tv Government Access Programming SFGTV November 19, 2017 11:00pm-12:01am PST
posts to block any bike corrals or parklets because waiting a year to find out yes we spent this money and indeed, valencia's bike lane needs to be improved, that's way too long. thanks. >> chairman peskin: thank you, sir. >> i'm a general manager of mission bicycle company. we are located on valencia street between 18th and 19th. as not only a cyclist, i ride valencia five days a week and it is a nightmare trying to get around cars parked in the bike lanes, vehicles pulling in and out. even walking has become an issue. as a business owner who caters to cyclists, i hear countless stories of near misses, close calls, severe accidents, everything, every single day and week. i'm in full support of doing something to make that a thing of the past. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you,
sir. i have just one mr. speaker card. >> good morning. thank you for taking the time to listen to us. my name is paul valdez and i'm a 26-year san francisco resident. i'm a volunteer for the bicycle coalition, a former member of the bay area families for safe streets advocacy group. bottom line, i'm here to show my support in approving the additional funds that create protected bike lanes from market to mission. i choose to ride my bike in san francisco because i believe it is a wonderful, sustainable healthy way to get around in our city. i'm appreciative of the current bike structure but my bike rides have less enjoyable because of the people who lack the wisdom to share streets safely. there are many situations i was riding down valencia and was
forced into oncoming traffic because drivers from companies like uber and lift were parked in the bike lanes for several blocks. an uber driver swerved in front of me to pick up passengers and compromised my safety and the safety of others. to take a ride down valencia street, saturday nights are the worst and it is a mess and unsafe. as one of the co-organizers for where we honor cyclists killed we know lives could have been saved. protected bike lanes are paramount and they will save lives. i urge you to improve the transportation improvement funds today and for a safer valencia street tomorrow. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you. >> public: thanks. one of the things that really is meaningful to me about bicycles
is that they are for everyone and bicycles are the most equitable form of transportation along with walking. i wanted to echo supervisor cohen's comments about funding education for bicyclists in southeast of san francisco and i hope to see a future planning funding for bike lane between the southeast of san francisco and places where rich people live like valencia street. thank you supervisor cohen. >> chairman peskin: thank you, sir. next speaker. >> public: good morning. my name is kelsey and i bike on valencia street from 22nd to market every day. i have been riding my bike in the city since i moved here nine years ago i feel confident in my ability to be safe, courteous and predictable on my bike. in the two years that i have lived in district eight, i have seen a profound change in the safety of valencia street.
what used to feel like a true walking and biking corridor now feels like any other street without bike lanes. i have to go around at least one car per block stopped in the bike lane, which means that i have to leave the lane that is for me and enter the car traffic lane. there, i'm vulnerable to even more uber drivers who are paying more attention to their phones than the road. even when i'm in the bike lane, i'm susceptible to cars as uber drivers pull over. i have had more close calls than any other street in san francisco. every day after i bike on valencia, i arrive to my destination shaken, scared and angry. this is an entirely preventable problem. clearly enforcement of these double parking violations isn't happening and something needs to be done. protected bike lanes have proven themselves to keep our streets
safe for everyone. valencia street has been a safe and visionary corridor for people instead of a series of crashes waiting to happen. the time for doing nothing has passed. people deserve to be safe. i urge the board of superisors to support funding for protected bike lanes on the entirety of valencia street. thank you. >> chairman peskin: next speaker. >> public: my name is christopher. san francisco resident for about six years. although this isn't the first city i have learned to bike in. i lived in new york city and had been biking there for the past ten years also. i guess you could say i'm more of an experienced cyclist and so, i'm kind of used to the general flow of traffic, riding close to cars, the weaving in and out of streets and everything that existed in cities in the past 15 years,
before we really started investing in making cycling safe. what is interesting for me is that recently i began a relationship with my partner. she has never ridden in a city before and going through her and riding with her in the city, i'm kind of seeing things in a different way. one of the things she came to me with in the past six months is she feels unsafe on va experience la street. -- valencia street. she won't ride it by herself on the weekends or after 6:00 p.m. just because there's so much traffic on that street. she said sew feels more safe riding in the red bus lane on mission street because that lane feels more enforced and more separated from cars and sometimes you just have to watch out for one or two buses between the trip of 16th to 24th than she does having to dodge six to ten cars on valencia street. i volunteer at the san francisco
bike kitchen in the mission. i'm on the board of directors and from this opportunity i get to speak to lots of individuals and they their these sentiments. valencia seems to be one of those lotions that more and more -- locations that more and more people are avoiding for other streets. i feel stories people go all the way to the east side of the city, the east side of the mission going up harrison or folsom to completely avoid that area. [bell]. >> public: thank you for listening to me i would approve more bike lanes. especially on valencia street. >> chairman peskin: thank you. >> public: good morning. i'm a volunteer with the bike coalition. i have been a san francisco resident for over 40 years. i'm a bike commuter. my wife is a bike commuter and i want to start by saying that
safety is a huge concern to me. 13 years ago i was run over by a bus while riding home from work. i nearly died. i wouldn't be here if it weren't for the fire department, if it weren't for sfgh, i wouldn't be here. i would be dead. it caused a huge disruption in my life, my family's life. i was in the hospital for three months. i was off work for a year. this cost the city millions of dollars from a suit that i had against the city. and i want to make it really clear that it is cheaper and better for citizens of san francisco to have safe cycling. that's just a no-brainer. motorized vehicles and pedestrians and bikes have no business being in the same place. we have to have bike boulevards,
pedestrian areas in this city. i ride valencia five to six times a week. i have to say it has been fab seeing so many -- fabulous seeing so many new people and the growth of bicycles. but it is horrendous with what has happened with cars on valencia. there are countless cars and trucks double parking as everyone has said. you need to weave in and out. you have no choice. these are just accidents like mine waiting to happen. i think there's a toxic mix in san francisco today. you have a bunch of new people who have very fast cars and very fancy cars and like to go very fast. and then you have a bunch of new cyclists. [bell]. >> public: and they are all together and that's causing enormous problems. so, i think there's no question in my mind that we have to make things really different and we have to make cycling safe in this city. >> chairman peskin: thank you. next speaker please.
and if there are anymore speakers, line up, otherwise this will be the last speaker. >> public: hi. thanks for listening today. i moved here recently over the summer and i have been biking for a long time before i moved here. i was in seattle most recently and there i was also involved in a lot of bicycle activism. it took people dying in order to get protected bike lanes there and i really don't want to see that happen here. i would rather move faster, put up posts like has been mention-ed before in areas where there are bike corrals and make temporary prevent tifr changes fast -- preventtive changes faster. i have seen bikes and cars and pedestrians co-existing. it is possible. it happens in a lot of places all over the world. ty don't see why we can't -- i don't see why we can't have that here. we can have cars and pick-up
spots for uber and lifts out of the bike lanes and we can have protected bike lanes. all it is going to take is working for it and i think that we can do that. so, i just want to strongly encourage everyone to keep fighting for these protected bike lanes because i know we can. thank you. >> chairman peskin: public comment is closed. commissioner ronen. >> supervisor ronen: yes. i want to thank everyone who came out. it was very eye-opening. not that we don't know what is going on. but to hear that bikers are using the red lanes for the buses as a safer alternative to what was supposed to be the bike corridor is just insane. and the crazy thing about it is it makes perfect sense. that's how dangerous valencia has become. i have asked the mta several times to increase enforcement of
double parking on valencia. i know supervisor sheehy has done the same. i see dillon in the audience. i think we need to have that meeting again because while we will continue to prioritize and fight for protected bike lanes, that's going to take some time. i share the urgency of all the public speakers today. i'm very fearful that someone is going to get severely injured or killed if we just wait to get those protected bike lanes installed. we need to act urgently right now and that means we need to triple, quadruple enforcement and make it known that if you double park on valencia, you are going to get a ticket. and in addition, we need to push these companies especially uber and lift. i know the problem is beyond them. but those companies are a lot to
blame for the fact that the corridor in the mission that is supposed to be the bike corridor has become the one to most avoid for bikers. that just makes no sense. it has thrown the entire scheme of how transportation is supposed to work in the mission up in chaos. and we have to do something about it urgently. so, i'm looking at dillon and would like to schedule that meeting in an emergency fashion. >> chairman peskin: commissioner sheehy. >> supervisor sheehy: it is really an urgent situation. having stood out there, i have personally seen how dangerous it is. what i have is a question maybe for the director and maybe even for mta. having looked at this -- been talking about moving on this,
i'm wondering as we get the data from the study, are there things that we can implement because i look at this as really -- there seems to be some really low-hanging fruit, putting barriers up around the bike corrals, the parklets. that seems like a no-brainer. and from my discussions from mta it seems from 19th to san jose is a place where the amount of work that you need to do in order to move towards that -- there's a lower level of complexity. that's before we get all the overhead wires and the street narrows, it seems like that's something that could move a bit faster. i do know that last stretch as you get closer to market that's more challenging. but is there a way we can think about doing this in phases because every bit that we do
will make it safer? and the faster that we can improve -- if we could just get 19th to san jose which is also bike protected all the way around san jose with concrete barriers and get that as soon as possible. i recognize the challenges that exist once we start having the overhead wires. but if we wait to solve for that before we do these other things, we approach this in phases and take it as we show -- as we start studying. to wait a whole year to start any of this seems -- i'm not sure i understand the necessity there. >> jamie parks with mta. overseeing bicycle capital prompts. absolutely, we want to look at what we can do now to improve safety. part of the plan is coming up with a phase implementation structure towards how we move towards a safer valencia street.
and if we identify something everyone can agree on, we can move right away. that's part of our study. >> supervisor sheehy: great. let's be in contact on this, please. thank you. >> chairman peskin: commissioner kim. >> supervisor kim: i want to thank supervisor sheehy and ronen for seeking improvements on valencia street. having looked at the south of market and the tenderloin with sfmta we have protected parking on folsom street. i doesn't go as far as we would like it to. but just having that from division through 4th street really is making a big difference and was just installed last week. but i have to agree, i always assumed that valencia was one of the safer streets to bike down and i don't bike down to the
mission very often. but my few experiences biking down there as left me deciding not to bike down valencia as a beginner biker anymore. in fact, i feel safer on some of our corridors in the south of market now because we do have parking protected bike lanes on seventh and 8th and division as well as now folsom street. so, i just want to thank all the members of the public for coming out today. i think this is a corridor that is often viewed as one that should be the most biker friendly. so, i really look forward to us being able to continue those extensions into the neighborhood and also want to make sure, listening to the members of what the public said, it did take a fatality for us to move forward on protected bike lanes on seventh street and on folsom as well. we certainly don't want that to be the impetus for any near term improvements going to the ground. you know how quickly mta can act when that happens and how the
near term improvements happened on folsom street was almost shocking to me after the fatality we had. within a month we were painting a green stripe down folsom. i encourage the city to continue to act on these major kor dors -- corridors the way we do when these tragedies occur. >> chairman peskin: thank you. commissioner breed. >> thank you. i have some questions about the bike to work day. maybe someone can answer the questions. i'm not sure who. i missed the presentation since i wasn't here early. >> chairman peskin: we will see what ms. la fort says. >> specifically for the bicycle education classes, is this the first time this program has happened? >> this is not the first time. how many years it has been
conducted, i would need to check. we funded it about 18 months ago for one of the semesters. how long has this be in effect? about six years. >> first of all, i think i'm confused about the allocation of expenses. it specifies construction and then it goals into detail -- goes into details about bike equipment and helmets. if the program existed, i'm trying to runs these things that get funded every single time that we support this program? >> yes. >> so, we buy new helmets and bikes every year? is that how it works? >> yes. there's a helmet allocation -- >> could you identify yourself? >> i'm the planning program manager. and we do buy new helmets every year just from a health perspective.
the low-cost helmets we provide are given to the students at the end of each class so they have the safety protection. there were concerns about sharing helmets and passing that along to the classes. we don't buy new bicycles every year. the bikes being proposed are the property of sfmta. we would be able to use the bikes year after year. >> the other question i had is what's the outreach process? i know i have heard about these programs being done before and i think the implication that because they are being done at a specific school would be that the participants come from those schools and i don't think that's entirely accurate. i just want to understand what -- with some of the past classes that have been taught, whether or not the students in that particular school have been outreached to and for the
participants, what are the percentages of the number of students from the particular schools that they have done it in the past have participated in the program? >> a hundred percent of the students in each class and each school would be from that school because these classes are actually held within the pe class. >> got it. so they are not after school or weekends? >> no. this is in the middle of this is a partnership with the school district as well. >> okay. and just a little bit more information. can you talk about the feedback for this program from the high schools specifically? >> sorry. can you help me understand, the feedback -- >> the feedback from the students that participate in the high school program. >> it has a very high appreciation. we collect data related to students comfort and knowledge of bicycling before and after
they take the class. we produce an annual report with a school by school breakdown of how those numbers change and how the kids have responded to the classes and any feedback that we receive to the class. we could make that available to you later today. >> okay. and so, the expenses for staffing like a program director, p.e. coordinator, program lead one and two, all these people are needed to coordinate a class for -- >> absolutely, yes. so, the way this program is organized, we work with the ymca, the why bike program, and they coordinate with the school districts p.e. coordinators and with each p.e. teacher, they come in for two weeks. they provide training to the teachers and then also depending on where the school is, let me step back. there's a three-year kind of
program in which the first year my bike comes in and shows the p.e. teacher at a school how to offer the class. the second year it is more of a co-led and the third year there are there for support. there are teachers in classes that are now providing their own bikes and their own instruction with no prop k or sfmta support because the program has gone through. so, it depends on where each school is and where the teachers are. so, yes, each one of these people has to -- there's a lot of coordination that goes into making sure the bikes get on campus and are stored. that the teachers are prepared and ready, et cetera. and then we meet a couple of people on site for the two-week period as well. >> so, why is there no line item for transportation? of the bikes. >> i'm sorry. of all the things i didn't bring. there is a line item that is
related to the transportation that we do pay for essentially the gas. why bike owns the van and the trailers so we don't have to pay for those. however we pay for the time spent transporting them from school to school. >> okay. thank you. can someone answer the questions i have specifically about bike to work day? >> that is also me. >> okay. do you have a breakdown of the budget? because for the sponsorship, the bike to work someday, the $38,547, there's a list of items specifically but there's no breakdown of those items. i just would like to see a budget specifically for those particular items. this seems like a lot of money. i know in the bigger scheme of things it is not a lot of money. but it is a lot of money for one day. and i wanted to -- this has been going on for many years, every
year. and so, i just wanted a breakdown of what those numbers actually look like. i didn't see a reason why those couldn't be provided in the report that we got. there's just a generalization of what it pays for. >> this is literally just a sponsorship. we are one of many sponsors for this. we are the biggest. >> but it is reimbursed. so, it is implying -- >> it is not reimbursed. prop k reimburses the mta for this. but the agreement that is signed with the bike to work day is for us to -- we simply sponsor it for that amount. >> so, it is a sponsorship. >> yeah. >> not -- because, for example it lists staffing and support and then it is listed again as construction and then it has all these things. then it says sponsorship and it outlines what the sponsorship pays for but not specific dollar amounts attached to it. then it says it is on a
reimbursement basis. item lees we are award -- it implies that we are awarding -- the impression i'm getting is somehow it is a grant but you are saying it is a sponsorship. >> it is a sponsorship. >> which is contradictory to what i think we have in our packets. i think that's where some of my contusion -- >> i understand. i think what the staff report was trying to say is we sponsor this. where the sponsorship money goes from us from mtc is to funds the staff time and the activities. both the ta and the mta logos are located on the materials. we are listed alongside all the key sponsors. but there is -- >> why not just call it a sponsorship and take out the line items at not attribute it to construction which i think is confusing? >> the construction, my understanding, moniker is just a
part of the art process for prop k. i would ask anna to exmra inthat. -- explain that. >> this is the phase that it fits best under. i suppose it could go under a planning phase. but we have certain phases that we fund with prop k planning design construction. >> we are funding a -- we are a sponsor for this event. we are giving money for a sponsorship and that's just what it is. that doesn't fit in any other category for prop k funding? >> the only other category is operations and the only operations project is paratransit. >> okay. it is confusing. so, that's why i was asking the question. >> okay. if i could also point out there is some material in the enclosure to the prop k request item that gives an overview of the classes that were conducted at each of the schools last year. >> i saw that. thank you. >> okay. >> i just wanted to understand
the responses of the students. >> and there's additional surveying we can provide to your office. >> thank you. >> chairman peskin: commissioner ronen. >> supervisor ronen: i just wanted to request the ta and the chair bring back a report on sort of a near term progress on valencia street and if mta can report as well. in perhaps three months. is that enough time to come and give a progress report? march 1st? >> that makes sense. >> supervisor ronen: sure. okay. that would be great. thank you. >> chairman peskin: okay. it shall be. if there are no other questions or comments from members, can we have a roll call on item number eight? i would need a motion made by
commissioner sheehy, seconded by commissioner ronen. >> clerk: commissioner breed, aye. commissioner cohen, aye. commissioner farrell, aye. fewer aye. commissioner kim, aye. commissioner peskin, aye. commissioner ronen, aye. commissioner sheehy, aye. commissioner tang, aye. commissioner yee. aye. the item is first approved. >> chairman peskin: next item. >> clerk: item ten. award three-year professional services contracts with an option to extend for two additional one-year periods to not to exceed $400,000. >> good morning. i'm here to seek approval to award professional service
contracts for modeling as much ass to two teams. the contracts would be for a three-year period. these would commence after the current on call expires at the end of the year. it would be funded through the other projects they support. the two teams are led by wsp and rsg or are on our current on call. transportation analytics. additional sub consultants include the university of kentucky and bowman research. representatives from wsp, rsg are here in attendance and available to answer questions. the target 5% for both contracts individually. now about the process. staff issued an rfq in september. a selection panel evaluated and
made a recommendation to award contracts to two of the three teams. the current on call has spent about $500,000 in the period between 2013 and 2017. the slide shows what we have used the money for. and for the new agreements we expect to use the projects for sftp and other modeling improvements and applications as needed by work program projects. thank you. >> chairman peskin: any questions from members? seeing none. is there any public comment on item number nine? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to award the three-year professional services contracts made by commissioner cohen. seconded by commissioner farrell. and do we have the same house? >> clerk: we do. >> chairman peskin: same house. came call. thank you. next item please.
>> clerk: item ten. presentation on the san francisco municipal transportation agent 2017 facilities framework. this is an information item. >> ms. la fort. >> i would like to introduce jonathan from the mta. thanks. >> good morning commissioners. jonathan ruers here to talk about the building progress program and facilities framework. i want to start off very quickly to note the importance of this infrastructure. if you ride the 14 mission here in san francisco or the gary rapid network, you should know that a lot of our services start at the various facilities that we have throughout san francisco where we maintain, where we store and where we upkeep the fleet. this is where the majority of our 6,000 employees work day-to-day, where they change into their uniforms and take
their showers. it is an important foundational infrastructure service here. i think everybody is florida with our muni forward with regard to getting a rubber fire fleet. that will go into service this week. and also following through with our 10% service increase around san francisco. now we need to focus on the next step and that is modern sizing our facility -- modernizing our facility and we have started our community outreach. so, a component of that is our 2017 facilities framework. what we wanted to do is we knew our facilities throughout san francisco which i will show shortly, were in need of reconstruction, renovation and modernization. but what we wanted to do was develop a plan that was both dynamic, allowed us to make continuous immovements across
san francisco and our campus and realistically costed out year over year and we were continuously able to make improvements throughout san francisco. you will see our facilities. we do have a number and i do believe still we have more facilities than any other city department in the city and county of san francisco, minus fire stations and police stations. but significant facilities. so, 20 plus. nine major maintenance yards. this began with the 2013 vision report and when we looked at it as a baseline, what we found was it gave one option for the mta to pursue with regard to the growth of the muni fleet here in san francisco. if years passed or situations change, that plan didn't work for us as well as we would have anticipated which is why we wanted to move to something more flexible. it didn't consider all the
operations of the sfmta which didn't include traffic operations. it includes all the operations and sets three important goals. one to modernize our facilities for new and more modern operations. second to slowly move the mta off of leases. so, if we have a permanent operation, we want to make sure to have that operation in a permanent facility, not a leased facility. and to prepare for growth and maintain our facilities in a state of good repair. so, with that, the first thing we did was go to the next level of state of good repair. i know all of you as commissioners are familiar with that term when we look at the age of an asset and the year it needed to be replaced. but we took our state of good repair to another level in which we actually sent out a team of consultants to do an inspection of all the systems in all of our building. while something might last a certain period of time, we reset
that date and now we can tell you year over year the investment we need in our building up to windows, doors, air compressors. things needed to run our day-to-day operations through 2036 that averages to about a $7.5 million per year investment. we have been slowly moving forward with developing a full program to do that. but we do start off with about a $60 million backlog. second come poeptd was just -- component was just the growth of our fleet. as you are all familiar with, we have executed the agreements. both trolley coach and motor coach fleet. we have executed agreements for replacement of the light rail fleet. we have six numbers of delivery and we know over a certain period of time physically with regard to space, we will return out of room at our existing yards throughout san francisco. you will see the number 77 vehicles by 2025. about 130 by 2030 and 46 light
rail vehicles in the 2040 period. again, this is based on current capacity of the yards as we were designed and this is based on the delivery schedules that we anticipate. we have two options we are currently working off of. one assumes that the mta is successful at securing a new facility. a brand new facility to store and maintain its vehicles. in that case, we would expand the four acres that the mta has at the east facility for the growth of the light rail fleet. we would modern size the presidio yard both for motor coach, hybrid electric fleet, trolley coach and 40 and 60-foot vehicles. moving towards the convergence of both technology and the convergence of the types of fleet that we have here in san francisco, we would also renovate the kirk land yard to allow for running repair so we don't have to do as much dead heading as we currently do. the second option assumes that
the mta might not be successful at getting a new facility. in that case, we would use the four acres currently undeveloped east for a temporary trolley coach division and facility. that makes sense because a lot of electrical infrastructure we would need for future light rail operations there we would put in phase. we would shut down presidio and po ter ro -- potrero and the back end of the program would include the reconstruction of the kirkland yard. just as a highlight because i don't want to completely focus this on all our transit operations, we are also working to eventually inshert the animal care facility. we have been working with commissioner ronen's office on different housing options and joint development options. we will continue to look at joint development at all of our facilities throughout san francisco to maximize the opportunity for both policy
goals at the city and county of san francisco has and both goals we have for our transportation system. we have looked at different uses of the building and now we are looking at expanding the use of that property to see how we can maximize it. here is the overall schedule. i think what i want to stress with regard to this schedule, typically with major programs such as this in san francisco, we work through a very steady planning outreach environmental funding and construction type schedule. in this case, we have a back end deadline. we thought that the fleet is going to be coming and we thought we need to be able to maintain these new vehicles that are being delivered. we have to meet certain time points and deadlines. we have developed a full schedule for this. we have had a workshop with the department of public works in august to come up with a project delivery methodology. we have our environmental team. shortly ready to execute on an agreement early in 2018 and we have got a joint development consultant contract that will be moving towards the mta board
later this month. general next steps. we just began outreach last week. just overall program wide. we will go site specific with regard to potrero in both december and january. we will refine those two options with the hope we will have finalized which option we will proceed with sometime in january or february. we have done a second set of cost estimates and we have confirmed the costs. i will get to that in a second. in 2018 we do want to have all the technical teams together to begin the design outreach. we hope to begin on 1200, 15th street. we would have hoped to complete 1200, 15th street in 2023 with housing plus the permanent headquarters for our enforcement
staff that are currently in a leased facility. and we would begin the reconstruction program. we have developed at least a cost estimate for the overall program. between the state of good repair work and the general redevelopment work, it is in the $1 billion range, if you consider all costs are in the 1.$3 billion range. the critical path and cost estimates for these three projects have remained steady. muni east 3 million. assuming joint development are just redevelopment of that building 12 oh -- the future regional measure three and we are looking forward to the san fran transportation task force. in preparation for that, we have developed a detailed cash flow
and all of you were experts in funding. i know you know the difference between an actual cash flow. this is the most consecutive form. actual cash payments that would have to occur on a quarterly basis. means the last point in time in which we could receive a dollar. you will see that we are completing a significant number of projects this year. our burke warehouse is being reconstructed with the support of the prop k sales tax to include our overhead lines operations. we will maintain the amount of storage that we have always had at the burke warehouse. plus added operations crating a more efficient use of the facility. fast track is adding storage track for the lrv's that will be arriving and continue to work on operator facilities. the cash flow builds up for design work. promote 1200, 15th street and potrero and you will see it
build up for presidio. we are working with the transportation authority staff and city and county of san francisco staff and mayor's office on a full funding plan for this program. i appreciate the time all you commissioners gave to both me and my team to help us prepare for the public outreach. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you. and thank you for all of the briefings that you have given each of us offline. with regard to the new facility in scenario one, which obviously is preferable in terms of timing, what is the status of the new facility discussion? >> so, we are continuing to work on negotiation and scoping. over the summer we worked with a consul stand to get performance criteria. meaning any any facility in we were to enter into an agreement needs to meet with our core transportation needs. part of the reason we did the
second set of coast estimates in the sum -- cost estimates in the summer was to see if the city went it alone and we decided to go into negotiations with a developer, how far we could go. i think with that information in place, we are continuing to see what is out there in the markets. and hopefully we will have more news on that towards the end of this calendar year. >> chairman peskin: thank you. any questions from members? seeing none, is there any public comment on this informational item that is going to cost a lot of money over time? at least we are planning for the future. seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you for that. and we look forward to future updates. next item, please. >> clerk: item 11, introduction of new items. >> chairman peskin: are there any new items? i do, colleagues, want to voice some concern i have relative to a proposal that has just
surfaced to stop the california cable car, line an hour and a half early. as our city grows and becomes more late night, i'm not sure why we would want to shut down a cable car that is not only used by visitors but is a source of transportation in east and west directions. so, i would like to ask staff to work with the mta and figure out why they are doing that. unless there's a good reason, we will use our purse strings to figure out how not to make that happen. are there any other items for introduction? seeing none, is there general public comment? mr. yip. >> public: good morning. the duties of political leaders will be making well being for our people. national character should return to true morality in culture.
the true principle will make unity for our nation. [indiscernible] >> public: we have to cultivate justice for civil rights to have well balanced adjustment in our political system. our protection of the common good for our people will secure the stability for well managed nation. [indiscernible] >> public: a livelihood for our people. they are to take pathway of kindness and wealthiness. [indiscernible] >> public: obtaining social prosperity we have to take the right path for holiness and
but really academy our immigrant community. >> making sure they're a part of what we do in san francisco the san francisco pathway to citizenship initiative a unique part of just between the city and then our 5 local foundations and community safe organizations and it really is an effort to get as many of the legal permanent residents in the san francisco since 2013 we started reaching the san francisco bay area residents and 10 thousand people into through 22 working groups and actually completed 5 thousand applications for citizenship our cause the real low income to moderate income resident in san francisco and the bayview sometimes the workshops are said
attend by poem if san mateo and from sacking. >> we think over restraining order thousand legal permanent residents in san francisco that are eligible for citizenship but totally lack information and they don't have trained professionals culturally appropriate with an audience you're working with one time of providing services with pro bono lawyers and trained professionals to find out whether your eligible the first station and go through a purview list of questions to see if they have met the 56 year residents arrangement or they're a u.s. citizenship they once they get through the screening they go to legal communication to see
lawyers to check am i eligible to be a citizen we send them to station 3 that's when they sit down with experienced advertising to fill out the 4 hundred naturalization form and then to final review and at the end he helps them with the check out station and send them a packet to fill and wait a month to 6 weeks to be invited in for an oral examine and if they pass two or three a months maximum get sworn in and become a citizen every single working groups we have a learning how to vote i mean there are tons of community resources we go for citizenship prep classes and have agencies
it stays on site and this is filing out forms for people that are eligible so not just about your 22 page form but other community services and benefits there's an economic and safety public benefit if we nationalize all people to be a citizen with the network no objection over $3 million in income for those but more importantly the city saves money $86 million by reducing the benefit costs. >> thank you.
>> i've been here a loventh i already feel like an american citizen not felt it motorbike that needs to happen for good. >> one day - i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, for liberty and justice for all. >> you're welcome. >> (singing). >> (clapping.) >> introduce the san francisco field officer director ribbon that will mirror the oath raise
your hand and repeat the oath i hereby declare on oath repeating. >> citizens cry when they become citizenship to study this difficult examine and after two trials they come back i'm an american now we're proud of that purpose of evasion so help me god please help me welcome seven hundred and 50 americans. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> she wants to be part of the country and vote so much puppy.
>> you know excited and as i said it is a long process i think that needs to be finally recognized to be integrated that is basically, the type of that i see myself being part of. >> out of everybody on tv and the news he felt that is necessary to be part of community in that way i can do so many things but my voice wouldn't count as it counts now. >> it's everybody i hoped for a bunch of opportunities demographics and as you can see yourself
please stay seens lur yo bill devices and remind you that the commission does not tolerate any disruptions or outbursts of any kind. commissioner, i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call 1234*678d we do expect two more to arrive shortly. commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance, item one for case 2015-225drp
at 271 justin avenue for review. items 2a, b and c, drp and var. publicly indicated discussion narrow view and rear yard variance. our proposed continuance for variance to january 11, 2018. 744 harrison street, propose ed use authorization. item four for case number 2014 at 89 roosevelt way. discretionary review as proposed for continuance to march 1, 2018. item five for case number 2015-o18233 drp at shafter avenue. discretionary review has been withdrawn.
commissioners, further under your regular calendar, item number 19, we have received a request for continuance. for case number 2017-oo7658c.u.a. at 4522 rd street as we have received a request for continuance for case number 2016 at mission street. commission use authorization. that is proposed to be continued indefinitely and i believe -- >> second week in december. what is that date? >> second week in december is december 14. >> all right 678 that is the proposed date. any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner fong. >> move to continue the proposed items in addition to item 19 and 20. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion then to continue items as proposed, commissioner fong?
[roll call] >> so move. it passes unanimously 5-2. if the acting zoning administrative -- >> 5-0. >> excuse me. 5-0. i apologize. if the zoning administrator could rule on item 2c. >> continuing item 2c to the date proposed. >> thank you. commissioners, i'll place this on your consent calendar. all matters here are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, staff or public so requests. in which the matter will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this point and future hearing. item six, case number 2016-o42991 c.u.a., commissioner use authorization.