring. at that time, the cac will be asked to vote on the project. i feel like it will be a more meaningful vote people that have been there for a while, make that vote as opposed to asking someone who came in to might that tough call, say hey, what do you think of it. you only been here for two m eetings. i hope that i have your support and thank you for your time. >> thank you very much for your presentation. last call for any applicants. seeing none, any questions from committee members? we'll open up this item to public comments. any member of the public wish to comment on item six please. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleague, any recommendations? >> recommend that we reappoint paul chang to the at large seat.
>> motioned by commissioner yee. i think mr. chan you made a good case for yourself. i will be happy to see you continue in this role. be happy to bring to the cac not only your background as an engineer but your institutional memory from the beginning about this project. with that then, can we take this item without objection? seeing no objections, mr. chan, congratulations. you're back on the cac. okay, item seven please. >> item seven, recommend allocating formulating 85,243 85,243 subject to fiscal distribution schedule. this is an action item. >> we have chad from the t.a. >> chad with the transportation authority. we have five requests in the first one is a request from
public works on repaving on ingall and industrial vetoes. they v e to -- streets. that index goes from zero to 100. so much need improvement. on the next project is bicycle way finding sign. it shows the current sign. back in the back it was funded with the previous sales tax and the current request from sfmta would be in a pilot for new s igns that look like the slides now. there's a pilot that will run for the first half of 2016 to ensure that the agency fine the protocols. the project that's also funded, leveraging prop k it's funded about $800,000 in transportation program funds which are from the
metropolitan transportation commission. the sfmta would request additional prop k some time in spring of 2016. next request is for youth bicycle safety education c lasses. the consultant contractor that the sfmta would use for this project is through a contract and the contractors are san francisco bicycle coalition. there's some laboring included. that will be for fund program management. they use a selection process, very similar to the process used by the safe house school p rogram. looking at schools highway to students, receiving free and reduced lunch and effective way of reaching populations. also working with district staff to identify priority schools. the plans and programs committee considered a prop k results
back in spring of 2015. at that time committee members raised concerns around strategy, equity and cost effectiveness of the classes. sfmta has addressed a number of these concerns. some of the responses are enclosed in the memo of these items. sfmta anticipates finishing a transportation strategy in spring of 2016. which will include a vision for education for adults and youth going forward. the next project is bayview m oves van share pilot. it can be used for day trips for seniors and others including pool trips to clinics, hospitals or grocery stores. initial f unding for this project will be for 10 months of operation of the shuttle. one of the goals will be to secure nonprop k funds to extend the program for 18 months.
the last project this morning is the geneva-hear -- harneybrt funds. additional potential through the ecology property. the requested funds will support analysis of parking and traffic impacts to geneva avenue in response about the alternatives proposed. sfmta expects work to be completed by june of 2016. with that, i'm happy to take any questions. we have staff from the r equesting agencies here. >> thank you. commissioner yee. curious in terms of the schools we're talking about. where are they?
>> they have been selected and included in the prop k allocation request form. if you have the enclosure handy, it will be on page 47. >> thank you. >> all right any other questions or comments from committee members? i would say that, this package looks fine to me. the new way finding signs is a great idea. just seeing visually the clutter of the previous signs are the existing ones. in terms of the
youth bicycle safety education classes, i'm glad that the departments are working with the contractors to provide us with the metrics or work towards that goal. i appreciate everyone listening to the committee members on t hat. i think that the bayview pilot is interesting. would love to see the results of that as well once the pilot is over. well, seeing no other questions, we'll move on to public comment on item seven. any members of the public. public comment closed. committee members, motion on item seven. without objection, item seven is adopted. item eight please. >> recommend approving san francisco's seagulls and p roblems for plan b area 2040.
>> we have the assistant deputy director from the ta. >> good morning, this is b uilding on an item that you've seen buffer over the last couple of months. today will be for approval, the objectives for plan bay area 2040 as well as the project recommendations from our p rojects. i'm going to go through here quickly for the sake of time. feel free to stop me if you have questions. plan bay area 2040 is an update to 2013's plan bay area. it includes a number of things. it includes jobs and housing allocation, revenue forecast and contributions to a financially
constrained. any project that's moving forward before 2040 or a significantly changes capacity of the transportation system needs to be included in the p lanned area either as a nared project or part of a category. the goals of objectives have been changed since we presented last month. we want to make sure everything that needs to be in there is there. we want to advocate for additional funds for transits. which is something that came up in the last plan is really important for san francisco. we want to make sure as much revenue as possible go to san francisco priority and then advocate for new revenue s ources. also, exploring some specific policy areas that are important to san francisco. such as vision zero and in particular, something that's coming up a lot in the discussion is equity issues around affordability and
displacement. we issued the call for projects in may. just as a reminder, the call for projects in the san francisco project list that's in your packet is one of three different processes going together that will create the universal projects. alongside the projects, the regional transit operators and transportation agencies are submitting their list of p rojects directly to mtc. mtc is performing an elevation for local street and roads. all of that will be taken into consideration in the development of the final scenario. we were getting bund of $8.4 billion. that's the money we have to distribute to close the gap. we do anticipate mtc will come back to us later in the year are w -- with a slightly smaller
amount. any project that's moving forward before 2021 needs to be in the rtp. luckily most of the projects that you see before you are small enough to be bungled into problematic categories. all of these can be handled and don't have to be named individually. when identifying the specific priorities in your packet, we looked at the existing projects. we got update on the funding plan. when evaluating new projects, we worked with stakeholders to identify what the -- we asks does it need to be individually listed or could it be bundled into one of those problematic
categories opinion the next question, does it need to move forward with construction before 2021. then what kind of planning effort did the project come f rom. these are just a few examples of the existing 2013 plan bay area projects that were proposing to move forward in this plan bay area 2040. many of these projects listed here weren't just san f rancisco's top performers it's regional top performers in the 2013 plan. some examples of the new p rojects that are proposed, things you've seen before you in the last three years. things like late night transit, expanded bus service and v ehicles. there's a lot of projects r elated to development efforts that are going on across the city. probably the two biggest revenue service proposals would be the muny metro 19th avenue core
capacity. it's important to know there are many planning processes going on now. there's rail trail. there's the rail yard study. there's a lot of planning going on. there's a lot of good ideas that came out the discussion. however, we do have a financially constrained target. what we did do create a rail capacity long term planning project for each transit operator. that would allow projects -- once planning efforts are over and priorities are identified, it will allow the projects that are identified to move forward with planning and conceptual engineering. being able to move forward with everything up until the environmental document needs to be signed. with these larger transit projects, that is going to take through 2021. this strategy will allow us to
move forward with anything we need -- before the next rtp is approved. some of the sfmta investments that were included in this category, would be the extension of the central subway. additional light rail in ther upper market, under-grounding. there's been a lot of discussion about the bart potential new tube. that's all included in there. we talked about core capacity transit study and the rail yard study last month. this is allieding up into a long range planning effort that we're embarking upon with the sfmta and the planning department and the mayor's office that hopefully will culminate a
comprehensive city vision for transportation over the next 50 years. this is for approval today so we can submit it by the end of the month. mtc will be analysessing the project -- analyzing the project and putting scenarios and packages of projects. approving a preferred scenario in mid-2016. you can see here, the end of 2015 is busy. there's still a lot of work to do through its adoption. the plan's adoption in 2017. with that, i'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. >> thank you so much for the presentation. commissioner yee? >> i'm just curious, like, maybe this is little bit too soon. we've been talking about the 19th avenue. is there any reason why it may
not be included in this bunch of projects? >> the 19th avenue core capacity is funded capital projects. it's a project that could start construction before 2021. >> is it in here? i didn't notice it. >> number 48. attachment three. >> it's in there, i thought. any other questions or comments? just looking over this package, i think that -- i want to thank you all for working collaboratively to make sure we have a good list of projects. i'm fine with passing this out as is. if we can get a motion. motioned by christensen and seconded by yee.
oh, public comment. seeing none. public comment closed. >> one more thing. i want to acknowledge all of the city staff that worked incredibly hard on this. it wasn't just an effort on our staff, everyone deserves an applause across the city. >> thank you for acknowledging them. with that, we have motion by commissioner christensen and yee. item eight is adopted. >> item nine, adopting the partnership project. >> we have ryan green, senior transportation planner. >> thank you all so much. i'm here to tell you about our travel demand management partnership project which we're wrapping up. this is a partnership project between four city agencies and also involving a number of
employer, private sector employers and the four city agencies who participated were items and the department of city planning. they all played a very active role in this project. it was funded through a grant from the metropolitan transportation commission climate initiatives program. their objectives was to test different approaches torussing climate change through employer engagement around sustainable transportation policies. it was funded by prop k. as i mentioned, we're wrapping up the project pretty much over at this point. we've prepared a fact sheet which is in your packet starting on page 83. you're looking for your adoption on those final report. i'll briefly share some lessons learned from the project. before getting too far, i just
wanted to briefly define what is travel demand management. i refer to a whole suite of policies that can shape how people travel. it's distinguished from major infrastructure and investment. it's sort of the soft side of transportation. it's sort of activities we do to shape transportation behavior outside of our major infrastructure. it's important in context where especially like in san f rancisco, where we have a lot of growth or we're facing transportation challenges that we can't respond to them quickly enough through infrastructure and investment. we don't have the resources of the time to just use infrastructure to respond. there are three main categories. one category is information outreach. using information to shape how people get around. we can break that down into different user groups, like employers, schools and
r esidents. we can think about tdm in terms of policies on existing development. for example policies around how we mediate access to curb space in the city. there's also policies around new development. that's really a leverage point for us where we can request changes to new development to encourage more sustainable use. that's a quickover view of tdm. we focus on the information and outreach wedge of this. most of the pilot projects involved engagement with employers. it did include funding for some of the start-up activities around sfmta's commuter shuttle. pilot program which was more in the curb and road access wedge there. i think as chris noted, we did get lot of questions around that
interest. we're working to connect sfmta staff with our cac to get their questions answered on that. we're focusing on the employer angle. that's where a lot of our focus was. we did quite a few project p ilots. focused on supporting employers and adopting sustainable transportation policies and programs. just because of time c onstraints, i won't be able to go through each one of them. you have a fact sheet on each one of them. one of the most programs was the sf state go state pilot program. we have student centers and other means. we did have some evidence of some travel behaviorships with this marketing campaign. one of the reasons it was really
successful because sf state have engaged staff available to help with the program. i don't know if you familiar with the planner. she was really great. was really champion for the program and helped really make it happen. we found level interests among employers. they were employers we reached out to. transportation is not always on the top of their list. i think one of the take aways for us, when we want to make a larger investment in working with an employer, that we need to be selective and work with employers who are engaged to make it happen. it gives us a person to work
with. for other employers, again transportation may not abthe top -- may not be at the top of their list. those were some of the high level lessons learned. there's a lot more information about each one of them in your packet. another major product of the study was the travel demand management strategy worked on this closely with other agency partners and some of them are n the audience here. this was prepared in response to kind of a recognition that prior to this project, various agencies had been doing travel demand management. but isolated from one another. it's to try to bring the a gencies together and form partnerships to help coordinate how question do t -- how tdm going forward. we prepared that last year. we still have a very strong partnership moving forward. the agency executive directors are very engaged in making sure
there continue to be a very strong coordination partnership. that work is ongoing. could spend more time detailing it. but in the interest of time, we'll conclude there. happy to answer any questions that you have about this p roject. >> thank you for your presentation. today our action item is to adopt the final report or f indings. in terms, can you talk more about in. are you going to be building upon these pilots and making these recommendations permanent and moving on to other projects? if you can talk about that. >> yes, there's a lot of work that's going on that's kind of falls in that pie chart. there's a great deal of work and under kind of umbrella of tdm. there are a lot of initiatives moved forward that have been influenced by had work. one example is residential tdm.
that was in part as a response to -- after we did a lot of focus on employer outreach on that program, found that varying levels of interest, one of the take aways we needed to try was residential. outreach was one. that's a way of working, kind of getting more direct access to travelers. that was funded -- we did provide some funding for that. you have previously approved through tfca. that work is under way. you'll be hearing more about it. there's work to develop more consistent tdm requirements for new development. there's a whole suite of different activities. these are two examples of some initiatives moving forward. >> great, thank you so much. seeing no questions or comments from committee members, thank you for your presentation. are there any members of the public like to comment on item
nine. >> i like supervisors to study our general management plan and to see how our transportation needs are met today in san francisco with all the congestion and the flux that's happening. for example, we have the light rail that starts from 4th and king to the middle of visitation rally. how can we address transportation management when we have a flaw like this. instead of light being connected to balboa station, it ends in the middle of visitation rally. instead of getting hundreds of people starting from ball bow -- balboa that can take them all
the way to downtown, we do it the other way around. we have all of this experts and they work with the universities and they work with everybody, they do not work with the e xperts from the neighborhoods. this is why this is happening in that the city and with our m ayor. he's selling out this city. everybody knows it. it's a topic that some of the board of supervisors, instead of truly representing the people, are selling out the community. i i know all of you. i know some of are you are deeply. when experts come here and talk about some sort of management, we need data that goes to the local population. to san franciscans who made this city. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public
who wish to comment? >> just a little slow here. >> public comment closed >> i do have a couple of questions. we're basically closing out this effort. what happens from here? >> trying to allude to that. again, there are many different fronts that we're moving forward on with tdm. there's activities in each one of those areas. in terms of the outreach and encouragement, there's residential outreach program that we're on. sfmta and sfc are working on what are the next steps for employer engagement. sfmta also has over programs. they'll be happy to comment on .
we have the commuter shutly pilot. there's work at the transportation authority. we're interested in this tool to shape behavior. we've explored pricing in the past. it's a very powerful tool to shape behavior. it can be controversial and challenging. we're very interested in e xploring it. i spoken to you all about our bart pilot to look at that as a tool to shaping behavior and u sing this incentive tool. those are two examples there. the area of new development, there's work under way that under the tsp program i think most of you are somewhat familiar with to some 1 a -- up with a standardized approach. >> it seems like this study
focused primarily types of u sers. we have student, hospitals and employers. it's focused on methodology. making transit information more available through screens, different programs. the conclusions, though, you look into the fine print, well executed, well documented. but the conclusions we didn't move the needle much. >> i think on employer outreach in particular, trying to allude to that in my presentation. there was a varying level of employer engagement. i think most of these pilots were pretty ambitious in terms of what we're asking the employers to do. they all needed to execute contracts in order to participate. there were pilot program focused on -- encouraging employers to change their parking policies. we found for many employers,
transportation is not highen high -- high on their priority list. we need to be selective moving forward. we do need to(ú83p-/ have motivated champions like people -- like on the sight transportation coordinators and sf state. if they don't exist, these are voluntary programs, we need to use a lighter touch. lighter touch meaning come to a lunchtime workshop and hear about some new tools you can take home to influence your employer program. beyond that, i think if we want to see widespread change, regulation can come in. we don't have any proposals forthcoming about what that should look like. it was a finding -- we can only get so far with voluntary programs. we need to be selective about who we work with on that.
>> it seems that the programs that worked best are the ones that becomes intuitive because they work better. it's an observation. i noticed that when private transportation companies, for example, decide to offer s ervices or to expand services, they generally are g eographically focused. rather than focusing on a type of rider or type of employer or that sort of generalize, they tend -- people want to go from here to here a lot. if we provide a service that g ets people from here to here a lot, then we'll be successful. unfortunately that tend to be in areas whereas as a city, we haven't been able to provide transportation. i heard private ride sharing services to fisherman's war for example had been started and expanded. there are at the love people that want to get there. they're having a hard time get drug. -- all of these services
are doing so in corridors. we haven't been able to meet the needs. is there advantage in looking at this more geographic -- i guess we do everyday trying to figure out how we can augment transportation to make it more effective. >> thank you so much commissioner christensen. this is a huge topic. when we talk about the infrastructure strategy of the city. we're really talking about the education and outreach as well as the encouragement and regulatory wedge that ryan mentioned. i think commissioner christensen when you talk about the private sector coming in, one of the things we can do, to really send a clear signal. what is it that we want employer or private companies to do.
what is it we don't wish them to do and to be clear. you're seeing that with the initial shuttle evaluations and follow update to that policy. commissioner farrell asked for a separate analysis and there's the ride sharing services that are also out there. one of our goals as a city family, to try and figure out how to clearly articulate. what is it the guidelines we can put out to further clarify how we like folks to respond and partner with the city. one of the things that we struggle with, how much to use regulation versus encouragement and incentives. we would seek guidance from the board on that. one of the things that ryan found, though, was that it does help to have a dedicated person to work with in the community. to the extent that we have organizations set up suchs the transportation management association, she's playing that
role in the north of market area c3 area, there's a mission bay transportation management organization. we got transportation coordinators. as we look to the next generation, this is something that's top of mind. how do we get ahead of that. how do we make sure we have a frequent and smooth coordination channel with all of those folks. maybe set up the next generation of those so the city have an efficient way to partner with groups of employers or groups of buildings. >> thank you very much. any other questions? we taken public comment already. commissioners, can i get a explosion on item nine please? motioned by commissioner farrell and seconded by commissioner yee. without objection, item nine is adopted. item ten. >> major campaign projects
updates. this is an informational item >> we have bob macy here. >> good morning chair c ommittees. i'm bob macy, senior engineer with the transportation authority. today i'll be giving you an informational update on the brt project. the map here shows the core transit network in san francisco with proposed brt line shown in yellow. there will be two muny routes use the busway, accommodating over 16,000 in the corridor. this will highlight some of the key features in san francisco including the dedicated transit
lanes. the brt will make transit more speedier and rideable. improve the safety for all the road users and maintain the person throughput along the corridor. van ness is a transportation project. the core brt project is r eflected in the two inner blue circles in this graphic. this is the project that prop k and fta's program is funded. at the same time, a project is a good opportunity to improve the state and other utilities. the project works close well caltrans, sf public works and other divisions within sfmta to include these five parallel projects. these projects include some work that is triggered by the brt, they include upgrades that have independent value. they are combined into a single
construction project. fital design for this project as reached 100% level as of september. that includes the shelters, r ailings and landscaping. the tree shown here are gong tr. these trees were selected to have a strong urban survivability. the project will be replacing any existing trees that are removed at a 2-1 ratio. this design has been approved by the san francisco arts commission. listen going before the commission this wednesday r elated to the portion that runs through the civic center historic district. this exhibit provides break down of the core brt project.
the budget by phase is on the left and committed funding source is on the right. since the last plans and committee update, there's been a budget increase of about $700,000. which is fully funded through sfmta revenue bonds. all the studies have been e xpended. final design budget is about 6 0%. the budget includes starting and test up costs as well as the healthy contingency. sfmta is delivering this project using the construction manager general considering for cmgc method. and awarded the contract to walsh construction in july. the transportation authority has worked with sfmta to avoid some of the pitfalls that have been experienced using this method and some other san francisco
projects. in particular, this included the core contractors and subcontractors for the utility work and the overhead contact system in the initial proposal. they're already part of the t eam. we expect surprises when some of the minor work goes out to bid. we've been very encouraged by walsh's early engagement. they've made a lot of good suggestions to improve our traffic management. all of this better keep the avenue running during construction. sfmta has extended its final design phase to evaluate and incorporate the contractor suggestion into its plans. this method is taking some additional time during preconstruction. since the previous update to the plans and program, the schedule has been delayed one quarter mostly due to this c ollaboration. construction is now expected to begin by early 2016 and should last 2.5 years under our current assumptions. revenue service is now
anticipated to begin early 2019. updated rendering of the project that shows the wide medians that have been preserved between stations as part of the locally preferred alternatives. sfmta is now working with walsh for any changes that might improve the value and construction duration of the project. we're working with caltrans to finalize all the project p ermits. sfmta will work with walsh to agree on a guaranteeded maximum price and set up a construction schedule that the contractor will be held to these terms once construction begins. sfmta has applied for the agreement in april of 2015 and expect to secure the agreement by early of 2016. barring any delays due to federal shut downs. the next application for the prop k sales tax funds will be to match these fta funds to the construction phase. that should be also be in early
2016. thanks a lot. i'm happy to take questions >> thank you very much. commissioner christensen. >> wonder if you can address the coordination of this project with the proposed hope street sewer replacement project? >> sure. that project and this project are both joint efforts of public works and sfmta. the teams are in close contacts. as this project is using the cmg method, we're going through the schedule with a fine tooth comb with a contractor. we'll a strong baseline schedule we'll be able to share with that other contract. make sure we're minimizing the destruction >> is it going to be some efforts so start one at one end and one at the other? is there some way to avoid cross disruption? >> the contractor had a really good idea of sequencing this
project. sort of separate things a little bit one side of van ness at a time. it would be affecting the directionality of the impact. each of these phases that the contractor proposing will have a three or four month duration. we should be able to work with the project to give them windows where they'll experience less disruption in different parts of their project compared to where we're working. >> i think mta outreach on the central subway construction has been exemplary. yet, i have a long list of unhappy constituents who have found large equipment on their sidewalk for months longer than anticipated. efforts just to keep dust and dirt down. i was at a meeting for a homeowners last title in, they're getting a brunt of it now. it really underscored the need to keep residents and business
owners informed as possible, step by step. also just to try to maintain control of the site during construction as much as possible and to coordinate things >> absolutely. we're using this as a public outreach. i know that's an area of emphasis. kate is on this project full time. we're anticipating that construction here it's not going to be the most pleasant thing in the world. it's going to be worth the end result. >> well, great job kate. we still need to do more. i have the towers and people all over me last night. we'll talk about that offline. in addition to the regular p ostings that you've done such an excellent job of it. we fleed to -- need to step up on some of these things. it's going to be messy.
thank you. >> all right. commissioner farrell. >> two quick questions. construction beginning of 2016, are there any things that might delay that? i think with supervisor christensen, lot of constituents just concerned about construction impacts. three year time frame, sounds like a long one. allow do -- how do you feel about that? this is a little bit of discussion around those things. >> certainly, there are a few major milestones that we have to get to before we're able to begin construction. one of those are the caltrans permits. caltrans is holding us to the highest standard of our work. we're working on that now. the other is coming to an agreement on that guaranteed maximum price and baseline schedule with the consultant. all evidence i've seen the
contractor is very collaborative participant and is willing to do what it takes to get that agreement done. i think those are probably the major hurdles that we have in front of us. part of the delay of the start-up construction is working with that contractor to help try and minimize the impact. i have some hope we'll be able to shorten the field time even if we're starting later than we originally thought. your second question was, just about that construction duration and how challenging that's going to be. this is a complete street project. it has a lot of utility work now associated with it. we're trying to rip up the road only once and put it all together. doing that while keeping traffic throwing -- flowing on the road is part of what's taking that time out of there.
there's minimum requirements for how many lanes need to be open during the day. there's a lot of restrictions around noise particularly in the more residential parts of the corridor at the northern end. we're trying to be sensitive to the different neighborhood environments. due tonight work where night work is not a problem. do more day work where night work is a problem. things like that. sfmta has conducted a survey of all properties along the corridor in order to try and see if we have areas where there's a clear preference. no one like night work. everyone know this project will be a disruption. we still have a pretty strong support for the project. people are willing to give a little bit of patience. we're going to do the best job we can planning with the contractors in order to minimize the impact. >> okay.
thanks. >> thank you very much. i will say, i cannot wait for this project to be completed. thank you everyone for all of your hard work on this. seeing no other questions, any members of the public wish to comment on this information item? >> i've been involved with this project for the last 10 years. now your supervisors are listening to an engineer, the first thing that we have to ask is, to study his portfolio. if he has done a project of this magnitude so convoluted. there will be 10 construction sites while this project goes o n. haven't said anything about california medical center. of course, the infrastructure.
sfmta doesn't have a stellar record when it comes to that. they promise to do the infrastructure a year and a half and they have taken four years. now we know that this van ness corridor has very heavy traffic. the only other street, franklin street, can take some off the heavy traffic. there's a lot of movement. for example, the 38 gearry, all the other lines go on van ness.
how many focus meetings have been held with the community? focus meetings. not like an engineer coming now talking to all in generalities. we need this project. a lot of hard work has gone into into it. we need quality outreach. thank you very much >> any other members of the public wish to comment. seeing none, item ten public comment closed. colleagues, this is just an information item. we'll move on to item 11. >> introduction, this information item. >> no introductions. public comment on item 11. seeing none, public comment is closed. item 12. general public comment. >> last 25 years, i've been involved with transportation issues. a lot of us advocates haven't been coming to this meetings
because there are no time lines and goals. there's a lot of talk, no time lines and goals. we talk about central south bay, we started with $600 million. it's now in the billions. it's the same with the other projects. what we are suffering today is from congestion in our streets. when you have congestion, we have to deal with problems like particular america, led spewing into the air. none of which has been discussed at this meetings. there used to be a director. he put in a lot of effort in the projects. he allowed debate. we don't see any meaningful debate and dialogue now. we have pandering. a lot of pandering on van ness,
lot of pandering lake merced ar. without starting the flooding, talking about building 30,000 homes on land that is prone to flooding. this won't work. they're not paying attention to our general management plan. we do not have stellar transportation program. we are going into what we call a spot designing and planning. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public wish to speak during general public comment. public comment is closed. >> item 13 adjournment. >> all right, this meeting is a.
amazing district. some of you know that i grew up in public housing. i live there more than half my life, right down the street at eddie and laguna. >> good morning out, everything my name is linda and breed in him the supervisor for this amazing district. some of you know that i grew up in public housing. i lived more than half my leaf at eddie and laguna. when i became a supervisor and met with the mayor he asked me, what my three top priorities were on the board. and, number one, public housing. number two, public housing. number three,
public housing. since then, the mayor and i have been working hand in hand to do something different. 1960 housing policies cannot solve our housing crisis in the city and county of san francisco. nor, can we continue to allow the residents of public housing to be neglected. the conditions that exist in many of these developments existed when i was growing up there. bad plumbing. rodents. no response to fixing the problem. discovering that we had about 10-$12 million to fix over 4000 public housing units, and we had over $200 million of the deferred maintenance, well, it really upset me because there was nothing that i felt that i could do to change the lives of
the people who live here. so, i did working hard with the mayor, with edward lee to try and figure out something different. no, it's not a perfect solution, but it's what's going to change this community for the better. today, we have our amazing representative,, leader nancy pelosi, who continuously fights for san francisco and fights for the rights of those who don't have any fighting for them in congress. it is a battle she deals with every day. i've witnessed it personally. we are so appreciative of her hard work. we also have the hud secretary, julian castro, here today was a former mayor, and he has a few words that he wants to say and what's great about having the mayor and these incredible federal, national leaders, to talk to us today is that they get to see firsthand the experience of people who live
here. they get to meet the residence. they get to see the conditions, and what i hope that they walk away with is a desire to want to do better. a desire to want to work hard for the folks who live in these units. every single day i know it's a struggle. i have not forgotten about where i came from. that is why, on the board of supervisors, it is been my priority to deal with changing the lives of folks here because even though i made it out, even though i'm a success story, even though so many people who i grew up with are proud of me, they deserve the same opportunity that i have and today, is a new day for that opportunity. so, at this time, i would like to welcome mayor ed lee to the podium. >>[applause] >> thank you. thank you, pres. lyndon breed. were very lucky to have you as not only a
supervisor for this district but as our board president and obviously all of you can feel the passion she has and we have ours to share our family stories with each other for quite some time now. with the hopes that we would have a better outcome for our residents here in san francisco. let me begin by saying that it's not only a pleasure to work with the supervisor, it is a privilege because not only do we share the stories we get to do something about it. one of the things that we get to do about it, we get to and the description that oftentimes is made about public housing residents. that is to say that, i want to be here when all of us can say they're not public housing residents. the residents of san francisco. that's a difference. it's a
complete difference in the relationship that we have with our housing authority, the relationship we have with the tenants association, the people that live in a just so happens, it might be economically challenged, but they've got the strength and hope like all of our families do. when we talk about our stories, we often talk about the strength of families, the hope that people have, the things they're doing for themselves and for each other to build strong communities. this is what i think, but it was all about when they first began to build these housing units and over the decades been challenged with all of the asset maintenance jones, the lack of funding, the lack of cooperation between local governments and the
housing authority. we have been through all that. but we have new leadership. we have walking torres and all the new commissioners that are in line with the mayor's office of housing and the board of supervisors. we have a federal government that not only listens. they fight for all of us to make sure were doing the right thing. we have a hud secretary that i got to meet again. the last time sec. castro and i met we had not won the nba championship yet. of course, i probably stuck out my tie. welcome former mayor. san antonio. this is warriors ground. of course, he got it immediately but i also say to the secretary, too, having a former mayor in that position means an awful lot and will go into detail later on about that. i am here today to announce, again, that the robert pitts housing complex is the third of 15 sites that we've already begun. this result
assistance demonstration program with our federal government. we arty started at hunters view. if you go down there, take a good look at it. without rebuilding public housing. rebuilding a community with residents formerly of public housing. you are part and parcel of that through a program that leader pelosi has helped that be so much hope sf. it is giving everybody the chance and hope to be part, equal parts, of building a stronger community. second project, up and center wasn't within urban and that's down that alice griffith. that's already underway. in fact, the senior housing is under construction and pretty soon see some of the seniors that will move over from the dilapidated housing bearing, public housing, into a very modern complex as we knock down and rebuild their housing. now, it's robert pitts is turned until the 15 sites for this, over $700