tv Government Access Programming SFGTV January 25, 2018 5:00am-6:01am PST
>> parks are where people can gather and where to relax and a lot of people in the city don't have back yards and this is where we come to be with our community. >> 1, 2, 3. [ applause ] [ cheers and applause ] >> the work begins. >> chair peskin: good morning and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority meeting for today, tuesday,
january 9, 2018. happy new year. our clerk is mr. alberto quintanilla. mr. clerk, if you could please call the roll. >> clerk: item one, commissioner breed. cohen present. commissioner farrell. farrell absent. commissioner fewer. fewer absent. commissioner kim. kim absent. commissioner peskin. >> chair peskin: present. >> clerk: commissioner ronen, present. commissioner safai. present. commissioner sheehy present. tang present. we have quorum. >> chair peskin: all right. could you, please, read the consent agenda and then we'll take public comment on the minutes. >> clerk: items two to three compromise the consent agenda. item three was approved at december 12th board meeting and considered for final approval. staff is not planning to
present, but presenting if desired. if a member objects, any items can be removed and considered separately. >> chair peskin: is there anyp on item two, the minutes of december 2017 meeting, mr. rice? >> public: yeah. i want to point out and explain part problem is transportation roads are deteriorating. next time you talk to caltrans, charge them. they spend billions of dollars tearing down the bay bridge when all it needed was renovation -- >> chair peskin: mr. rice, there will be an opportunity for general public comment. this is just public comment on the minutes of december 12, 2017. >> public: all right. >> chair peskin: thank you, sir. seeing no other members of the public for public comment on the minutes, we'll close public comment and a roll call please. a motion to move the consent agenda made by commissioner
tang. seconded by commissioner breed. and on that, a roll call please. >> clerk: on the consent agenda, commissioner breed. breed aye. cohen aye. commissioner peskin. >> chair peskin: aye. >> clerk: peskin aye. ronen aye. commissioner sheehy. sheehy i. commissioner tang. >> vice chair tang: aye. >> clerk: tang aye. we have approval. >> chair peskin: all right. next item. >> clerk: item four, election of chair and vice chair for 2018. this is an action item. >> chair peskin: okay. nominations are now in order for the office of chair. are there any nominations for said position? commissioner cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. good morning. happy new year. i would like to make the nomination to nominate
commissioner peskin to be chair of this body. and correct me if i'm wrong, chair, i'm able to make a nomination for vice chair at this time as well? >> chair peskin: we can also open the nominations for vice chair at the same time if you would like to do that. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. you would have nominated to nominate our same colleague, katy tang, for vice chair. >> chair peskin: seconded by commissioner breed. are there any other nominations? is there any public comment on item number four? seeing none, public comment is closed. nobody else wants this job. what? [laughter] >> chair peskin: we do have a new house. that is true. we will call the roll. so, with that on the nominations for peskin as chair and commissioner tang as vice chair -- commissioner ronen. >> supervisor ronen: i just wanted to thank you, chair
peskin and vice chair tang for doing this jb all last year and being willing to do it again this year -- job all last year and being willing to do it again this year. you taking this leadership means a lot to the city and i know it takes a lot of work and a lot of sacrifice in addition to your jobs as members of the board of supervisors. i just wanted to on behalf of the board thank you for that work. >> chair peskin: thank you commissioner. commissioner tang. >> vice chair tang: thank you so often ronen. we didn't have a chance to speak much about it at the december 12th meeting because it was just a little bit crazy inside here. and i forgot to mention it during item three. but i wanted to say that together with chair peskin, really doing a huge overhaul of schools has been meaningful. thank you to the staff and all the city departments. i hope everyone will take a look at the new staffing structure. all that information should be in item three. and if you have any further
comments, suggestions, please let us know. but changes will be coming forth and fully implemented by 2019 i believe. >> chair peskin: so, i guess if voice chair tang saying some words, i'll say a few as well. i want to thank vice chair tang for her leadership on reforming safe routes to school, which i think was a major accomplishment. and we also celebrated a milestone that we all read about relative to the city wide vision zero strategy ending last year with a 41% reduction in pedestrian and cyclists fatalities since 2013. and i think that is really remarkable. but we are not going to stop until we get to zero. we've engaged i think in thoughtful discussions around project delivery, including the downtown caltrain extension, better market street, van ness vrt. we have initiated independent
expenditure plan. we've learned a lot about transportation network companies and their impact on our public transit system and city streets and kon jucongestion. we've undertaken a really remarkable and ambitious identify a local contribution that we will get before the voters in november before the $20 billion projected need for transportation and operations through 2045. i want to thank the folks from the transportation task force who spent the last half year getting critical neighborhood feedback after the sales tax failed in 2016. so, i think it's been a very good year and i'm honored to continue to be your chair and look forward to working with all of you and our citizens. and with that, a roll call please. >> clerk: on the motion in favor
of elects commissioner peskin for chair and commissioner tang for vice chair. commissioner breed. breed aye. commissioner cohen. cohen aye. commissioner fewer. fewer aye. commissioner peskin. peskin aye. commissioner ronen. ronen aye. commissioner sheehy. sheehy aye. tang aye. the motions are approved. >> chair peskin: all right. next item please. >> clerk: item five allocation of $110,000 in prop k funds with one requested and approach yaths of $180,000 in funds. this is ana item. >> chair peskin: mr. pickford. good morning. we are going to turn your microphone on. >> thank you. i mr. present -- i will present the first request and hand it
over to my colleague. circulation improvements of the daly city bart station. this includes upgrading exiting pedestrians ramps that provides access to the bart station including the 14 r mission rapid to make it ada compliant. currently, the muni bus drops passengers at a lower level bus stop which you can hopefully see on the screen. it lays over in the upper level parking lot before looping back to the lower level. this ramp will allow the 28 to leave directly from the upper level stop, which mta will save about 23 minutes a route which could end up in $150,000 per year in operations cost. the operation will be separate with san mateo county, expected to be open in summer of 2018. i will pass it off to eric. >> good morning commissioners. on your screen you see there the
dpx project overview that's already been environmentally cleared. i want to give you a background as it relates to this request. the dtx was cleared and has three tracks from fourth street to transbay transit center. they have performed various analysis. some concluding three tracks are appropriate and others are concluding three are appropriate. in this record, commissioner peskin thank you for the request for us to perform an independent peer review. the purpose of the request is to evaluate three rail operation studies as i've indicated and form key policy decision makers on the two versus three track issue. the request is for $180,000 of prop k. the three studies in question, one performed by a private property owner and his
consultants, the other prepared by t.j.p. and consultant partners. and the feasibility study analysis prepared by sma rail consulting under the direction of the city planning department. we've assembled a peer review panel that we believe is first -- we want to make sure there's no conflict of interests. we searched into the database of consultants and selected the following panel there. representatives from t.y. lynn we was from the director of rail transit in new york and new jersey. the and the, elliott group and david nelson, all of them are significant -- have significant rail commuter and inner city rail operations expertise. we are happy with the team we have assembled in that regard. key stake holders, tjpa and the
property owner who represents various properties on second street and all the way down the line. caltrain and most important too, the high speed rail, including the early train operator. we envisioned -- what you have in front of you is a schedule. we have already started the document review in that regard to get a head start on this because we know that schedule is very important here. we will have stakeholder meetings in the january time frame and have a workshop in february. the plan is to go ahead and have a draft report in february and a final report in march and come back to this board no later than april. that's the plan ahead of us. and i'm available for questions on this item or the item prior with mike. >> chair peskin: are there any questions on item number five to mr. mr. pickford or mr. cordova?
if not, before we go to public comment, i just want to thank you for the peer review. i know it's on a tight time frame and i also want to acknowledge the t.j.p.a. who have agreed to delay the record of decision until we can have a real honest, meaningful peer review. and let me just say, it's my profound hope that we are able to figure out a way where there's no cut and cover at the throat or on townsend street where we don't have that level of surface disruption for years as well as resolving the two-track, three-track issue and look forward to your work and the results in april. is there any public comment on item number five? mr. lebrong. >> public: good morning chair peskin. happy new year.
congratulations on your re-election and supervisor tang. this is great news. definitely spending money much better than the way we were -- last time we blew $5.5 million. i think it is important none of the members of public have been involved. but understand that you can have some kind of presentation of a workshop. again, assure you this is going to work. because five years ago, what i did is i took the timetable for london olympics, which basically was the same scenario which you have here and actually on the they use -- actually they used three platforms, not six. and in so doing, 25,000 passengers per direction, 50,000 passengers an hour.
actually as people were getting on and off, we were really carrying 100,000 passengers. then i figured out a way to somehow do the same track configuration into soma without any surface impacts. i can assure you this is going to work but i don't know this is what you're going to look at. in closing, i'd like to remind you that whatever you come up with, there are some existing legislation and case law which mandates what you have to achieve if you want to qualify for prop k bonds. half billion dollars for dtx and half a million dollars for beautify case. i will be writing again to you to remind you what the issues are. thank you very much. >> chair peskin: thank you for your constant attention to this project. is there any other member of the
public, members of the public who would like to testify? seeing none. public comment is closed. on that item a roll call please. >> clerk: motion. >> chair peskin: motion to move item number five made by commissioner cohen. seconded by commissioner yee and now roll call. >> clerk: on item five, commissioner breed. breed aye. commissioner cohen. cohen aye. commissioner fewer. >> chair peskin: commissioner fewer. >> clerk: fewer aye. commissioner peskin. aye. commissioner ronen. ronen aye. commissioner sheehy. sheehy aye. commissioner tang. tang aye. commissioner yee. yee aye. we have first approval. >> chair peskin: all right. next item, please. >> clerk: item six. approve san francisco project priorities for the local partnership program, competitive grant program. this is an action item.
>> chair peskin: okay. the other mr. quintanilla. >> good morning. i'm a transportation planner. as you may recall last december, this body program, san francisco's form last year of the local partnership program for three tree resurfacing projects, today's presentation is about the other half of this state program. the competitive portion. the local partnership program rewards jurisdictions that have sought and received voter approval of taxes, tolls and fees or have fees solely dedicated to transportation. the california transportation commission administers this program and 50% is distributed through formula and prop aa administrator, it is eligible for both portions. the initial funding cycle for the competitive program covers years 2017-18 through 2019-20
and will distribute up to $300 million state and wide. funds available for construction only. requires a dollar for dollar match and minimum grant size of $3 million. project nominations will be considered in two different groups. one group for jurisdictions with water approved measures and one group for jurisdictions with imposed fees. based on the criteria shown on the slide and a potential repeal effort, we believe construction readiness would be a very important factor in the current call for projects. jurisdictions submitting multiple applications must establish project priority. throughout the guideline development process and in october once the program guidelines were released, we directed information about the program and call for projects. the city department regional transportation operators and other project sponsors, and we
received requests to support nomination of three projects shown on the slide. jefferson street improvements and better market street segment one. all projects have challenges. but staff priority tried to reflect the most construction ready and most competitive projects to make the most for san francisco. number one, mission base ferry landing is close to 65% designed with environment clearance expected in may. we believe that the original benefits including bmt reduction and air quality benefits will make it competitive. the main challenge is securing funding from private sources. number two, jefferson street improvements phase two. it is at 95% design. but we believe that air quality and benefits are a little more challenging to quantify and might make it less competitive. the funding plan also depending
on securing the $6.1 million in local match. and number three, better market street segment one which would be between six6 and eighth stre. since san francisco is an eligibility applicant to the portion through the transportation sustainability fee, we've been working with the mayor's office. we expect the city to submit the same projects but swapping the orders for jefferson as number one and terminal number two to maximize san francisco's potential in this funding source. project applications are due on january 30th. and we expect cpc to adopt a program of projects on may 16th. and with that, we'll take any questions. there's also project managers from san francisco port and dpw
to answer questions. >> chair peskin: colleagues, are there any questions for all of the assembled staff from variation departments? seeing none, is there any public comment on item number six? seeing none, public comment is closed. i guess staff, you got it right. is there a motion to move this item made by commissioner fewer? seconded by commissioner ronen. and on the item a roll call please. >> clerk: same house? >> chair peskin: same house. same call. it is approved on first reading. next item. >> clerk: item seven, adopt the balboa area transportation demand framework. final report. this is an action item. >> chair peskin: commissioner yee, would you like to start?
>> supervisor yee: thank you, chair peskin. colleagues, the framework document before you today was conceived during an earlier committee meeting on the balboa development. this is by city college. the balboa area has been increasingly facing challenges with traffic congestion and parking. we have seen in many other of our neighborhoods, we have seen this. the area is constricted by roadway capacity. the i-280 freeway where people exit and enter and existing topography. in addition to that, you have challenges even with transportation of bart, the balboa bart station. it's transportation in the morning when i stand there,
there's actually a lot of people being dropped off using vehicles to get to the bart station. we have sort of a growing city college. we have new housing developments and existing neighborhoods that are all feeling the impacts of the changes. since the balboa reservoir is currently being utilized by city college as parking, any forthcoming development raises the issue of how the area can further accommodate the students, faculty, new residents and existing residents, transportation needs. this is why i requested an initial study on existing conditions and to help identify short term and long term solutions for the area. the concept of transportation demand management was presented as a tool to start the conversations. the framework document aims to identify some of the major concerns and often potential recommendations on parking and transportation needs.
i understand that many committee members were hoping that the framework would deliver more or provide a different set of recommendations. it is not meant to solve the parking demand or execute any recommendations without further analysis. however, from this process we have learned how to improve upon med ol apology and how to -- method ol -- methodology. as an institution that serves working students, many of whom need to drive, we cannot ignore this as a major issue. during the development of the tdm framework, city college has been more engaged as a partner and we will be placing focused attention on parking needs in their facility's master plan.
i strongly believe this framework has elevated many of the concerns about parking and traffic. especially the consideration of how recommendations will be burdensome to students and residents. this needs to be addressed if any development is going to be successful on the reservoir. i want to emphasize that the balboa reservoir developers who have since been identified will be undergoing their own extensive process to develop their own transportation and parking analysis. in fact, they are using the lesson learned from this framework to inform their process. while not everyone may agree upon the recommendation or how these recommendations were developed, the framework starts as a starting point. i would like to request that the
ta staff to also include the memo as part of the tdm framework when it is established. i want to thank the staff a planning, especially jeremy shaw, who has spent several months and hours pouring over this document, meeting with community stakeholders and incorporating different feedback. i also want to thank the members of the balboa reservoir, as well as the balboa station area and the many community members who have engaged with this process from the very beginning. i look forward to these ongoing conversations on how to improve the balboa area. this is a community of change and we have a real opportunity for transforming this area for the better. right now, i would like to call up jeremy shaw. >> chair peskin: before we hear
from mr. shaw, ms. cohen is on the roster. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i just have some questions. i will speak after mr. shaw. >> thank you commissioner yee. i name is jeremy shaw from the san francisco planning department. today i'm going to provide a brief overview of the tdm framework, which was funded at the request of supervisor yee by a neighborhood transportation improvement program. to set the context, there many, many land you and planned use initiatives going on. they include the balboa reservoir, and city college as well as transportation improvements for the balboa station area, pedestrian safety and transit operations. the balboa area tdm framework discussed today complements all these projects. but it's focus is limited to a -- its focus is limited, which i
imagine you are all particular. to summarize, it supports people in making the choice for sustainable transportation. it is designed to use the existing transportation system more efficiently. they must accommodate the diversity of many modes of transportation that people use to get to and around san francisco. as you are familiar, the city's tdm program which was approved last february, there's policy and programs in place for city of san francisco. that policy focuses on individual new development projects in the city. rather than single building like the policy focuses on, this framework focuses on an entire neighborhood. in this case, the study area you see before you. the purpose of the framework document was to start the
conversation and provide information and backgrounds to coordinate the balboa reservoir's future plan, to coordinate city college's future plan and the surrounding neighborhoods. our consultant associating were retained to provide an existing conditions report, to provide a series of recommendations for each of those areas and to suggest complementary capital improvements for the short term, and for longer term study. i just want to reiterate the framework is not in itself a plan. the recommendations are conception -- conceptual. they are not yet complete. however, once they are complete, they will be required to do their own transportation plans and their own tdm strategies.
this document helps coordinate them. the framework has proved fruitful in bringing city college to the table as commissioner yee mentioned. and we look forward to ongoing conversations. many conversations have already taken place in the public. you see over the last two years we have discussed tdm and the framework in particular with both cac's in the neighborhood. and the document went through several rounds of edits and smaller scale workshops based on community comments. some of the community concerns focus on first last mile access to the balboa park station area and the station itself, personal security at local transit stops, particularly at night, student parking demand and the impact on neighborhood parking as well as ongoing coordination between the city, city college and the public. just to give you a sense of what's in the document. there are about 45 recommendations again for each
of the three sub areas. all the recommendations are either physical or operational. they include case study, best practices, conceptual targets. not actual targets since we are not quite at the point where we can have numbers. and monitoring programs to ensure the targets are met. since weer still in the conceptual phase of tdm, the document acknowledges that further data and analysis will be necessary before an actionable plan is put together. and the document includes some lessons learned on how to collect that data in the future. just a couple of examples of those 45 recommendations include student transit pass similar to what sf state passed last year. shared parking project on the balboa reservoir for student parking as well as residents, as well as senior ride matching programs and other services like escort services to serve the neighborhoods in city college itself.
and the final chapter gets to one of the community's most clear concerns and that is the first mile access along ocean avenue. and their recommendations about improving pedestrian and bicycle safety on ocean avenue. and so, ultimately, this is the start of an ongoing conversation and there are many public venues to continue that conversation. primarily at the balboa reservoir cac, which will be reviewing the reservoir's own future transportation plan and tdm strategy. there will be coordination necessary between city college and the reservoir collecting data. the city college itself will be undergoing reboot of their master plan. there will be continued public meeting around that as well as a number of projects that are discussed at the balboa park station cac. this is just the beginning of an ongoing conversation. and that summarizes the document. i'm happy to answer any questions about it. >> supervisor cohen: thank you
very much. i just had -- perhaps we could have a conversation. so, while we've got city college, i think this is going to create a unique impact on district seven, nine, these districts having satellite campuses. so, i'm curious to snow what are the considerations -- know what are the considerations that we are taking to mitigate the impact, the impacts of traffic into the neighborhoods, ensuring that we have students that are able to travel to the campus safely and efficient and cost effective manner? >> with respect to ocean campus? >> supervisor cohen: also to all of the campuses. i represent a campus out in the bayview that's not far from the t-line if you are hel they have and young. -- healthy and young.
but if you are continuing your education and you are a retiree and you quantity to stay up to date with some of the norms, it is quite a healthy walk. it would seem to be more efficient if there was a shuttle or something to connect the campuses together that students would be able to benefit from. >> absolutely. we are very excited to be working with city college as you probably know. there's a new chancellor there, new staff and sort of a reboot of their facility's master plan. we have begun, city staff, that conversation and their facilities master plan and that will continue into the transportation planning realm. i think part of the advantage of tdm is there's been a lot of work done in the city already. some of the measures that are in the city's tdm program as well as other specific recommendations in this document can be used system wide for city college. >> supervisor cohen: so, it
sounds like we are still in the conceptional development phase? >> exactly. these concerns around shuttles and first, last mile needs can be, should be and can be addressed at any one of their campuses. >> supervisor cohen: all right. supervisor yee or commissioner yee, curious to hear what your thoughts are around mitigation for traffic impacts around the campuses. >> supervisor yee: i think i made my statement earlier that this is a framework. i don't think it really is meant to solve every issue. it brings up what the issues are and some potential things. but as jeremy was mentioning a lot of it is going to be contingent on further studies by both city college as they move forward and also the balboa reservoir development.
personally, you know, i knew it was a framework. but i was also hoping that there would be more concrete suggestions to mitigate some of the current issues. as i mentioned, this is a situation where -- especially during commute hours, it's like a nightmare down there with everybody coming off the freeway and people going to city college and looking for parking. and also as i mentioned, the traffic -- even though people are taking public transportation, if you stand in front of balboa bart station, you'll see numerous cars dropping off and picking up people going to bart and coming off bart. and as to the issue -- >> supervisor cohen: the congestion. >> supervisor yee: the congestion. the one good thing that everybody recognizes, it is rich
in public transportation around there. many lines converge there, which adds to the problem also. but if you wanted to take public transportation, you could get there. i think in the discussion with city college, a lot of times there's assumptions that one might make that's based on other experiences of people from other campuses. and i went to city college and it hand really changed a heck of a lot. it is a campus of people that have to go to work. the age of the students are not necessarily all 18 and 19. a lot of them -- a lot of students that go there are family people, that have kids. so, they have to deal with their situation. so, these are -- i'm just pointing out problems. i don't think this tdm solves it.
and i think for us to have a good development, for instance, for the housing piece, they need to address many of the issues that are pointed out. and even what you're suggesting. >> supervisor cohen: thank you for that thoughtful answer. >> chair peskin: thank you, colleagues. there are a number of members of the public who would like to testify on this item. christine hanson, harry bernstein, vicky legion, michael errands, rita evans. if you would like to testify, please come forward. >> public: hi. i'm christine hanson.
i'm a native san fran sis can. this tdm could be viewed from a link on the website. now the data built this report is viewable only if you know what to look for. the information on city college's parking was collected during the last week of class and no data exists for the evening class time. your resolution states that once approved, the framework will serve to advise transportation decision making in the balboa area, in particular for city college and around future development at the balboa reservoir site. and yet, this tdm has only been presented to the board of trustees one time and jeremy shaw did not appear on the agenda. it was a listening session, which means you can listen to the entire tape to hear it and
it was listed under 2009 sustainability plan. so, most of the community that will be affected by this doesn't even know it exists yet. a huge number -- i would say it was 45%. i was looking for my data of students randomly chosen who park in the parking lot said that they have 30 minutes or less to get to school. [bell]. >> public: is that a warning? okay. those students will just lose out. city college is not growing its enrollment. it is trying to return its enrollment. if someone is bleeding to death and you stop the bleeding you do not say they are now growing red blood cells or another leg to put them in. please don't pass this thing. it's going to hurt the school.
thank you. >> chair peskin: next speaker please. >> public: good morning. i'm harry bernstein reading the comment on behalf of chair of the city college music department. this is a condensed statement, but the full statement was emailed to you complete with the -- with the resolution passed by the -- i'll get to that. to start with, i wish to emphasize the process regarding the balboa reservoir land up to this point has been totally fraudulent. nothing possibly valid can follow from the city planner's initial and continuing assertions that student parking area for city college for decades has been and is underutilized. no amount of manipulated photographs or data make this a
true statement. parking you have to understand is an absolute life blood of commuter college and city college in san francisco is the largest such entity in the state and it is growing once again thanks to free city college. thanks in part to you. compromising diminishing, even destroying city college was a goal of the accreditation agency, accjc. they were sued, you may recall, by the city of san francisco to prevent the college's closure. former chancellor harris and -- [bell]. >> public: and agencies work to privatize the college. -- privatetize education to bring profit. a puc executive claims that the
college has been at the table all these years on the balboa reservoir land. but this is because of the takeover and the appointment of hostile people to our administration. [bell]. >> public: so, please do not go with this incomplete plan. >> public: good morning. my name is vicky legion and i have taught at city college for 22 years and i'm a proud member of the safe city college coalition. and thank you for those of you who fought for the college. the tdm is flawed and it should be rejected. we think that if this plan is accepted, it is part of a strategy to cannibalize city college property for real estate development, such as the development that is proposed already for the -- by avalon bay
on the land of the lower reservoir. and that land has been used by city college for -- since 1957. and once city college's enrollment was at full size, the upper and lower reservoirs would be full five days a week. and i remember walking in from a great distance across the reservoir as the parking lot turned over perhaps five times a day. so, we have 2,100 parking spaces turning over five, possibly six times a day. that would be 12,000 people a day parking in a space that is about to be evaporated. at the balboa park -- at the cic meetings -- [bell]. >> public: -- we asked why did you count utilization from 10:30 at night to midnight? why did you count utilization
during finals week when students are not attending? there were never answers to our questions. so, we believe that this report is part of greasing for a big real estate development that will be a body blow to city college. so, if people who -- as people who love our city, we ask you to ditch this report. >> public: my name is rita evans. i live in the area affected by the tdm study. the balboa area tdm framework in it's current form is flawed and should not be approved by the sfcta. it does not accurately reflect the views and concerns of residents who have shown up at public hearings the last few years. we know that it is essential
that the students use public transportation and bike and walk or this part of the city will be in permanent gridlock. to address this, the local residents have consistently, loudly and repeatedly ask that a developer funded shuttle be part of the proposal, that that operate between the reservoir site and the balboa park station. despite the fact that we have asked for this repeatedly and consistently, there is barely a mention of it in the final document, in the final draft. another huge area of concern, of course, is parking demand. and here we find that the consultants and the city consistently point to the ineffective existing residential permit parking program as a swlugs to parking demand. -- solution to parking demand. one of the big problems with that program is it doesn't work which is one reason the city has been attempting to revise it the past few years.
the other big problem with it is that it puts the entire burden of cost on existing residents. the coast for the permits and the time to collect signatures. the program should be borne by the developers just as the shuttle to operate during the city college and balboa park station should be included. thank you. >> chair peskin: next speaker. >> public: steve park. the balboa reservoir project will bring a traffic bomb the likes of which the neighborhood has never seen before. it is crucial that this be managed correctly. the tdm reports to reviews vehicle mile trips in the balboa
project site. it makes no real effort to improve the existing transportation infrastructure or provide viable transportation alternatives for the residents and future students of this project. the existing kjm and other bus lines such as the 43 and eight are inadequate to meet current demand, let alone the expected future demand and will see a decline in service quality due to impeded traffic flow because of the balboa reservoir project. these items have not been addressed to our community's satisfaction. i strongly encourage that the board reject the tdm until further accurate analysis is complete. thank you. >> public: my name is ace washington and i'm hoping i can be as serious as much as you are curious what i'm doing up here
with green glasses on, hat and this is the most historical part of the history of san francisco. but i wanted to be known for the record because i helped put this charter together. i don't want credit. right now i'm here to tell you as a black man -- first let me say something not out of order. i support -- excuse me. i support whatever you are doing over there. fine. you can't stop me. i got one minute. but i'm here to say directly to whoever is in room 200 -- because you know i'm not going to say something about somebody. i ain't going to do it. room 200 is a total different game and it's a shame that i, ace washington, born and raised in the fillmore. i wasn't born and raised in the projects. >> chair peskin: mr. washington -- >> public: excuse me, sir. i already said i supported that. i got two minutes now. just listen.
[microphone turned off] >> chair peskin: mr. washington, this is about item number seven, the balboa transportation. >> public: i have another minute to talk, sir. >> chair peskin: you can speak during the general public comment at the end of the meeting. ace, you can speak during general public comment. >> public: this is my moment. [bell]. >> public: i'm able to get up here and speak because you have white boy -- >> chair peskin: ace, would you sit down, please. >> public: give me my time back, sir. >> chair peskin: you will have two minutes at the end of the meeting which will be a total of three and then that's enough. all right. next speaker, please. >> public: down here at silly hall. i done seen it all and i'm going to tell it all. i will be back and i'm going to say what i have to say about them -- >> chair peskin: ace! next speaker.
>> public: is it on? my name is michael errands. i'm a member of the westwood park association and i'm appointed to the cac balboa reservoir committee. i gave my comments last night and i will just incorporate them. the main thing is that this report is not based in any fact. it's not based on any numbers. mr. shaw and supervisor yee, i think has acknowledged that. mr. shaw said to the cac early in november that this document is not a binding document. he said today that this is on the starting the discussion. so often yee says it is not based on numbers. because of this, the very important facilities commit at city college of san francisco has stated that they do not support at all this report. and they say they reject this report in it's entirety because it is not based on any numbers. it is not based on any analysis.
city college just last month in november authorized hiring somebody to do an analysis. what's going to happen when you lose all 2,000 parking spaces for a college they want to increase the enrollment? it's now free. so, they said that there is no basis in fact on this report and they reject it in it's entirety. but they are going forward to do a study and i think they are going to conclude there is no alternative other than to retain that parking space. but we submit this commission shouldn't approve this report and it's already stated it's preliminary and without basis in numbers. and you're going to increase 1,100 new units that this area? the traffic is going to be horrible. what we submit is look at the resolution. the resolution says the transportation authority adocuments this report. how can -- adopts this report. how can you adopt something without any basis in facts or
numbers? we suggest that need to be paid. that's what you should be doing here. not putting a rubber stamp on this document that everybody says is without basis in numbers of facts. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. seeing no other members of the public on item number seven, we will close public comment. commissioner cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i'll speak after commissioner yee. >> chair peskin: commissioner yee. >> supervisor yee: mr. shaw, can you come up. i have a question. so, this tdm, i guess i'm looking at as a framework and for city college and in particular, balboa reservoir development, did you mention that they are going to also do their own tdm to account for their impacts? >> absolutely. >> supervisor yee: how long are they going to be doing that? some of the things that i heard that were not included from the
public today and that's not included, i know i've talked about it. like even though it's not mentioned, for instance, the shuttle, the possible shuttle that the developers may want to implement, is it on their table? >> i believe so. >> supervisor cohen: i'm sorry. you believe so? yes or no? >> i can't speak for the developers, but they're certainly aware of the comments from the public. and i think the recommendation in the report said recommended doing an analysis because for any sort of private form of transportation, there's a rigorous process that has to go through mta to understand the existing impact on public transportation, loading et cetera. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. >> supervisor yee: thanks. >> chair peskin: commissioner cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i walked in today to support this. i'm thinking i'm going to be voting no on this. i am uncomfortable on many
fronts. i think we need more parking. i think we need to provide more infrastructure for the college. i think there needs to be more due diligence. i think it's curious we don't have any stakeholders to talk about this from city college. i personally have experience with avalon bay, the very difficult development company. we will have problems with them. this is just like the beginning, yes. it's a study. but that's how things start. and that's how development happens in this city. it starts with a study and then we build from that point on and on, developing facts that as you heard earlier from some of our public comment testimony that are not solid facts. this body transitions. supervisor yee will no longer be the supervisor. things get lost. i want to go on the record early. i believe avalon bay will create
a lot of problems for us, those of us who have relationships in labor. many times our labor partners have come raising concerns that they haven't hired union labor to do the job. i'm talking something that is years down the line. but i just think that -- that funding -- that this is just not the right direction we need to go in and we need to re-evaluate. supervisor yee did a great job getting city college free. and now we have all these people that want to go there. we need to be mindful and respectful of the people who have been living around the college for generations. and we've heard from our citizens advisory commission, a policy body used to advise us. they are against it. i don't know anybody in support of this other than the police department -- planning
department. i'm going to be voting no on this and i hope you will consider joining me. >> chair peskin: commissioner yee, any final words as this is the result of your end tip allocation? >> supervisor yee: no. i appreciate commissioner cohen's point of view. but as i mentioned, to me it's the beginning of a discussion and i think the framework's there. the issues of parking, the issue of improving the transportation really does need further study. one of the things i've been pretty consistent about in terms of discussing with the balboa reservoir development is that between them and city college and the city, we need to city down and solve future sort of
parking issues. and that if it doesn't get solved, there's not going to be any development. so, i know people, whether at city college or the developers, in having informal discussions, they have taken it very seriously. it's be on the agenda with the developers pretty much up front and talking about these issues. have they come up with solutions? not yet. we're several years away from that development. has city college come up with their final analysis? no. they are only beginning because their doing their facilities master plan right now. so, you're correct in saying that if this were the only thing that's going to be used to solve these issues, i would say -- i would agree with you. but to me, it's not -- this
document does not even try to say it solves everything that's going to be in the future. some of the things that i've talked about and this seems like, again, informally. i mentioned the shuttle. i mentioned -- one of the things i didn't mention -- i think one of the residents mentioned it. if we are going to go into residential parking permits, i'm going to ask, for instance, for them to pay for that because it is forcing certain areas further away from city college but still in the neighborhoods that will have students parking further away. there are many things in discussion. can city college, for instance -- i'm not going to speak for city college. but my observation is they have also other land around city college that can be developed as
a parking lot. so, that's my comment. i'm going to go ahead and ask my colleagues to support this sort of framework piece so we can move on and have both the developers and city college come up with concrete solutions. >> chair peskin: commissioner safai, do i see your name? >> supervisor safai: yes. i think these are all good points brought up today. i have been listening as supervisor yee, our districts are bound by this project in this area and it is a traffic nightmare. there's a lot of concern. i know the balboa cac and city college cac and others have reservations about this. but i think some of the reservations aren't necessarily about this particular plan, but they're more about the long term plan. and i think both supervisor yee and i've heard very strongly that there's desires for certain things that because this is going to be a development