tv TA Full Board of Supervisors 92716 SFGTV September 28, 2016 8:30am-9:31am PDT
years. that is because this approach is working. counties like ours, especially delivered the voter proof projects small, to get them grant ready so that they can compete for and leverage private funds. >> to help the best use of the funds, our transportation authority is working in conjunction with the planning department and mta and other agency to develop the long range transit plans, including the subway vision, and the legislation and the call for such a plan, so the master plan, and to the board of supervisors passed last year, and i was pleased to see the out reach conducted for this study over the summer. and to hear about the response from the public on the question of where san francisco should build the new rail lines. >> i am told that we received, 2500 responses across the city and region and i look forward to seeing the stud at the transpower passion committee on october, 17th as we plan the
next big rail lines and we are glad to see them partnering with the agencies on the solution to reduce the crowding on the systems including the various, incentives and this pay lot program, the trip to a less busy time, such as before or after the morning peak rush hour, and about the passengers who do shift the travel times could earn the points with the fun on-line game, 16,000 sign ups and 29,000 in rewards, to providers were optimistic about this program and i thank you and that concludes my program remarks. >> colleagues any comments in is there any public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. we will move to item three, the executive director's reports. >> good morning, commissioners.
executive director, chang is on a jury panel for the new bus terminal and so keep you postd on that. you sh you had have the executive director's reports in front of you. and i will highlight a few of the items that were not addressed by the chair already in the chair's remarks. but it seems like we have not met for a long time because of the recess and so some of this has already hit the nut papers and we have been covering it in committee one of the items in the newspaper was the legislature and the agreement on cap and trade and even though the revenues from the last auction have been way over anticipated one of the up sides of the more conservative approach to dulling out the revenue earlier is that there are some revenues from the previous proceeds that were sort of on goal and in the bank, 60 percent of the revenues have been going out to the programs like the transit inner city rail program that have been delighted to receive the new lrvs and there are several other related
programs and this agreement distributes 900 million, in unallocated auction, pro-he seeds and those go to the transit rail program and the state program and other programs. which i will speak to you a little bit later. and the state legislative session is over. and the governor has until september 30th to sign or veto a bill that are on his desk. and we will go through those now, but i will say that the finance committee at its october 11th meeting will be getting sort of a session and a summary of where we are on the legislative advocacy for mark watts the sacramento representative and it mentioned one of the beneficiaries of the cap and trade is the state active transportation program and this funds particularly a lot of bicycle and pedestrian projects and the education and out reach and capitol improvements. right now, there is an under way surge cycle of programming. and there are two at the state level, 120 million that is
competitive distributed to the ap mri indications state wide and those results are anticipated next month. and at the regional level, the metropolitan agency has $20 million to dull out. this cycle is a little bit odd in that the funds will not be available for several years, knowledge next the fiscal year, 1920, which is challenging for sponsors but we are pleased to work with the municipal transportation agency and the public works in submitting several projects including the gene va project, and the play streets pilot, and the safety, and the vision zero, and safer intersections and jefferson street, improvements phase two and so we will keep you posted if we are as successful in those applications. plan bay area has been a big topic and i know that our representatives on the metropolitan transportation commission, appeared with several presentations on that plan, early in the month, the
two regional agencies or at least the draft preferred scenario and this includes the land use vision for the distribution of housing and jobs within the region. and corresponding transportation investment tragedy and we just had an up date at the plans and programs committee and we expect to have one over the next couple of months as the region moves toward a planned adoption of the preferred scenario and i just summarized for those who did not watch the committee meeting that right now, it looks like we are doing pretty barn well in the transportation and investment strategy and i qualify that by saying, it looks like all of property jects that need to be in there for san francisco in this up date are in there and it looks like we are getting the amount of regional funds that we asked for. and i am not being completely definitive because we are lacking the details, but it is looking promising and the land use and working with the plan department to make sure that the projections of the housing and jobs makes sense, and the housing looks reasonable, with
the zoning on the job side and it looks like they have given us a little bit more and different places than we are anticipating and so we are working with mtc and the planning department to reconcile that and see if that will trigger any changes in the transportation and investment strategy one of the things that i do want to call out were raised by the commissioners in their mtc and the abag representatively is the rereg n reregional agencies about an evaluation and there is a whole bunch of target and metrics and unfortunately on two of the economy metrics the draft preferred were moving in the wrong direction, they were the percentage of income that the low income households spend on housing and transportation, and instead of getting better it is actually getting worse, and displacement risk is increased. and mtc did some analysis which indicates that most of the increase, the wrong direction increase and the metric atribable to the decade long deficit in helping supply, 12
percent is attributed to the housing issue and one percent to transportation, but i think that our commissioners and others, raise the questions as if the 2040, vision that we as a region want to bless, is there more that we can do with the transportation funds and the planned bay area and probably more importantly what else can we do beyond the plan bay area to address this? nobody is happy with this out come, so we will keep you posted and working closely with the planning department, and the mta in particular on trying to come up with the recommendations. >> so moving a bit to your projects and as you may all recall, ta commissioners and the board of supervisors this summer, we approved a supply mental, and a cost increase for the cal train, program and that increased the local contribution from the three member counties, from 60 million to 80 million dollars each. and i would just call out for that item 8 today. we have annual indication of 3.9 million of sales tax funds and
that is san francisco first piece toward that $20 million increase, and we are looking towards the charter amendment on november's ballot to help to fund the 16.1 delta with the last increase and cal train is now awarded the contracts for the design build of the infrastructure and the poles and the wiring and also for the electrified vehicles. >> so, related, the planning department has been leading quite a mouth full, the relatives and the boulevard feasible study, known as rab for short is looking at a number of things, it is looking at alternatives to the cal train, king rail yard and it could be down sized or relocated and the alternative alignments for the downtown, rail extension. it is looking at the possibility of taking down part of i280 and replacing with the boulevard and looking at associated land use changes and i know that there is a great deal of interest in this and it impacts a lot of the key projects from the cal train, to
the downtown extension. and the planning department held the second citizens working group and i think that it was last week, and we are planning another one this fall. there is anticipated third round of public meetings that will happen this fall where there should be more information on the final alternatives that are looked at, including the cost estimates that were not previously available, i know that this is a great interest and came up with the plans and programs committee and as soon as public information is available, we are planning on the information, and or we could come back to the board as a whole of this year's discretion. and just a few more items i just want to congratulate the transit riders, the san francisco transit riders union and all who participated in transit week, which was held the week of september 12th, and the authority was proud to sponsor that event with the celebrated users who help to make life in san francisco better for everybody by getting the cars
off of road and increase decreasing the greenhouse emissions. and i know that tly y is excited to report that we have a lot of progress on the neighborhood transportation improvement program, the prop k, funded program and we will just a couple of quick highlights, we have the project completed in supervisor cohen's district and this is dealing with the hair ball in other terms, and the bay shore and the avenue, intersection project. and this project includes a number of improvements from the plan for the entire area, and bicycle and pedestrian path, and the street scape and improvements and so forth, the good news is that the mta has the funding for the recommendations in the five year capitol plans and we will be working with them to try to find the rest of the funding. it looks like i will leave that one there. commissioner campos's district, the alamene interchange, i will just call out, this is in with a lot of safety and improvements right near the boulevard, and the farmer's market, and there
are some great out reach opportunities this week, where we are presenting tomorrow night, the neighborhood, association on wednesday, and we are presenting to the ta's, and the citizen advisory committee and on october the eleventh we are presenting to the plans and programs committee and so you can get a look at what those are for that effort. >> we had earlier this month, an out reach activity on the lumbard street which we are doing in concert with commissioner ferrill's office and i want to thank him and his staff to help on that project. >> the intent of that project is to find the ways to help with the increasing vehicle on the crooked part of lum. bard street and they say that it is a great input received at the open house and we are working to develop a set of recommendations, for handling that. switching gears, i wanted to thank our bay area air quality management district. representatives, and i will draw
a blank and i know that one of them is commissioner avalos. and the air district has the purview over the transportation funz, and these are on the fees and they go to j ekts that help to reduce the motor emission and it may sound like of geeky but it is super important, and the guidelines, previously have only allowed us to fund new bike lanes or paths and this really just disadvantages san francisco, where we want to go and upgrade, infrastructure that we have had to make them more safe, and putting in the bike lanes or the cycle tracks that was previously ineligible and we are excited that the guidelines are now, recommending that that change be eligible and we thank, commissioner avalos for helping to get that through. >> lastly, we have a couple of ground breaking ceremonies coming up on september, 29th at noon, in supervisor peskin's district we have the broad way, china town ground breaking ceremony, the city of broad way, and powell streets and this is
the 4th phase of the street scape and safety improvements that the ta has funded from a multiple of fun sources and we are very pleased to see that project getting going, and in supervisor yee and all of the district and that is right on the border we have the area of the ribbon cutting of the new unity plaza and the project and this helps to connect the new terminus for the stop and the city college and with a prop aa funded pedal connector and a new plaza that is up and under way. >> and lastly on the boulevard, we have seen the implementation of the various, bicycle and the pedestrian, improvements on the boulevard, and with more permanent things with the concretes to come out when the streets are paved in 2017, we are excited to see the whole generation of the projects and i will give out a shout for her and her staff for working with mta and your office to keep those things moving forward. last two things are special shout out to the finance and
administration, and to mike and the policy division to another clean audit. and the transportation funds for the clean air program, and then behind the scenes shout out, and we have a branch management data base called pour tal and this is how we track the invoices and the back engine that up loads to the interactive data base, where you can find the information on any of the projects i just spoke about, and anna has been working with the staff in the division to continue to make things a lot easier for us and for the sponsors to use and i will just note that you may have seen the changes in the allocation in the form in your packet and may not look like much, but what they have done is eliminate a lot of unnecessary fields, and stream lined and entry so that we are able to extract the data from
the forms right into my street and into our data base, that will conclude my remarks and i am happy to answer the questions. >> thank you, colleagues, noo he questions or comments on the executive director's report? seeing none, is there any public comment? >> one item three, seeing none, we will close public comment. and this is an information item and we will move to item number four. >> item four, approve the minutes of the july, 26, 20 is 6 meeting this is action. >> are there any comments or questions or changes to the minutes? seeing none, is there any public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. and can you call the role? >> four, avalos? >> aye. >> breed? >> aye. >> campos? >> aye. >> cohen. >> aye. >> farrell. >> aye. >> kim? >> absent. >> mar? >> aye. >> peskin. >> aye. >> tang. >> aye. >> commissioner weiner? >> aye.
>> commissioner yee? >> aye. >> minutes are approved. great. before we go to item five i did neglect to thank sgtv for broadcasting today's meeting. and he with will know how go to item five. >> approve the resolution urging the league of california cities to adopt and implement virgs zero strategies and initiatives for eliminating traffic deaths and see vooer injuries and to prioritize task safety throughout california, this is an action item. >> okay. any comments or questions or thoughts? colleagues? >> seeing none s there any public comment on item five? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> we will move to item 6. >> same house same call? >> excuse me, colleagues could we take item five, same house same call, without objection. item six. >> reappoint santiago lerma and appoint shannon wells-mongiovi to the citizen's sad vicery
complitties. >> any questions or comments? >> none. >> any comment on iks? >> seeing none, closed. >> colleagues could we take item six, the same house. >> the house has changed. >> commissioner kim was absent for the vote on item five. >> okay. >> ten we then we will take a roll call on six. >> avalos. >> aye. >> breed. >> aye. >> campos. >> aye. >> cohen. >> aye. >> farrell. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> mar. >> aye. >> peskin. >> aye. >> tang. >> aye. >> weiner. >> aye. >> commissioner yee? >> aye. >> the item is approved. okay. item number seven. >> item seven, amend the prop k strategic plan and the guide wise, muni 5 year program, this is an action item. >> colleagues are there any questions or comments on item 7?
>> seeing none, is there any public comment on item seven? >> seeing none, we will close the public comment. >> and the house is the same, colleagues, take item 7 the same house same call. >> without objection, that will be the order. >> item 8. >>al kalt, $20,88,900 in prop k funds with conditions for 14 requests subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules this is an action item. >> commissioner peskin. >> thank you, chair weiner and colleagues, as i indicated in the committee i would respectfully like to suggest that we temporarily remove the 6.774 million dollars for additional studies and design work on phase two of the transbay terminal project. specifically would i raise in committee as somebody who served on the board years ago, when the
tjpa was first created a project that we obviously want, and we have, but that has cost substantially more. i think that given what we heard from miss lumbardo that there are a number of studies ongoing, with the rab, and given the fact that this is going to require the condemnation of the additional properties given the uncertainty about the project and given the passenger of facility, and the charges, that may not be sustainable, i would like a little bit more time. to think about this to have a public policy conversation, about it. and quite frankly, when we go into phase two, we should go in with our eyes wide open, we should know what the alignment is going to be. and we should know whether or not downtown is going to be disrupted for years. are there better ways of doing it than cut and cover? we should have that conversation before we get just a little bit
pregnant. because this is going to be the next ten million and the next 100 million and the next 200 million and so why don't we slow down and do a little bit of thinking about this? and wait for this process, and it is, and we are in the fall and this process is going to become much more definitive in the fall, and so i would subject to comment public like to make a motion that we reduce the 20.88 million dollars by 6.774 million dollars. and send the item back to the plans and programs committee for additional policy discussion and debate. i do not want to be in a situation where in a number of years we all regret this vote. commissioner campos? >> thank you. mr. chair, i have a number of questions about this item. and quite frankly one of the key
questions is actually having a better grasp of what the oversight actually looks like. we have a long history of issues with this project. and at some point, the tjpa actually had problems with the county transportation authority providing oversight. and i am glad to hear that that is no longer the case. but i do think that as we are dealing with our own leading tower of pisa here in san francisco, i think that we have a responsibility to make sure that we do everything that we can to make sure that something like this project is handled properly. and quite frankly, there are issues around some of the existing litigation that has been filed around mellineun sky
scaper that raises questions about what the cta own liability could be. and so, i will support that motion. >> supervisor kim? or commissioner kim? >> thank you, and i, i can support a continuance of this, this dollar amount and i am just curious how long we plan to place it on hold? >> so, and what the expectation would be in order to release the remaining 6 million specifically. through the chair to commissioner peskin. >> kim. >> i would like it to go to our next plans and programs committee. i would like to use that as an opportunity to hear from the mayor's transportation advisor and have a more robust
conversation about the alternatives, i would like to actually have a much more definitive briefing, whether we are interested in the embarcadaro, and we asked the questions of how many pieces of property will have to be condemned along 72nd street and there will also have ton property condemnations alounge townsend and that was all high level and vague and i would like to hear what the rab comes up, and lumbardo said that they will have more information this fall and we are now into the fall and so depending on the answers that we get in october, and maybe we could send it back to the full board in october, and hopefully we have a much more definitive set of answers by november. but no later than november. >> and i see that our transbay joint power authority staff is here. and so i just wanted to bring up either the director or our
government relations liaison just to answer a few questions. and in terms of whether there is an agreement on bringing it to the committee and that there will be answers to what peskin has asked and any impact of the delay of the 6 million disbursement to tjpa. good morning, i am the director with the transbay, port authority, and here to impress upon you, to pass this item and provide the needed funds for the tjpa moving in partnership, and very close partnership with the san francisco transportation authority and the mtc into advancing the delivery of phase two. with wrour support, and it is fully funded and we are grateful for that and it is on track to be completed december, 2017, for
the construction and shortly there after for the bus administrations and our focus at the tjpa has shifted to phase two and advanced stage two in collaboration with the region and to that extent, i presented to the board, the juj meeting this year, a road map to deliver phase two along with a funding plan and this is just basically a road map that allows us to advance, phase two and possibly be able to bring the trains to the transit center, late, 2025, and 26, and i shared that the road map with the sfjta and the mtc and i got their support to or their encouragement to move forward, is to take the design to 30 percent completing and that will allow to develop the bottom's up estimate for the construction and will allow us to also, determine the right
away impacts, that will go long ways to answer supervisor peskin's question, and we move to move the designs, 30 percent in order for us to be able to determine what properties are impacted and how are they impacted? and to how, impacted would you include, in the temporary construction, easements is it permanent, construction, easements or is it the property acquisition, and no condemnation, or the acquisition will take place as part of the money that we are asking for today, and it is to move the design forward so that we can fit the scope properly and he can come up with the bottom up estimate, and do an up to date, study to allow to us confirm, what you should except from the charges to the compliments or the funding plan and also to up date the program cost estimate and to do a risk assessment. and we need to do a risk assessment after the 30 percent design is completed and in order to identify the risk and provide, and fund the proper
amount of program reserves. and so what we are asking today, is basically, advance the project, so that we can answer a lot of the questions that we brought at this committee, one thing that i would like to highlight, regarding supervisor campos's concerns, we fully intend to move forward to deliver this project. it is not one agency alone, it has to be with the region, to that extent, moving forward we will be working close, as we advance this project. i impress on you to move forward, and it is basically on life support for up to three years and we have not done much work. and our focus has been phase one, and phase one has a lot of difficulties that we have overcome and, if this money is
not allocated this month, and i am afraid that the dtx you will be pulling the plug on the dtx because we have a lot of momentum going forward now, we have updated the mtc and updated the federal partners on how we can fund the project. and the loans to fully fund the dtx, and so, i think that if we are not able to move to 30 percent design, i am afraid that we are going to lose that momentum and lose the project. >> question? >> director, do you feel that you can come up with adequate responses to commissioner peskin's questions at the next meeting? >> i will be more than happy to continue to meet with supervisor peskin and his staff, and a lot of his questions will be answered and i can see your supervisor peskin and the
acquisition will take place before we come back here and that is where we show the funding and more appropriately, up date you on the status of the 30 percent, drawings and the impacts that it will have on the property. >> that is 30 percent, drawings? >> yes, 30 percent design, this money is going to allow us to finish the 30 percent design and determine the impacts as far as the acquisition are concerned. >> i think that i don't, i may have misunderstand, commissioner kim's question. but i think the question or my question is, by next month, will you have the answers to the questions that commissioner peskin is asking? >> you will have, you will have parts and we will be able to answer parts or portions of his questions, and some of his questions we kneed to finish the 30 percent design to answer the questions. >> which of the money is helping to the funds? >> yes, sir. >> i want to ask you, will you have the answers to commissioner peskin's questions by next month? >> without this money, i cannot. >> okay. >> i cannot give you a cost estimate and i cannot give you
the impact acquisition. >> commissioner tang? >> thank you, i think that, and i know that there are some troubles here i think that is what i was struggling with during the plans and programs meeting last week, which was, you know, i respectfully disagreed with trying to put the funding for the design, on reserve because i felt that we actually needed that money to be able to answer a lot of the questions that supervisor peskin and others have. and i will likely continue to support, so that we can get up to the 30 percent design today. >> okay. commissioner campos?
>> skept cal if we are on the same path, many of the people that were involved here are involved here before, and so that not very comforting. and they, the sure, the executive directors are out there, but you have some of the same players here. and i went out of my way with supervisor weiner, to advocate for this project at the mtc, and the city and county of san francisco has put itself on the line, and i am really disturbed that there is such a fear in answering questions. and if hewe had actually taken time to do what we are doing here we would not be in this mess, and so i will be voting no, and quite frankly, unless the approach changes, i will make sure that at the mtc, my concerns are reflected because this is not a good thing for san francisco. and it is not a good thing for
the region. >> my --. >> my response --? >> i will give you a chance. momentarily. >> and commissioner peskin? >> thank you, chair weiner and colleagues, and let's examine this a little more closely. first of all, we are voted advanced the quarter of a billion dollars to bail the tjpa out. and as commissioner campos says there may be other liabilities that they are now facing. and there are a series of unanswered questions that don't require 6.7 million dollars to answer, they require a level of transparency, and a level of honesty in answering some questions and having a real honest dialogue. about it.
what are we doing getting 30 percent design drawings, when we have not deci this /* decided i this is the alignment and that is the cart before the horse and the whole relationship between the tjpa through the staff has always been to jam us. wow, let's slow down a little bit. let's have that conversation. and so that we do not end up in the same position that we are now, and the reason that phase two is not funded is because they borrowed from phase two to pay for the cost over runs of phase one, that is a fact. and look, if this thing has been dormant for the last two or three years, all of a sudden, one or two months of our discharging our duties is going to make some profound change? hogwash. and for the record, when i asked miss change about this prior to the plans and programs committee, she said a month or
two. no big deal. enough of them jamming this dually elected body and i would make a motion to take that 6.774 million dollars and send it back to the plans and program committee for the october meeting to be discussed. >> i thought that you already made that motion. >> it didn't get seconded. >> seconded. >> and made by peskin and seconded by campos. after supervisor avalos, and breed i would like to hear from our staff. >> so commissioner avalos? >> excellent. >> i would like to hear from the staff, a two month delay that that was not going to be ab is
an issue. and then, also, contention that we are being jammed by the pjpa, and also has been a contention that we are not practicing the oversight, although, i think that this discussion is practicing our oversight, and could we have a. we have 6.4, and is there a portion that we can enable, something to go forward but that we could actually make the project go forward, those are my questions. >> the great questions, thank you. >> and the chief deputy, director. and let me just take this not necessarily in order because i want to agree about the oversights. and i am one of the old timers who is here, with phase one of the project. and at that time, as i supervisors know who are around, we tried to do oversight, and but we are not permitted to do the oversights.
and that has changed now and you will see attached to the allegation request, the oversight protocol that is a models off of what we used very successfully with the mta and the central subway and pretty much the same protocol that we are applying, to the project and i am more confident in the oversight, and tjpa is working with open arms and my understanding is that protocol will be offered to the funding partners and the mtc and the federal administration, and mta, and to the question about will we have answers. >> the question there, what portion of the funding for the over all project is actually coming from the transportation authority from the cta? >> phase two of the project is a rail extension? >> i mean that it is pretty naul, right now, the total project is just under estimated 4 billion dollars. and we are talking about 6 billion here, at most prop k, maybe has if you accelerate all of the money, 12 million.
>> over all what would you say? >> at this point in time, there isn't much money committed to phase two. >> thank you. >> so let's see, the other comments about will we have answers? next month and what are the impacts of the delay, the fair questions and this really goes i think that your comfort level as a body and you they ever have all of the answers on the major capitol project of this size, when it is at this stage of the project, and we give the directors, that it is correct for the request for the funding to get all of the project elements including the elements like the bart underground 230 to the 30 percent design that will enable a grounds up cost estimate to be able to verify, the 3.99 billion cost which mtc came up based on a useful but it was a shortened and a cost review. and in terms of delays, sure, you can delay, and it is not the end of the world. and i know that it isn't what the djpa wants but it is not
stopping anything and i think that the question that commissioner kim asked is pointed what will be the marker for the comfort level for this body to decide to move forward? >> we may be able to get some answers, but in terms of the rail yard, and i was going to say that rab that the rab study and we are hoping to have the cost estimates in october, november, december, time frame, which covers all and i don't suspect that it will have a preferred alternative for the city and be aware that all should have more information. >> in terms of pro-he vieding partial funding, so that if there are and i have been told that we are not going to be aible to have any answers unless we do the study and we can't do the study without the funding, so is there something that can be pro- provided that will allow for that to happen and still hold, you know, the greater portion of the funding up? so that we can actually get a report back and release that based on what we hear? >> yes, as a body that allocates the funds you will have the
ability to let out just that amount of funding for the particular scope, but i am not sure, is what he would need to answer the questions raised by commissioner peskin and i did also ne glekt to say one thing, attached to the form is another special condition that acknowledges that there are these other studies out there like the rav and it gives this body the ability to stop, if you approved the allocation to stop the work at any time. if it picks a different alignment and to renegotiate the scope of work my understanding is that 85 percent of what is funded is stuff that would need to happen any way regardless of alignment.
what specifically about that 900,000. so that the transbay authority, recently did a supply mental eir, which modified some elements that have been previously cleared and previously we were at 30 percent design and also, added some new elements and so it will give you two examples. and so, when we went through the cost of the mta, and you know that many of our east bay commissioners felt strongly about including the bart, and muni connector as part of the project scope. and that had not been part of the project scope, previously and so part of the fund sg to bring that project from basically close to zero, to 30 percent design, and there were other elements that were cleared before such as the underground station of fourth and king, that used to be under the yard, and to allow for the potential development of the yard, they have agreed to move the station under the townsend street and so that requires the redesign as well. there are elements like that,
that you could if you wanted to dissect what is needed and what is not needed if the alignments were changed >> commissioner peskin? >> well i will defer for a minute to campos. >> i have seen, this movie before, many times, and it is what the tjpa has done in the past, and consistently come to us with a parade of horribles if we don't approve this now, the world was going to come to an end. and you know, i always think that with these kinds of things you have to trust your gut. and my gut tells me that we are better off getting more information here, especially given that it is sort of a shifting target, what they are saying, today. as opposed to what they seem to have said in the committee. and by the way, if it, it was so critical that they needed to have this, vote in on today, they had a few days to actually
get more information that they could have brought to this body today. and quite frankly, part of the problem that i have with this project is the attitude, right? which is let's move forward, because the bulk of the work that is going to done, even if there is a different alignment, it is needed. and yeah, sure, we may lose, 15 percent, but, you know, 85 percent, is still going to happen regardless of what the alignment is. well, 15 percent, is significant. and it is, and it is through, through the accumulation of 15 percent after 15 percent, after 15 percent that we get to where we are right now. the project that is a lot more expensive than was anticipated and in phase two that is not funded because some of the money that was going to go for it, had to be used for phase one. and so, i am sorry, but the tjpa is not in the strongest position
here. to come and lecture us about the need to trust them, and to move forward. and for the county transportation authority, we have to do a better job. we have to do a better job of providing oversight here, and yes. the relative to the large amount of money that is being spent, is a small fraction, but it is still tax payer dollars. it is still money. that we have a responsibility a fiduciary duty to make sure that it is spent, properly. and if 6.8 million is going to slow down this project of this magnitude, what does that say about where this project is headed? and how it is being handled? i am going to vote no on moving forward with this and support the motion. >> commissioner breed? >> thank you. and i appreciate supervisor
campos's comments about this, when we discussed this item, in committee, and a number of questions were raised, we sent it to the full board, in support of it, with the expectation that many of those issues would be addressed. i did definitely appreciate the additional oversight from the ta for these particular funds. but i do think that there are a number of outstanding questions that still need to be addressed. and my comfort level with the tjpa is just not there. unfortunately to trust that by issuing over 6 million dollars we will be able to answer questions that we need answered before wei actually issue the money. so i definitely will be voting to support the motion at this time and hope that a better job is done at communicating to this body in the future, and
especially when a request of any magnitude whether it is one mill object, or 6 million, or 20 million, you know, there is just, the comfort level with this particular entity is just not there. from my perspective and so i do think that a lot more work needs to go into a request of this nature. to make sure that we are comfortable with issuing additional dollars and we are not just pouring money down a black hole. thank you. >> commissioner kim? >> thank you, i am happy to support the continuance today of the $6 million, but i would like it if the ta staff could work with commissioner peskin's office on coming up with a ligs of deliverables that we would expect. i think that my one concern is that i do think that it is not absolutely clear to me, all of the answers that we would like to have answered at the next plans and programs committee but i don't think that i think that it is good to have a greater discussion and i think that unfortunately tjpa is also
caught in the middle in the sense that the city and other departments have been raising questions about an alignment that we have committed to, and we have completed the eir, and study for. and now there is a request by other entities for us to examine other alignments that might better work for downtown, extension and i am open to that process. and i think that if there is a better alignment, we should certainly study it. but i think, you know, tjpa has been committed to the original alignment, and i understand certainly, the reason why they are as it has been fully studied and it looks to be maybe the fastest way for us to complete the dtx, and that being said, i think that if we are going to put something under gro und that we should do it the right way even if it takes us a little bit of time to do that. i think that clearly that question is not going to get addressed by the next plans and programs committee, so i would like to get to a more reasonable set of expectations for the next plans and programs committee, i would like to move this money
forward seeing that i do think that the 30 percent design process is important to many of the other questions. but now, i can support this and hopefully we can work together on getting to a better place at the next committee meeting. thank you. >> i want to give tjpa a chance to respond to the conversation ha happened today. >> actually i was clarify myself, my intention was not to jam this item at all to the board and my apologies, supervisor campos, that was not my intention. i used this what i was trying to say and i will say it again, is that we need this technical data in order to answer some of the questions, but given that, and there is no support for this item we will continue to work with the commissioner to make sure that their answers are or their questions are addressed before we move forward. i fully intend to move forward with stage two, different that stage one and i mentioned with the mtc and we signed an
oversized agreement, access to our staff and data and we are going to move forward, to deliver this project and again, i reiterate a $4 billion will not be done or delivered by an agency alone and it has to have the help of one region. that is why we are reaching out to do that. >> okay. so the petitioner peskin could i clarify, that the original motion was to send it back to the committee and you referred to it as a continuance, could you clarify what the motion is. >> the motion is out of the 20.88 billion dollar item to remove the item in the first portion of that, allocation of prop k funds in the amount of 6.774 million, and 400 dollars and send that portion back to the plans and programs committee for their october meeting. >> thank you for clarifying it. >> and commissioner campos did second that motion.
and i am not going to be supporting this motion. i have in the past obviously been critical of tjpa and some of the way that the projects have been handled and with that said, i also believe that it is critically important that we move phase two, forward. and even given the uncertainty around the alignment, and the vast majority of this money is irrespective of what alignment is chosen and so, to me, the downtown extension is important, and this is while, a 6 million dollars is certainly, it is a significant sum of money they are not asking for the moon they are asking for enough to keep the design process moving forward and to get the 30 percent, and i also will just note i, completely respect commissioner peskin's view on this and not supporting the commercial paper item that was before us, earlier.
this spring or summer and has the prospect on the city, and i respect that and i have a different perspective and i am concerned that what will happen, if it goes back to the committee, and i have a feeling that i am going to on the losing end of this vote, and i request that whatever that group is that is working with tjpa i would like my office to be a part of that as well. so with that, we will open this item up for public comment. yeah, public comment, and you can have a seat, thank you. >> please -- >> excuse me? >> all of item a? >> please come forward, public xhe comment. >> sorry i am late, i guessed that the missed the committee meeting and there are a number of my neighbors who lived on the street who are worried about a
smaller part of this sitem and t is the plan to lower the traffic capacity on eddie and el-is street and i guess what we are asking for is a similar kind of action and to hold up the money. and the study that was done at this action was based on was made in 2005 and it has been quite a bit of difference in it. you know, the capacity and everything else, and at that time. the problem is that if the people are, in one lane in either direction, there are about, somewhere between, is 800 and 200 people on the street. that would that this project would apply to. and they have a variety of needs, and the needs are met by light vehicles and small vehicles. and they have to be able to park, and many times there is double parking. and well, if there is only one lane in one direction that really clogged up the traffic and the road is in recent years it is very well used and you know, the history of the traffic
pattern is that it when the price of gas went up in the recession, we had a very, we had an extreme drop in the amount of traffic on that street, but then, you know, starting in the last four or five years it has been creeping up and you know, many times and i think that it has to do with the traffic changes on the other side of market street as well. many times there is bumper to bumper, and as the horns honking. and well, what we have, for the neighbors there and what they have there is they have the service vehicles, and the families that are always, dropping off the neighbors and they, and their kids sometimes. and the food bank and there is disabled, and there is emergency vehicles, and the police department is expanding. there is the 31 balboa which is if it locked and grid locked i don't know see that is going to increase that, there is a great amount of need on that street for the two lanes in one direction, from levenworth down to market street. as it -- we would like to ask you to you know, to hold up the
funds or to have another study. >> thank you very much. >> and is there any additional public comment on item 8? >> if there is come forward. and if there is anyone else come forward if you are tiebl stand up. >> good morning, commissioners my name is rob burmingham and i would also like to support commissioner peskin's request for a holding up of these funds. i am a stake holder. i own 5 parcels of property at the corner of second and howard street. and so i do care how the dtx is going to eventually, the route is going to take place. i agree with what you are saying, commissioner weiner but not at all cost and not as quickly as possible, by far and away, the most important thing of this project is that we get the route correct, and there is no question that it is going to happen.
but, there is a rail road line, or a rail road yard, area which can be developed, there is two stadiums that could be served much better than the present alignment, and this idea that tjpa needs to quickly, move forward to the 30 percent design phase, is so strange. i am an, engineer by profession, and the idea is that they have to or else, the project is going to stop, even if we don't get funded even though we are doing the studies about the alignment is counter productive and it does not serve this body the most important thing for you to guys to focus on is getting this right. the transbay, and the transit center did not, did not make anyone here looks like stars, this project is about 1,000 times more complex and you need to get it right and get tg right, let's make sure that we get in the 30 percent, as quickly as possible and that just makes no sense. take your time and get it right.
>> thank you. is there any additional public comment on item 8? >> if so, please come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i just wanted to appreciate the public comment, and i appreciate mr. bermingham's comment and if these funds were on a particular alignment, i would be voting against them because that is up in the air and i completely agree that there may be a better alternative alignment, and that is why we are going through the process and i would also be fine if the votes were there to move this forward to slice off that 15 percent, and that 900,000 that is predicated on the alignment so that we are just moving forward the 85 percent, that is applied no matter what the alignment is. and but, again, it appears that i will be in the losing end of today's vote in any respect, so if i happened to prevail on the vote, i will be open to slicing off that 15 percent, and commissioner avalos?
>> just a request for the staff on what was brought up by mr. duffy on the alignment or the traffic work oban ellis and eddie street and you mentioned that the work being done on this was based on a study in 2005 and that was work that i had helped with as a legislative aid. and for chris daily back, and way back when and in another lifetime. and so wondering, in response to his contention that there is old data that this is based on, i knew and i do know that there was talk of going from two to one lane and looking at their enclosures i am not seeing that in here. and so if you could just that is what he was referring to, but that is the right alignment, to have for those streets, given sort of the study that was done in 2005. >> great, absolutely. and i will see if craig and mta wants to jump up to correct me. my read of this is that it is not reducing the number of traffic lanes but changing the streets from one way to two way, in order to achieve the vision
zero goals to calm the traffic down, and well, the original study is old, we have been implementing it since then in pieces and so they have been keeping up to date on the traffic information. >> great, thank you. >> okay. colleagues, seeing know other names on the roster, we will proceed to a vote on commissioner peskin's motion to sever off the funds for dtx as he described and to send that portion of item 8 back to the plans and programs committee. and mr. clerk, would you please call the role on that motion? >> all right, on the amendment to item eight, avalos. >> aye. >> breed. >> aye. >> campos. aye. >> cohen? >> aye. >> fer el? >> aye. aye. >> kim? >> aye. >> mar? >> no. >> peskin.
>> aye. >> tang. >> no. >> weiner. >> no. >> commissioner yee? >> yee is absent, and the amendment is approved. >> okay, so that motion to amend and to send back to the plans and programs committee is approved. okay, now we are passed this item, item 9, i am sorry, on the remainder, my apologies, and so, we now have the remaining funds, minus the dtx funds and could you please call the roll on that item? >> avalos. >> aye. >> breed. >> aye. >> campos. >> aye. >> cohen. >> absent. >> farrell? >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> mar. >> aye. >> peskin. >> aye. >> tang. >> aye. >> weiner. >> aye. >> yee is absent.
the underlying item is approved. >> okay. >> item number 9. >> introduction of new items? >> colleagues, are there any items for introduction? by seeing none is there any public comment on item nine? relating to introduction? seeing none, public comment is closed. and this is an information item. item ten? >> general public comment. >> is there any general public comment. >> please come forward. >> yes. (inaudible) some people have shock abilities and they understand immediately upon having (inaudible)