tv Special SFCTA Full Board 1517 SFGTV January 5, 2017 6:00pm-8:01pm PST
which i love your tie and eric mar and as well as john avalos. i wish i could have said earlier but i want to say it now is that no project is perfect. no project will ever meet the needs of every single person who takes a part of these projects. i hope we can do the best we can and keep reaching out to as many people we can to work out the kinks and make this all possible for future riders. i want to thank everyone for all of their hard work and great weekend. >> thank you very much. seeing no other members of the public for general public comment, the transportation commission is
♪ ♪ it looks at good and tastes good and it is good in my mouth pretty amazing. >> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ i am the executive chef i've been here as a chef at la concina since 2005 reason we do the festival and the reason we started to celebrate the spirit and talent and trivia and the hard work of the women in the la concina program if you walk up to my one on the block an owner operated routine i recipient it's a they're going to be doing the cooking from
scratch where in the world can you find that >> i'm one of the owners we do rolls that are like suburbia that is crisp on the outside and this is rolled you up we don't this it has chinese sister-in-law and a little bit of entertain sprouts and we love it here. >> there are 6 grilled cheese grilled to the crisp on the outside outstanding salsa and a lot of things to dip it knocks you out and it's spicecy and delicious i was the first person that came here and we were not prepared for this every year we're
prepared everybody thinks what they're doing and we can cookout of our home and so the festivals were part of the group we shove what we do and we w we tried to capture the spirit of xrifs. >> and there from there to sales and the hard part of the sales is 250 assess our market and creating a market opportunity giving limited risks and sales experience to our guys and
absent, >>supervisor katy tang: present, >>supervisor norman yee: present, >>supervisor eric mar: present. >> next item. item 2 approve the minutes. this is an action item. >> thank you, is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, this is on the minutes of the december 13, 2016, meeting. we will close public comment. and please call the roll on item 2. >>clerk: >>supervisor john avalos: >>supervisor london breed: >>supervisor david campos: supervisor malia cohen: >>supervisor eric mar: peskin, aye. >>supervisor katy tang: aye, >>supervisor norman yee: aye. minutes are approved.
>> the minutes are adopted. please read item 3. >> commit to fund 50 million beyond the adopted budget for shortfall of revenues. and ensure execution of the full funding grand agreement with the federal administration. this is an action item. >> thank you. if i can ask ms. lombardo to introduce this item. >> good afternoon. happy new year. i will keep my presentation brief. michael is the head of the sfmta. this is a time sensitive item for the joint authority also known as
cal train and for a full grant agreement that will direct $647 million in federal funds towards the 1.98 billion california electrification project. it's about 33% of the total project cost. in april of 2016, the san francisco transportation board authorized a memorandum of understanding and to solidify the plan. two key changes to the funding plan on that supplemental mou where the original agreement for the $647 million grant is a federally appropriated national grant and to fully fund the project, at the same time the local member contributions are increased from 60 to $80
million each. the easy way of saying it santa clara county, san mateo county and san francisco county. on the mou and given the cost increases, the transportation authority and the partners of the sf mta for all partners to participate in that has been developed and is in place. as michael brand is going to explained the details of today's actions. . this has the decision making power towards the grant program. it's a requirement that cal trains and it's partners have a capacity to cover 10% increase in cost or 10% decrease in revenues above and beyond the project. of the project budget includes a $316
million contingency already. cal trains has been working practically daily over the holidays with partners for the item. the action before you today is the negotiated agreement. the valley transportation authority, san mateo county transportation authority and this body is asking to take action today. the national transportation commission has a meeting on january 11th to take action. all of those four parties are being asked to connect this equal share of this additional share of contingency which is about 200 million in total or 50 million from each of the partners. lastly, two things, the urgency in this lies in the need to get the full funding grant agreement very quickly so that cal train can get a full notice otherwise there will be a cost and schedule as they have been given a notice to proceed.
in a small comfort, when we were working in 2011 for the grant agreement for the subway project we had a very similar variance of up to $50 million for that project in the event of cost over runs beyond the project cost and budget which we have not touched. with that, michael burns will present the item. >> this is before mr. burns comes up, not to put a fine point on it. today is the 5th day of january and we are 15 days away from a change in the chief executive of the united states of america. so, relative to the full funding grant agreement, is it foreseen that pending our action and action of the mtc on the 11th 6 january, that the full funding grant agreement could be entered into on or before the 20th day of this month? >> michael will have the latest and
greatest. he and i have been through this a few times. but the an insurances we have as of this morning from the sf mta we should get it in time. >> thank you, as for the transportation agency and director and transportation authority director of vta and now working for cal train, mr. michael burns, the floor is yours. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. working my way around the peninsula. commissioner tang, what did you say? >>supervisor katy tang: he was talking to me. >> sorry, mr. burns. >> no problem. >> first i have got casey here with me who is going to help me with the slides. we have a very brief presentation which i would like provide
you with and give you a quick review of the project and talk about the project status and then talk specifically about the action before you today. before i get into that to the chairs question directly, there will be a change of administration january 20th. all ffga's have to go, there is a statutory requirement that they go to congress for a 30-day review period. what we are trying to accomplish with this is to get the sfga to the congress for the 30-day review period prior to the 20th. what that means is the 30-day review period won't end until february 20th. while we have
assurances from the fga, i'm not sure we can predict what's going to happening with regard to transportation after january 20th. that's specific to your question. >> thank you. >> now i will try not to reiterate what i just said, but if you have questions, please feel free. first of all with regard to the project. it's a $1.98 billion project to build electric infrastructure on the peninsula. we are basically converting the existing diesel train service to electric service providing significant environmental capacity and service reliability improvements. as well as allowing for future extension of rail service to the transbay terminal and also providing a base for future high-speed rail on the peninsula: the project is 51
miles long from san jose to san francisco basically involves building the electric traction system, poles, wires and 90 electric vehicles which are performing better than the diesel trains running today. >> will it be the same as gilroy to diesel? >> that's right. it will remain to gilroy as part of the project. three trains in the morning and night that serve gilroy. as mentioned, maria mentioned the project has seven funding partners as memorialized in the seven party agreement. as part of that agreement and as part of that discussion with the funding
partners, there is an extensive oversight protocol. that oversight protocol was formally approved by the jpb board this morning . in addition to the regular updates and information provided through the website and to the board public meetings. the project team has a regular process of oversight over the project as any project team does. of significance with this project, the funding partners are very very deeply involved in the oversight protocol that would approve today but already had been put in place a couple months ago. i would like to express our appreciation from jpb to the ta staff for actually initiating this protocol process with all the partners with us and authority staff that have been
very active in terms of participating in the oversight which includes risk assessment meetings, regular meetings with contractors, status meetings and as we get into project delivery, there will be many more sort of meetings that are related to project status. so as mentioned the project is under way. we are advancing with the design work. contracts were awarded in september and we issued limited notices to proceed. the limited notices to proceed cover the decide aspect of the project for both the infrastructure and for vehicles. and as maria mentioned, the planned notice to proceed and the contractual notice to proceed with our contractors is for march 1st. excuse me, i'm struggling with a cold. i went to my doctor yesterday
and she told me to buck up. >> we can get you some water if you want. >> i will make it through. >> the high level schedule on the screen shows from march and first train set delivered 2019 and passenger service electric vehicles in 2021. the contracts executed september 15th. just a quick summary of those. there are two major drts. . thank -- contracts. . thank you very much. the first is for the electrification infrastructure. that contract went to the highest rated and the lowest cost proposal. their bid was $90 million
below the next lowest bidder. they were issued the limited notice to provide design of $100 million with september. same thing for the vehicle manufacture, stad ler. . they were awarded the contract in september and issued a limited notice to proceed for $41 million. throughout the procurement process, excuse me. the funding partners all participated in the contractor selection process in one form or another.
let me just explain quickly. these designs are for build contract responsible for the design and construction. we have approved to perform the design work. and we have an off ramp in the event that full funding does not come through for the project to either extend or terminate if we don't get the full funding, but we will have something of value in terms of having the design work already done. >> mr. burns, relative to that last statement, how does that work if you do not have full funding? are there a minimum of exit fees? >> yes, there would be a negotiation with the contractor, we have the authority to terminate for convenience and there would certainly be cost involved from the contractor's perspective. it's not defined right now but there
would be a negotiation process with the contractors. and there would be a cost associated with it. excuse me. looking at the cost and funding for the project. the next slide. just a high level view of where the money is being spent. about $878 million from the federal government for formula fund and core capacity full funding agreement. $647 million. the other large participant in the funding -- >> mr. burns, i apologize for interrupting you. even with the full funding grant agreement is granted in january and within the 30 days of congressional review goes without a problem, it is still subject to appropriation by the united states congress, is that
correct? >> yes, that's correct. subject to annual appropriation. we have 72 million in prior year appropriations that's available once we sign the ffga and we are in the president's budget this year for $100 million. and the plan in the ffga is for $100 million a year. >> that works with the project schedule? >> yes. >> the other point that i will make on the funding slide is the other major funder of the project beyond the local share that we are all providing is high-speed rail. high-speed rail is providing $714 million. in recognition of their need to have peninsular car or service for them to be able to run blended high-speed rail service on the peninsula. >> and mr. burns, not to be
labor the subject, does that mean that you have to do side tracks in order to allow hs to go by? >> right. they are under going their environmental process and they are defining whatever improvements they need to be able to operate with cal train on the right-of-way, and that could include additional side tracks. right now it's unknown. >> thank you. >> that's the high-speed rail responsibilities in getting that together and coordinating with us and with funding on any improvement. >> a quick update with all of the local agreements with state funding are secured. we have agreements signed and approved by governing boards.
the outstanding funding is the full funding grant agreement from the core capacity grant of $647 million. i mentioned that we got the funds from previously appropriated budgets and we were in the president's budget for $100 million. in the ffg process, there are several steps to that process and we are in the very very last step from a process perspective from the fta. once the fta concludes their work, then the ffga package goes to the department of transportation and to office management budget for their review and then it goes to congress for the 30-day review. we have commitments from the united states secretary of transportation that they will expedite the
lmb and dot review in order to get this ffga to congress by january 20th. in terms of the what maria was talking about and the subject of today's action, fta requires grantees of mega projects which this is one, to have a 10% additional capacity over and above the project budget in the event of a revenue shortfall or a cost overrun. what they are looking for is they are looking for evidence of availability, and evidence of accessibility to those funds ideally in their perspective they want to see those funds without further board action
especially second board actions required. we have worked with fta on this issue since october. there were several steps we went through to try to satisfy fta. the description i gave you is the description they give us in terms of what they are looking for. they do not prescribe how you get there. so we went through several iterations, the first one has to do with the contract in place, the party agreement, the jpb partnership agreement in place that lays out how capital funds are divided amongst the parties and how the parties work together to deal with any kind of cross or revenue shortfall. that was not sufficient for fta. we got that message early in
november. the next attempt was to have the ceo's of all the organizations submit letters that outline their commitment to the project and available funding sources that they would recommend to have available in the event of this 10% or $200 million cost overrun or revenue shortfall. that was not accepted by fta. they were looking for a higher level of certainty of the funds. they requested in discussions with them, they didn't request, they suggested resolutions from the governing boards would be acceptable. we pursued that avenue in concurrence from support from the secretary of transportation from the state. brian kelly, who sent a letter expressing his support and identifying the funds that he has at his disposal and that letter also was
deemed to be not up to the standard that fta was looking for. we worked with the staff on these resolutions and without getting into a lot of detail, k tuesday we were noticed that the approach we were taking for vta, santa clara county, for san mateo county which was to use sales tax revenues as a pledge for this capacity demand that they were making. they advised us that that was acceptable. they further advised us that the revenue source for san francisco and for mtc, we have four parties involved in this in all contributing $50 million each to this capacity. both mtc and san francisco identified stick funds as their source.
>> mr. burns, for the public's edification. state transportation improvement programs. it's a complicated formula. i have to defer to the staff, it comes from gas tax revenues. so then to us, it's a regular source of revenue, but fta in their review of the stip funds there is an anomaly that comes with the stip funds. one of the anomalies for the stip program for 2016, was non-existent because there was no additional capacity in the program. they view that as somewhat uncertain going forward and also concerned that the next two programming cycles are 2018 and 2020, they were in
the future. they were looking for sources they could identify today and the third issue with the stip funds is that the ctc ultimately has to approve the county's program. >> that's the california transportation commission. >> yes. sorry. so they have those issues with the stip funds, but they did indicate that sales tax sources would be acceptable. so that brings us to where we are today. we have working with all of the appropriate staff developed a strategy to have vta and san mateo county transportation authority cover the entire $200 million out of their sales tax revenues for the purposes of
meeting this capacity need for fta. fta has indicated to us that that is an acceptable approach to them. the partners, san mateo county, vta, san francisco, mtc, recognize this as a regional project, a regional effort. and are looking for all of the partners to take actions by way of resolution to support at least $50 million in capacity to meet this 10% requirement that fta has. so, the resolution before you today is for the $50 million in stip funds. we recommend that that be
adopted. first of all it's part of the demonstration of the partnership on the project, secondly, it's a requirement in the other resolutions just as it is required in your resolution that the other parties have to adopt resolutions for theirs to be in effect. so, where we are today is we basically have you know sort of a dual approach. one approach is to meet the fta requirement using the vta and san mateo county sales tax measure. the second approach is if we have this eventuality, we have language in our existing agreement, the 12 party agreement as to how we would go about dealing with trying to resolve an issue of a cost overrun or
revenue shortfall. so what we will do if these resolutions get adopted, the san mateo and vta resolutions will serve to meet the needs of the vta for the ffga and will allow fga to complete their review, have the department of transportation conduct their review. omb, they are doing this jointly we are told and be able to get the fga package to congress by january 20th, hopefully it's something like january 15th. so by the middle of february, the ffga can be out of congress and then executed by the fta administrator or the acting fta administrator. i might just add that the congressional review is a statutory
requirement and is a review. it's not an approval from congress. it's an opportunity for them to ask questions, inquire about particular aspects of the ffga and the grantee responds and for the most part it's not a generally is not a concern, but again, we have to say that i don't think anybody can predict what's going to happen after january 20th. >> so, mr. burns, congratulations on getting through that with your cough. and, a few things. first and foremost, given to the project itself given that you are now have been associated with three of the
four implementing or involved agencies of the vta and of course san francisco and now san mateo counties, how do you feel about the delivery of the project itself? like who is the project manager and who is responsible for the project delivery? >> so, we have several key people in key positions, some fairly new. i'm responsible for the project overall. the project delivery person is a fellow named dave couch who has extensive experience in delivering rail transit projects throughout a 40-year career. it might even be a little bit more than that.
he's worked in houston, washington d.c., working on the metro system extension to the metro system in dc as well as in houston. well-known in the industry and he's our project delivery person. we've brought on a woman liz scalen, who is managing the environmental review program and most from honolulu and has extensive experience in terms of those aspects of project delivery. we have a good team. we have a large team of consultants who are providing the technical assistance. but i can tell you that in addition to the team, the folks from that are involved in the oversight, louis comes to many of our meetings and provides very constructive input and
you know, i feel very good about where we are in terms of being able to deliver this project. it was mentioned by maria, we do have a $316 million contingency in the project budget, and you know, this is a project that doesn't have anywhere near the risk factors that say the central subway has. there is no extensive civil work done, no tunnelling as part of it. very will little real estate acquisition. i think there is virtually no business impact. so, it's not a high risk project. so we feel really good about being able to deliver the project and deliver it within the budget. >> so some are set for this body and i want to thank and acknowledge san mateo county and mr. hart and
i want to thank your former agency, vta for standing up with real money that is before this body today is our commitment that going forward we will provide future stip or other resources as they become available should the contingency to the contingency become necessary. >> yes, that's exactly right. >> okay. >> and i also want to thank and acknowledge our joint powers board representative commissioner cohen for her work with that body particularly today. thank you, commissioner. and with that, ms. lombardo, or miss chang, are there anything that you want to add? >> commissioner yee? >>supervisor norman yee: thank you. thanks for the thorough explanation of why we have to do what we have to do. my question is in regards to
the split, i guess of $50 million a piece. is this something that's been set for what we have been using all along where san francisco pays a quarter of the cost or how did we come up with this amount? >> yes, so the jpp agreement that is in existence amongst the three counties calls for the counties to share one 3rd, 1/3, 1/3 in capital cost. in this instance, mtc agreed to participate. so that's what brought it down to a fourth, a fourth, a fourth, a fourth. to date in terms of this project, the local county shares i believe are following that 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 formula that is in the jpp
agreement. >> i don't want to rehash the formula, but i'm just curious and maybe it could be sidebar conversation of how we got to the 1/3, 1/3, in addition to mileage, it doesn't make any sense to me as to 1/3, 1/3. >> in terms of mileage it is certainly disproportionate, but it's a question of having an entire system and i think that was the discussion when that formula was arrived at. there is another formula in the agreement that divvies up the operating cost and that's based often boardings and san francisco is significantly below san mateo and santa clara in terms of contributing to the operating cost for the
railroad. >> but out of ridership, what percentage? is it 33,000 people a day? >> yes, like 63,000 boarding. so 30 something each way. >> how many of those people disembark in san francisco? >> the last time i looked, it's been a long time. it was very close to a 50/50 split between north and south travel with silicon valley commute and the south and san francisco commute to the north. i think it's still, i can get you the exact figures, but i still think it's pretty close to that breakdown. >> thank you. any other questions from commissioners? if not, madam executive director or deputy director
lombardo. >> very brief, thank you. after this was amended as a resolution with minor changes. i want to highlight some for the benefit of the public. with the primary change is the adding to the action in addition to, let me read this. to fund up to $50 million in additional state and regional program improvement funds, adding the language for other available sources. that is simply recognizing that should this come to pass, we will need to look at other sources in addition to the stip to make sure the funds are readily available. that's rippled throughout the resolution, the other change is we have added "aware of" and resolve ". that reference should this come to past if we need other sources, we will work with san francisco to seek those
other sources with the valley transportation authority, with the city of san francisco and the joint powers authority and not the transportation authority. >> thank you. before we actually take a motion relative to amending the resolution, why don't we open this up for public comment. i have four speaker cards. commissioner cohen? >> supervisor malia cohen: thank you. i'm excited. i want to get to public comment. as you heard ms. lombardo walk through the motion and amendment. good afternoon, i'm happy to see so many people involved in the transportation issues. that's not a joke. that's serious. it's important. so it's a regional issue and it's a very serious one. it's how people get to work, it's how people get around to visit their grandchildren and children. this is critical and we all need to be at the table to pay attention
to what's going on. colleagues, i would like to specifically make a motion on item 3 in regards to the funding for the san mateo transportation authority and santa clara county valley transportation authority board this evening. i think it's incredibly important that we make it clear that san francisco is also committed, that we are putting a little skin in the game if you will. too, seeing that this project is completed. so i support the recommendation that we add the language referring to the other available sources. with that, mr. chairman, we are free and ready to go to public comment. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner cohen. with that, let me call the speaker cards that i have before me. dr. nancy sue cross. mr. peter straus and role an
-- public speaker: good afternoon, i'm peter straus, the friends of the dtk as well as the san francisco transition it riders. both of the organizations strongly support this item. i strongly support the downtown extension at san francisco's next major rail project after the completion of the central subway electrification is both essential in its own rights and as a preceding action to the downtown extension. so, again this strongly has our support. we also appreciate the oversight protocols that have been put in place to ensure the financial interest and rights of the city and county, thank you. >> thank you, mr. straus. ms. cross?
public speaker: dr. nancy sue cross. clean air transport systems regional transport developers. we are not very much known in the newspapers, but i can tell one thing about us that might be of interest today. that is the extension of of the muni metro to connect cal train and bart to san francisco. we are the developers of that and persuaded the california transportation commission of that at one of its meetings. we were because we sent in
terms of connecting rail and minimizing car trips that could be achieved by taking care of the connections rather than simply the extension for a particular kind of transport. we are thinking now in terms of how to reduce the traffic to san francisco that might be mitigated for boost by connecting across the dunbar car in union city and palo alto in the industrial park and light rail on dunbar bridge and we would like to have you consider this as a
co-development. >> thank you. >> and you become informed and how the financing can be divided maybe between the three counties that would be involved in that. >> thank you, ms. cross. mr. lebron, i want to acknowledge the letter that you sent to the members to this body which i know we are all in receipt of and i have read. the floor is yours. public speaker: thank you, sir. i guess there is no need to read through it, but here is the ledger here. first of all, i want to make something very clear. i come from europe. i totally get the rail, i total get the edification. the high speed line between the rail and london is approximately 5 miles from my house. i get this. but i have some serious issues with this problem. the first one, i don't understand how we could be spending $2.2
billion and it doesn't make any sense. the second point is this system as you correctly pointed out, supervisor, is not read to the edification. as you know in the area it's going to be wide -- >> if you can pick up that microphone up a little bit. >> why anybody would electrify what is in bay shore doesn't make a lot of sense to me. on the funding point there is a serious issue and this gentleman before me brought up the downtown extension. there was a calling in april that said necessity project that goes to fourth and king and not the downtown extension is not eligible for bonds. nobody appealed the ruling. i don't understand why we are looking at this. this $600 million is not going to happen. this is in my letter.
in closing, i would like you to -- i know you are not going to do it. but i would like you to amend the motion in two ways, first of all is to make this appropriation a condition of the $40 million in the fga, and then you won't have to do this. the second one is that you take a serious look at administration of cal train. it's a serious issue by this board and somebody else. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. lebron. are there any other members of the public that would like to testify on this item. ms. shelby, please come forward. >> hi. i'm the chair of the san francisco riders and very happy to be here and happy that you are having this very special session today. transportation is very important to san
francisco and we are working not only in san francisco, but the bay area to make sure we get good transportation in san francisco. first the san francisco transit riders would urge you to commit that additional moneys for this state regional improvement program to the peninsula corridor electrification project. we believe that is absolutely critical. i am also one of the founders of friends of downtown extension or dtx, and the reason we did that is we believe it's absolutely critical that we also get the track from fourth and king to its home at the transbay terminal. we will sxhit, san francisco, if you commit to that, we will commit to really working hard to get a very good revenue package together for 2018, and our models are places like seattle and los angeles. we believe we thought too small and we
weren't organized enough in our attempts in 2016 and we are not going to do that again. so there is commitment on our part as well that we will do our best for the people of san francisco we think are clearly in favor of better public transportation to get you additional funding for that. in addition as peter straus has already informed you, the san francisco transit riders are very much for the geary, dit, dir approval and we want to thank mark for his help. we hope that you can approve it today. thank you very much. >> thank you, we will get to that item, that is our next item. are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on item no. 3? seeing none, we will close public comment. and commissioner cohen has a motion on the floor. is there a second for that by
commissioner mar. and let me just say as to mr. lebrons, admonition which i certainly am cognizant of in so far as if the ffga, the full funding grant agreement doesn't happen, i don't think we are in any jeopardy of committing $50 million that we would only need to commit if there were cost over runs far and above the $316 million of contingency that is currently in the almost $2 billion budget. but as a former and once again member of this body painfully remember how much transbay phase one has been over budget. so having those kind of protocols which i think we have taken very seriously is remarkably important to me and i know remarkably
important to you. so with that, be on the amendment, colleagues, can we take that without objection? >> the change, the house has changed. that is true. we have been joined by commissioners kim and farrell. on the amendment, a roll call please. >> on the amendment, commissioner avalos, aye, commissioner breed, aye, commissioner campos, aye, commissioner cohen, aye, commissioner farrell, aye, commissioner kim, aye, commissioner mar, aye, commissioner peskin, aye, commissioner tang, aye, commissioner yee, aye, the amendment is approved and on the item as amended can we take that same house, same call, the resolution as amended is adopted. thank you, commissioner cohen, thank you mr. burngs -- burns,
thank you to all of our partners at the san francisco transportation authority. mr. clerk, could you please read the next item. >> item 4. the environmental impact report for the rapid transit project for the environmental quality act, adopt the mitigation, monitoring and reporting program, approve the hybrid alternative of the best rapid transit project and select the highway alternative and the local alternative. this is an action item. >> thank you, mr. clerk, let me start by saying, that i believe, even though i haven't checked, i was one of the individuals voted to initiate this project when i was last on this body, and it has been a long slow road and before us of course is the
environmental document and with that, i would like to acknowledge our staff who has been our lead staff on the environmental review which of course is informational document to inform us as decision makers about the impacts and alternatives to the geary street bus rapid transit proposal. with that, the floor is yours. >> thank you. chair peskin and members of the board and also to the members of the public who are still here despite the cal train item being over. this is the certification as you said as the final eir for the geary project and also a selection of the
preferred alternatives. the geary corridor is one of the premier transit corridors in san francisco. it runs six 1/2 miles from the ocean to downtown to a diverse set of neighborhoods from the richmond to japantown and fillmore community and into tenderloin and union square before reaching downtown in soma. the history of the corridor is somewhat illustrious, it was actually muni's first line when it was a first a streetcar running down geary boulevard and that was unfortunately ripped out in the 1950s and replaced with the buses we have today. there has been a long effort as you mentioned to improve service along geary as it's one of the busiest transit corridors in san francisco with over 52,000 daily riders. but rapid transit was identified as the best way to do that given
the benefits to provide rail and reliability and the ability to accomplish those benefits relatively efficiently and at a lower cost than other options. so i network of brt including van ness as well as geary identified. and there are really two reasons that we are recommending this project in terms of why it's needed. the first is due to the need for improvements to the transit service. it's currently stuck largely in lanes with mixed traffic. that means the buses can get stuck behind vehicles and slower congestion. it does have bus lanes as part of the corridor, but it can lead to inconsistent traffic times and also because there are so many riders, many buses are running at peak times and even a small
delay can lead to buses being overcrowded and others having space. it results in a suboptimal experience for riders and something we need to improve. the second issue is fixing the corridor. san francisco's high injury corridors. it's roughly a small number of streets in the san francisco responsible for a large number of the city's collisions and you are eight times me likely to get hit on geary as a whole. we are working on this here. there have been already several improvements on the corridor on the red lane only bus and the tenderloin as well as the new flow of buses and additional rapid service and on the pedestrian safety side there have been improvements at intersections at a number of locations to make
the crossing safer. to brt to build on all of that with the lanes extending from market street to 34th avenue in the richmond and other transit improvement such as improved stops with additional amenities, new signals and some pedestrian safety elements including new bulb outs and pedestrian median refugees and signals. another streetscape improvements r including to add new street lighting and street and landscaping and additional infrastructure including repaving utilities upgrades and street surface repairs. it's really a full streetscape improvement. we have done an analysis of
the project and what will provide on the transit side of things to improve from one side of the corridor to the other by 20 minutes. if you are riding from one end of the corridor to the other. it will also make service reliable so we are omitting that bunching and over crowding in the corridor. it would makeover all travel in the corridor run more efficiently given that there would be fewer drivers and less traffic in the corridor as people switch to transit and also less delay at intersections on the corridor on average. there would be street improvements and more median green space with the corridor with additional landscaping. we look at a number of different alternatives to brt in the corridor. so first a no build alternative which
looks at just the already planned improvements other than brt and the corridor and several build alternatives for brt. the first is a side running where there are running lanes on the side of the streets for the entire length of the corridor and the early central running from one end to the other and finally a hybrid alternative where there are sections of side and center running. that's our staff recommended alternative. this is an overview of what that alternative looks like running from the right side of the screen at market street. you have the existing lanes, you extend those side bus only lanes from where they currently end at gough street to palm avenue and converge to the center of the street through most of richmond from palm avenue to 27th avenue and diverse back out to the sides of the street from 27
avenue to 34th avenue and the buses continue beyond the mixed traffic. this is a visual of what this project would look like. this is geary avenue, the bus only lane in the center of the street there. the two median that have the stations and additional landscaping and new trees. you can see the pedestrian safety elements there with the new crosswalks and bulb out and as well as is it streetscape elements and on the bottom the side portion of the corridor and what it would look like. this is at fillmore. you can see the extension of the sidewalk and additional station amenities with additional shelters, new next bus signage and other station amenities and that red bus lane keeping the buses out of traffic. as part of the planning and environmental review process, we developed a draft environmental document which we released last october and it was open for a public comment period
for 2 months. during that period we did a number of different notification activities and ultimately received about 300 comments in the draft environmental document for members of the public. we have also done a number of other community engagement activities through the course of the project to gather input through several different rounds which we refined alternatives to respond to the input we were receiving. there have been a number of multilingual ways to reach out from the corridor to ambassadors at bus stops and through digital means as well and had public meetings on the project. we met with many different individual stakeholders groups to a couple hundred meetings to gather more specific input there, and had a citizens advisory committee to get a detailed sense of the project and provide us input and liaison with the communities they represent.
we've also done some survey work surveying merchants and visitors in the corridor and we have interactive devices along the corridor so people can walk up and look at what the project would look like down the street. we have quite a bit throughout the project. these are some keys we heard from the members of the public. the first topic is safety which is a concern to all of us and particularly to people who are walking and biking who are the most vulnerable users of the corridor. we have incorporated quite a few safety improvements as i mentioned before. many of those were already in the project as part of the draft environmental document and we have incorporated a number of additional pedestrian involved and pedestrian safety elements since the draft into the final document. we've also worked with the san
francisco bicycle coalition to identify some additional intersection improvement to help bicyclist get across. we heard from merchants across the corridor with concerns of what the project would mean particularly with construction if this was going to be a disturbance that they were worried about. we worked on communication strategies to make sure we are gathering input on how we can best avoid any impacts to those businesses and minimize those as much as possible which include things like establishing the advisory community and keeping in lines with contracts and other businesses and keeping the lines of communication open and minimizing those effects. on the parking and loading side of things we worked very hard to design the project in a way that will minimize the effects of parking on the
corridor. that is the case throughout the corridor, in most cases we preserve the parking lane on both sides of the street. we have particularly worked hard in the richmond noting that merchants in the richmond and 25th avenues there is not a lot of parking on the street. we worked really hard to previous that part of the parking on the corridor where there aren't parking resources. with the landscaping with the median on the 25th to take out the single existing median and put in the new median, we do that with at least a 1 to 1 ratio. we try to put as many trees in that design as possible and there will be more landscaping areas with the new medians. >> specific issues that have come up in different neighborhoods
along the corridor and in japantown those have included the webster street pedestrian bridge. we have previously proposed to remove that bridge and replace it with surface pedestrian crossings, as we are road dieting and making that street safer in that location. we heard from a lot of the public through public comment period. this was a topic commented on and particularly schools nearby and groups crossing with kids that they were concerned about removing this bridge and felt that was the really safest way to get across the street. we worked with them to identify a design to preserve that bridge and that is incorporated into final eir. the folks in japantown have also identified additional street escaping and finding desires to see that incorporated in the project and we will work with them to identify what those improvements can be and roll
into the design process for the project. finally, the laguna street stop which is an outstanding issue before the board today is the stop that's currently a rapid stop at laguna street and we propose it to be only a local only stop in the environmental document and that's because the stop has relatively lower ridership than other rapid stops in the corridor and also not a transfer route to other lines, and it would provide according to our analysis, a greater travel time benefit to more users of the corridor. the riders coming through the corridor on the rapid stop today, there are about 13,000 riders who pass through laguna without stopping and those riders would lose about 50 seconds each with a rapid stop at laguna compared to a local only stop. there are about 1800 riders who get
on and off the bus at laguna and those riders would need to wait for a local dock which is about 2 minutes of travel time. over all we looked from a travel time perspective, there would be more distributed benefit with a local only stop. that has been our staff recommendation, however, we have heard a lot of feedback from people in the community particularly around that neighborhood that there are a lot of seniors in that area, there are also hills that make it challenging to walk to the closest rapid stop at fillmore street. so, based on that, we have completed analysis of a second option which would be to make that stop rapid as it is today, but with new boarding islands in order to reduce conflicts between right turn vehicles and the bus. we have done a complete analysis of both of those options. we still have the staff
recommended alternatives for the local stop given this is a challenging trade off with both going in either direction. we have prepared a resolution, draft resolution language that the board could adopt to incorporate the rapid stop into the project as well. >> which is not required any additional or supplemental environmental review? >> that's correct. we have documented in the environmental review, thank you for asking that, both options. the local only stop is documented in the eir itself and we have also completed on the side in the meantime before the hearing the additional analysis and found that the local only stop inside the rapid stop would have no additional impacts or worsened impacts and no mitigation measures added to be analyzed in the
eir. >> the same is true for the street bridge? >> the street bridge with a final eir and that is correct, there would about no additional environmental impacts. >> the same with collins? >> right, i will get to that next. the collins is one of the issues that came up in the richmond section of the corridor. so this is an existing local only stop we have proposed to remove that stop and done some outreach before as that has not come up as an issue and it's too late for us to incorporate anything in the eir and the center which is located at collins street identified the fact that they serve seniors who rely on this stop. so we also did the analysis of keeping that stop local only essentially in its existing configuration as is and we have also incorporated that in the draft additional resolution that the board could include this in
your approval today. likewise that would not have any additional impacts or worsened impacts and required mitigated measures. it was more of timing issue when that issue came to light. the other issue that came up in the richmond at 27th avenue where the bus only lanes would center or diverge back out to the street on avenue 24th avenue, this is a concern raised by the cathedral. they are concerned that people are loading and unloading outside of their church. they have a loading zone for seniors and children. they are concerned about the buses coming from the center of the street. we feel the design as it is today and
the staff recommended alternatives is safe and would work. we have committed to them that during the design process, we will continue to work through and do additional outreach and analysis of looking at other ways and options to address their concerns about this location and we think there are some promising design options there. >> this would presumably predate the national environmental policy act federal environmental review that is going to trail after assuming this body moves this that affirms this environmental document that would be prior to the federal action? >> that's the plan. the plan is to identify here if there would be able to make the change to the document we would need to then complete additional ceqa documentation in the form of for example an addendum and then we would then need to
incorporate that in the federal eis as well. >> the final item i just wanted to highlight in the richmond is the spruce street stop. a location that we proposed to converge the stop to a new brt stop with a bulb out in the street to accommodate the number of buses stopping there. we heard from merchants that they would lose a lot of loading parking and we went back and determined that based on the ridership at the stop and concerns, we were able to keep the loading as a stop and that has not resulted in any other concerns. we have incorporated that in the final eir and the environmental analysis to determine there are no additional impacts or worsened impacts as a
result of that change. >> so the final eir that you are considering today was published in december 9th, it includes the responses to all the 300 comments we received on the draft and the three project changes that we have incorporated that i mentioned in the west street bridge and the spruce street and the additional safety elements. we did that analysis to determine there are no further impacts that would result. one important thing that you were getting at commissioner peskin, is the separation of the environmental impact state which meets the requirements and the environmental impact report which you are considering today to meet the state ceqa requirements. the draft document we produced was a combined eir and eis and we worked with the federal transit administration to develop that draft
eis, eir and worked with them to release the draft eir we were hoping to produce a completed combined final eir and worked with them on a number of a formatted document and received from them a different direction and we agreed with them to mutually to proceed in order to not hold up the eir from it's local approval which we understand which is something that was desired to bring forward so we can proceed with the local eir and separately soon in the next few months we can complete the process on the eis. on the notification to the final eir to make sure that everyone aware of the document that was released and that included a multilingual mailer to 35,000 addresses as well as
on the corridor we identified and unvoidable impact in the draft and also in the final and those in the area. the delay that people who are driving experience approaching an intersection. so, with the project there would be several intersection that would have higher than the significant threshold level of delay. a high level of delay with few intersection. however the no project with -- the delay. although the intersection would be as part of the project and the project would result in less traffic overall in the corridor. >> as you know the city has since the draft document and before the final
document switched it's metric for a significance here from level of service to the vehicle miles traveled metric which gets to a more holistic picture more or less traffic and we given -- so, the hybrid alternative ultimately would be the superior alternative given it's impact to other alternatives in the corridor. >> on the cost picture, the entire project is $300 million is the current cost estimate, includes the transit improvement, pedestrian safety improvements and additional
infrastructure and streetscape improvements, including the $100 million small starts fta grant we are seeking and including there is the project is highly competitive based on the high ridership. mta will be entering that smaller pipeline later this year. the project has worked on near term improvements and following that finishing with the first project. that first set of first near improvements are as well as with some state and federal as well and that will be rolled out later this year and the next couple of years following the rest of the projects. the board action we are seeking from you today is to include the environmental document as well as the findings, statement of
considerations and mitigating monitoring program and approving the project as a whole. on the side of things, we need to look at the local alternatives and the geary cac did meet last night to consider recommendations on this and they recommended on a 9-1 vote to proceed with the staff recommended alternatives as laid out in the staff recommendation. the one nay vote was due to a concern about the laguna stop and having that be a local only stop, only the cac took a voted to consider adding the laguna rapid stop to the staff recommendation as their cac recommendation and that passed on a 7-3 basis. the strong support from the
project cac to move forward with this project as well. the schedule of course as i mentioned we released the final document on december 9th, cac met last night. here we are january 5th and moving forward and we are working with cac. and working on the program which fta will need to implement will go to the sf mta board to get approved there, and finally as the phase one or near term improvements move forward, the sf mta board will need to legislate all the individual improvements that have happened there. over the next few months there will be another intensive outreach push led by sf mta to get back out to the corridor
and those individual improvements before the final legislation that happens prior to implementation. with that, i will open up to any questions. >> thank you for your work. before i acknowledge commissioner mar who of coursen his capacity for the next few days represents district 1, the richmond district, let me acknowledge that this is actually a project that spans for supervisoryial district as i one as supervisor in this capacity, commissioner kim and commissioner breed. this is obviously a massive city cross. i want to start by thanking the many members of the cac which has a revolving chairperson, last even, with no relation to mr. dental
post and his predecessor bill newsom, no relationship to the judge or father to the former mayor and as well as members of the caac for the many years for their involvement with this project. i want to also acknowledge that in our chambers here today is former commissioner and former richmond district supervisor jack mcgold drij who has joined us here today, sf mta michelle brinkman. and one additional capacity which i have not forwarded to anyone, but in so far as all the matters that mr. dental post addressed the laguna rapid stop or spruce street or collins street or change between 26 and 27th,
and the webster street bridge notwithstanding this is clearly and it is not lost on any of the ten members of this body, a controversial issue. so what i wanted to propose after we hear from commissioner mar and any other members of this body including commissioner breed and the chair of the cac is that we actually afford some of the leaders of the opposition, the opportunity to speak. i will defer to former supervisor mcgold rick. i want to be abundantly clear and transparent that i have taken a few cards out of order, and the rest of the order as i received
them. with that, let me turn it to commissioner mar as his capacity as district 1 supervisor. >>supervisor eric mar: thank you, i think it's important that you acknowledge that there are four supervisorial districts that geary runs through. this is a milestone. it's been a long time coming. thanks to mr. dental post for his hard work on this and others on the transportation authority and sf mta staff. ben and julie, helped the staff and really engaged community members for over a year in the 300 plus comments from the draft eir to the over 60 community meetings which are highlighted in one of the documents. i think it's a lot of work has gone into this. a lot of study. to the citizens advisory committee members, and at last night's
meeting in the pouring rain, 8 years of the process. i really wanted to thank them for being so hardworking and listening to communities. i think it's significant that the laguna street stop has been amended and i know supervisor breed will comment on that, but i think it shows the sensitivity and the considerations for seniors and people with disabilities. i see steven catcho here and city's chairman and looking at seniors and families and disabled people from the area. also the saint francis square housing and the transit, and the traffic there. this will allow us to create
a better station for that laguna stop. i also wanted to say too that the cac members, i think joanna fong who wrote us the letter served from 2008 to present and i know a lot of work went in from many individuals. richard hashimoto. when jake left office in 2009, i think he passed on a lot of information and knowledge on information he gathered. i have been in communication as well as my staffer, angelina. we are passing on this information. i met with her this morning and she knows that other efficiencies will be made to allow the board in 2017 to move forward on the concerns as mr.
dent post mention on the 26, 27th avenue and the holy cathedral church and the center spot which is a really important sensitive change. thank you for working with the smaller businesses along colin street as well and the spruce street issue. i think it's a good example of how much outreach give and take has been given. i know sitting in the press box is michael who traveled with a number of us to study the mexico city bus rapid transit and the connectivity to their bike share and other programs. as we learned from the institutional transportation development policy, when you analyze these brt, how important the colored dedicated lanes and the center lanes as well. the richmond district will gain 30% or more reduction of travel time from
palm to near presidio middle school all the way in that corridor. the rest of the corridor will benefit significantly from reduced not only speedier buses but the way the buses will come, some will come every 4 minutes and some only on the time savings which is significant don't even tell about how many buses will come and reducing the not only the travel time but the wait time for riders. i want to thank the san francisco transit riders and the richmond district democratic club for being so long-term in their support of this project as well. and lastly, i wanted to say that colin mentioned the history of the geary corridor. i will just thank my
colleague from sf state for his street fight book talking a little bit about the history about efforts to block transit improvements along key corridors. i think as efforts from the 60s through the present i think today's vote is really critical in ensuring that we are a transit first city with definitely speedier, more reliable with a 6-mile corridor. as we vote today and listen to the public comment, in my last meeting i will be able to weigh in on this as we pass the
and for really and rosa parks elementary school. >> for just doing all to make sure that this project when it was moving forward they were involved and engaged and they pushed to preserve the bridge and they pushed for safety reasons. i think the right decision was made to keep the webster street bridge, but i don't believe that the right decision was made on the rapid stop for laguna. in his presentation, one of the things that was not mentioned and mentioned by my colleague commissioner mar, was that there is a large senior and disabled population, but especially senior population in that area.
there is not only a large senior population in that area, there is a large aging population in that area. and in any given day, if you are just out on that particular corner, you see it's really busy, but you always see a large group of seniors who are trying to cross the street to get to the bus stop. and i do realize that we are talking about 13,000 passengers coming potentially from district one traveling and speeding up public transportation and we look at the ridership about 1300 people and you kind of did this analysis and maybe i'm butchering the numbers, but the point is i still don't think it's fair to take away this particular rapid stop especially because this rapid stop is on a hill, this rapid stop is not close to any major intersections. for those of us who aren't seniors, we are going to get there 1 day
and see how difficult it is to walk from what we think is an easy hill. i'm even having trouble walking up some of the san francisco hills now that i didn't maybe 5 years ago. we have to be more consider the for how we move transit. yes, i want to speed up transit for people trying to get around san francisco, but in the process of speeding up transit, we have to make sure that we are being fair and we are not leaving some of our most vulnerable citizens behind, and so, that is why it is important for me yes, to move this project forward. it's a safety -- we have anticipated safety improvements because of that infrastructure improvements which i get all excited over. it's going to be a great project. it's going to be messy in the process but it's going to be a great project for the city when it's
completed. the one thing that i think is important to do in changing this particular eir today is to amend the laguna stop and specifically i'm going to make that motion to amend the stop at laguna and geary and change it to a rapid stop. specifically and i would be happy to move this project forward. i know there is a lot of members of the public. [ applause ] there are a lot of members of the public here today who want to probably provide any feedback, but, you know, this is just the right thing to do. and i think i also want to acknowledge that i have heard from other members of the public who also said we need to hold off, we need to do more community process, we need to wait until the new supervisors come in, we need
to do this, i don't agree with that. i think there are very capable members of the board who are leaving us and have been actively engaged in transit issues and are going to do into very end what is best, not only for their districts, but for this city. so the time is now. it's been a long time coming. so let's move this forward. thank you to each one of my colleagues, with that i would like to make a motion to make the amendment to change this to include the rapid stop at laguna. thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioner breed. there is a motion on the floor, seconded by commissioner phil and i actually neglected because i forgot that the geary brt touches five districts. it actually touches supervisor farrell and his supervisory capacity district. with that,
the floor is yours, commissioner farrell. >>supervisor mark farrell: thank you. i want to say thank you to the staff. this project does intersect with district the, jordan park which is the neighborhood i live in with my family. i want to thank the staff who worked on this for quite a while. whenever the lanes that emerge and some of the logistics there. i want to thank them for their efforts there. i also want to thank the community that is out here today. i know there are still some against this project very much so and some working with it, and in particular as commissioner breed mentioneded especially those in the senior community have reached out to me as well. people from my district, as commissioner breed mentioned as we continue to go through a lot of the improvements through muni throughout san francisco, we need to make sure that efficiency
and speed is not affecting the seniors. it's so critical and gets lost a lot of times in our discussions. it is a balancing act and i think including the stop will be very much of an improvement and i'm very supportive of it. from an overall project perspective, you know, with the city, we need to do everything possible to make our public transportation system more efficient. we have more and more people living in our city than before. our roads are congested than ever before. we have more people driving, more people walking, more people taking bikes and buses. the better we improve the mode of transportation is going to be better. i don't know people that i
have spoken to that think that these roads are more congested in the history of san francisco. in that lens, everything that we can do as a city to get people off of single cars into public transportation is a great direction for the future of our city. ultimately, i want to say, i hope long-term that this brt in geary is secondary part of transportation to geary street boulevard. ultimately it's secondary to the subway system that we need to focus here in city of san francisco. that is a step in the right direction. what i do think we need to look forward in the future of san francisco and long-term. >> thank you, commissioner farrell. commissioner mar. >>supervisor eric mar: to add on to supervisor breed's amendment and thanks to supervisor farrell
for his leadership on moving this forward as well. but i would like to move the colin street amendments as well as the laguna street ones. i know that we all have the mained language from the cac's meeting and the changes i believe are on the pages 3 in the second paragraph pages 4 in the first paragraph, page 7 in the third paragraph as well that mention colin street sensitivity to the russian american senior services and the seniors that ride to geary currently. the masonic is a very long one and i yield the maintenance of local stop
there for seniors. i make that motion as well. >> okay, motion made by commissioner mar and breed. we have two, one motion from commissioner breed and one from commissioner mar. we will not take those up until after public comment. so, colleagues, with your indulgence, i would suggest that we proceed as follows: first that we hear from the citizens advisory committee chair mr. post, followed as is our custom by former supervisors and commissioner mcgold rick and then as to the folks that i previously referenced, i don't know, nor do i want to single you out. if you would like to have one or more of you if you have an
organized presentation in opposition to that before us, maybe you can gather up as we hear from the previous two folks. i have been contacted by a number of you. maybe mr. skarzel and if you would like to decide how you will proceed, we will give you a little bit of time to do that as we hear from mr. post. the floor is yours on behalf of the cac. >> yes, thank you, good afternoon, i had the honor of chairing the final meeting of the geary brt citizens advisory committee. i know there are several other cac members here who will join us later. i want to acknowledge that since the cac was born back in 2008, many people have given their time to a committee including joanna fong who is the supervisor as indicated been
serving since the beginning, 8 years ago. supervisor mar attending the meeting to pass on recognition to the board. that meant a lot to us. thank you very much. the purpose of the cac was to represent the public along the corridor and at large to provide another outlet for engaging with the transportation authority through the environmental analysis period. i have been impressed boo -- by the public outreach and the transit authority. the transit authority does not have an easy job as they balance the bus rapid transit system that increase the safety and reliability along the corridor with specific aspects about the project that might want some changes and there is a risk.
we heard how important pedestrian safeties were and additional measures are now incorporated in the project. last night, mr. dental post gave the presentation that we saw today at the cac. the cac then discussed the final eir and the final plan, the hybrid alternative and took public comment. as has been the case at least in the several meetings appointed, many residents of japantown in the surrounding areas attended and expressed how useful the rapid service is and many were generally supportive of the brt project in theory but the plan call limitation for that laguna street rapid stop in conversion to the local only stop. this is one of the tricky areas of balance
noted. in the end, the citizens advisory committee voted on two motions, first a motion to support the adopt the eir, adopt the findings and the monitoring supporting program, approve the alternatives as the brt projects and support the locally preferred alternatives. as you heard that motion passed. secondly we are on a motion to retain that rapid stop as a modification to the locally preferred alternative and that motion also passed. so that's where we are and i just want to say on behalf of the committee, thank you to the staff for your hard work in engaging with us. i want to thank the board on behalf of the committee for the opportunity to serve on the citizens advisory committee and to say that we look forward to finally seeing brt get moving. >> thank you and thank you to your colleagues on that cac.
mr. sarza, why don't you come up. we are going to hear from former supervisor mcgold rick. this won't come out of your time. how would you like to handle the proposition that i put forward? we are separate, there are two separate presentations. >> fine. >> commissioner peskin is there today. with my tenure with 2001-2009. i want to say thank you to staff because this staff has done remarkable work. it's tens of thousands
of hours. the process, 250 meetings in the community. i attended maybe half a dozen of those when i was the supervisor we got started in the 2003 reauthorization for sales tax in 30 years to put that list together of projects with brt and important part of it. here we are 14 years later. saying for one thank you to the staff and to you commissioners. i know from a personal experience what an incredible amount of work it is that you have all done and thank you to the three commissioners who are leaving with the term limits. god bless you. it's an amazing job. the public, above all. thousands of people have participated. right up to today you are
dealing with laguna, with collins, with issues that right up until today if you are still amending and there will be tweaks and expect tweaks. staff is so responsive today and that is one of the most important things. i was listening to the link tv and they were moving moving rapidly and he gave you the example of the seatbelt legislation. they got done quickly. but, i think he is not the guy to refer to on this project. ralph mader had a lot of what the raiders achieved. this has been going over for decades. you can count all the way back to 2003 when it got
included in the sales tax authorization. the devil is in the details. the details have been attended to. everything here as far as environmental issues including 541 metric tons of greenhouse gasses to be completed. this is remarkable. thank you for providing this report. there are so many issues to report on are very positive, incredibly positive. certainly, my recommendation is to adopt item 4 including selecting the alternative which i think has been carefully considered, the recommended alternative is amazing. this is an
amazing document. i have spent many hours reading this in the last week and very grateful at how our public process is so honest. it includes everybody. unlike congress and washington where people have political positions whether it is considerate or left or right. when we were in this, when we leave theegs chambers, we would sit down and have a drink together and say we respect one another. great respect for all of this and great respect for the public. i'm taking too much time. >> you are already there. >> saying and i would say
it's a wonderful document. i think you should probably approve this. thank you very much. one more quick thing. 32 seconds. one more thing. here is what i wanted to say, mike burns of philadelphia also has another title. he's the former chief operator of septa. the southeast transportation system. thank you very much. >> thank you, former supervisor mcgold rick. >> the floor is yours. >> wer here because we we want to bring an end to the process of the brt. after all you listened to the
transportation planners for several years. we disagree. events have over taken you two candidates and district board of supervisors have taken the votes despite the doubts by those recommending the project. they do not want you to approve the hybrid today at least for phase two. you need to wait for sandra to come on board and this is affecting your deciding your independent judgment rather than stamping this. you went on vacation until january 3rd. the eir total 1065 pages. to review the responses and comments with all their disclosures you would have to read 870 pages.
nobody believes you did that in 2 days which was full of meetings and nobody believes you did it during the holidays. and with the other 833 pages with the resolutions and documents presented. we don't believe you read any of those. ask yourself what a judge would believe. he or she would see an effort of the political will of the voters, second an impossible size to the judgment. she would see the fix. suspend this meeting and allow the voters to be heard in subsequent hearings. thank you. >> thank you. i can't make representations on behalf of my colleague, but i was only out of town for 4 days over the
holidays and unfortunately went through that entire document. mr. hiller? public speaker: commissioners, i don't know what is the rush. now we have this coming in 3 days. we all want better transportation. we as first of all, i am the person of the geary merchants association. we represent 450 merchants. we are feeling different than this commission is feeling right now. this is not about legacy. this is about survival. construction along the city has hurt many people, we have to work
together with the merchants to make this happen. i don't understand what the hell do you guys have to lose by giving us 30 days so the new board can come in and work together with the community. give you one simple example that has just happened a couple weeks ago. you can no longer make a left turn on van ness. you know what this is called? union street. he built up a wall. a gate. nobody can go to union. they are hurting right now. this is because there was no communication with the merchants and the people in the community. i'm asking to you give ugs if 30 days is too much, give us 15 days, 10 days. let the new board members get involved in this. this is about not just transportation, but about survival of the smallest community in this city.