tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 22, 2018 10:00am-11:01am PDT
>> supervisor peskin: good morning and welcome to the san francisco county transportation meeting for today, tuesday, may 22nd. could you please call the role? w -- [roll call] >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i will give the chair support. colleagues, at this time, please ensure the news of several major state -- state branches received
from the real capital program and california transportation commission. senate bill one, competitive grant program. as you recall, it is a package that was approved last year and maintained and improved our streets and transport system. the transit in the inter- -- intercity rail program was funded by trade revenues. as a result of these grants, san francisco transit passengers will greatly benefit from three key rail improvement projects including $318 million for new cars and train system. hundred 65 million for additional retro cars. and capacity improvements and $27 million for eight new mini light rail vehicles. the state also were awarded 6.8 million from local partnership programs, a competitive program, to san francisco public works of construction of jefferson street improvements which have to be in
district three at fisherman's wharf, which i am crate -- quite grateful for. in addition, other branches benefiting, 14 million for a transit for zero emission buses and 50 million for purchasing vehicles for new express routes to and from san francisco, and 200 million for the county to construct express lands along u.s. highway 101. i want to thank the mayor and the san francisco public works and the staff to helping us pull this altogether as our legislative delegation. and, of course,, as we all know, we are under attack in the subject of repeal on november's ballot. it is just one piece of the package that is helping to address the billions of dollars in transportation infrastructure needs here in the city. there is also, as we all know, regional measure three. but even if a majority of voters in all nine counties vote to increase revenues in order to finance a four and a half
billion dollar program of highway and regional transit improvements, we still have a long way to go to accommodating the growing mobility needs of the bay area. so i want to take a second and thank the land use committee which voted yesterday to move forward with an increase to our local transit sustainability f fee. and an acknowledgement that are blooming office market will pay more towards the infrastructure that benefits their workers and their buildings and with that, let us proceed to. is there any public comment on the chair's report? being none, public comment is closed. madam executive director, your report, please. >> supervisor tang: staying with the state funding picture, welding on the chair's remarks, the active transportation program, cycle four is another
state fp1 funded program and this cycle project we can expect to build about $217 million available statewide with a program for about 37 million for the ba bay area region. and from what we've heard, public works are preparing to submit a number of great multimodal project applications. definitely want to get the ball rolling to ensure these are pretty involved with the application project. very important to the criteria. the most recent cycle, which was a first augmented by the fund. san francisco was awarded a $.8 million for a vision zero safety program. for more information you can go to mcc's website. as well i wanted to report last
week i had the pleasure of joining with several colleagues from around the state and the region with our transit direct director. he was retiring. he was with the -- the departmendepartment for over the decades. and district four and oversaw some of the largest projects and largest projects in the region. within san francisco, he was a tremendous partner to us on the presidio parkway project as well as he sat on our trans bay joint powers authority, directing the terminal project. as well as partnered with us on another project. we are grateful to his leadership and great -- wish him all the best in his future endeavours. staying with the regional picture, mpc continues to develop their horizons initiative, this is a future scenario planning project that
began earlier this spring and they held it -- held a workshop in may to contemplate a number of plausible scenarios. looking at sea level rise and resilience as well as all kinds of demographic and technological -- technological trends to see which kind of futures we can envision and best position our trans persuasion infrastructure investment to service in any of those scenarios. they will be issuing a call for transformative projects. projects and programs that are costing potentially over a billion dollars to test again some of these scenarios. things like a second to you, major rail investment, for example, for the bay area. for more information go to the connect s.f. website and you can also contact any of our staff here at the transportation authority. and, on the local scene, survey is underway for the reduce of
the sales tax over the next five years. i wanted to think a lot of the board members commissioners for circulating our survey on your sights and in your newsletters. we are certainly interested in the public feedback on how we spend the next five years on the programs and funds for a number of categories. pedestrian and bicycle improvements, traffic measurement, resurfacing, traffic calming and the like. we've launched a multilingual survey to gather input which is available online. it is also available in hard copy form. we will make that available to a number of community-based organizations and can also send that to any neighbourhood group or organization that still would like to pass those out. so far we have been able to receive, already 400 completed responses, each of these will be conveyed to sponsoring agencies to incorporate the public feedback. for more information you can contact our staff, and the survey does close on june 1st.
in terms of our project delivery work, westbound ramps improvement project has received an outstanding construction project award. we were appreciative of the recognition and the effort of managing and a team of contractors including golden state bridge. we are going to continue to deploy the program over the summer and i want to look for the r.f.p. for this work coming up very soon. and the next stage of the rapper's project. on the transit side, the bart daly city pedestrian rapid bus circulation treatment program is anticipated to finish in june. we continue to upgrade to the bus area, the station will be expected to finish construction next month and the project to extend the pedestrian pathway to meet the standards that are necessary there.
the new rabble not only provide a better way to navigate the station for people with disabilities but improved operation for limiting the need of the 28 lying to stop at two place is in the station. it will actually save the community about hundred 50 million a year in costs. finally, in terms of our and finch -- efficiency improvement initiative and customer service initiative i wanted to thank the team for deploying our web-based funding request form. it sponsors... we are accepting all new applications through our online grant management system known as the portal. it will improve not only commune occasion between the agencies but also efficiency, speed, and accuracy of all of our funder's request. at thank you very much for the team. i conclude my remarks. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. is there any public comment on the executive director's report?
being none, comment is closed. can you please read the consent agenda? >> clerk: items five through nine were approved at the may 8th board meeting and are being considered for final approval. the remaining items are considered routine. they are prepared to present if required. >> supervisor peskin: okay. is there any public comment on item number 4? seeing none, a public comment on the minutes is close. i do have a speaker card on item number 8 which has been previously heard, but because we do not have -- do not want to discourage public testimony, we will sever item h. from the consent agenda and take the public testimony on the balance of the consent agenda and you items 4-9. a roll call, please.
>> clerk: roll call. [roll call] >> supervisor peskin: could you please read item number 8? >> clerk: item h., adopt a ramp intersection study, phase one, final report. >> supervisor peskin:, mr olson, the floor is yours. >> thank you mr president. my name is ted olsen and i'm a third generation san franciscan and sit on the division zero task force. -- sit on the division zero task force. i want to support the approval of this. we've made such progress with
vision zero. i think what's really impressive about it is how the departments of the city have come together, acting on such and an important thing. especially how they've been using surveys, media, to conduct such a survey and gather community impressions. i took the survey and i'm sure many others did. there's much discussion in the community, i know it certainly has been on the market. it has been discussed about removing freeways and stuff like that. i commend division zero team and command your approval. >> supervisor peskin: thank you mr olson. seeing no other public comment, i will close public comment, i think you have one more commissioner thacommissioner tho solicit a vote from on the
consent agenda. if you could please ask commissioner kim how she would like to vote on items 4-9? >> clerk: commissioner kim? >> supervisor kim: yes. >> supervisor peskin: on item eight, is there a motion from item h. made by commissioner kim and seconded by commissioner yee agreed that item is finally approved. can you please read item number 10? >> clerk: update on the rail alignment benefit study. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. we welcome director john around the from the san francisco planning department. mr ram, i said you would be on at 10.09. i am eight minutes off. my apologies. for the long-awaited rail alignment, and is now renamed, benefit study. the floor is yours, and with you is susan geeky wh kiki who has e
program manager on this long-awaited study. we look forward to your presentation. >> thank you. i'd also like to recognize a man in the audience who is our chairman of our citizens working group who will make a few short comments after my presentation. thank you. drawn ram, planning department. i'm pleased to present to you the update on the rail alignment. i want to thank the staff and the tee -- tee dot a dot. we think there are serious land-use implications and analyses we wanted to make as part of this process. it was a great joint partnership. i am here today to not only give me the update, but to give you stats, and a recommendation for our preferred alignment. so that has been something that we have not presented in the past. we want to give you that. our thoughts on that, and why we
think we chose this alignment and why this should be the one to go within the future. i will start by giving you, it was important to us to take a step back, and remind ourselves why we are doing this to begin with. and the importance of rail in the future of this state and in this region. what you see in this slide is some of the gross numbers that are happening over the -- in the state over the next 50 years. we did a broad brush, 50 year projection on growth recognizing these numbers and that timeframe can vary somewhat over time. and broad strokes, you see some of the extraordinary numbers that could be happening in the state over the next 50 years in both population and jobs. really, the point i want to make here, as we have two choices to make to accommodate growth. either build a rail, or expand highways and airports. i don't think the latter is something that is going to value the city and state. with decisions to make about how
we accommodate growth, and they responsibly and act environmentally careful way. zooming in on the bay area, same thoughts. our population could grow by as much as 3 million people over the next 50 years. with a comparable increase in jobs, and really, again, the choices are expand the rail or look at highway expansions which i can't imagine this region would accept in this day and age. it is important for us to think as a region about a rail as well. zooming in at the city level, again, same thing. i think the important thing to remember here, is this corner of the city, if you will, the southeast quadrant as we call it, will contain about 75% of the city's growth. the vast majority of the city's population and job growth will happen in this quadrant of the city, along this rail corridor. again, to accommodate that growth, we have the opposite -- option of expanding the highway which is absurd in our anchor --
in our current environment, nor do we think it is environmentally sustainable or friendly to our neighbourhoods. it is interesting for us to look back at the city's growth patterns and you can see the numbers. like most u.s. cities, there was little growth in the sixties and seventies. very little growth in either jobs or population. of course in the eighties and nineties that all started to change and that is true of cities across the country. even my hometown of detroit, which has seen some devastating economic conditions, is seeing growth now for the first time in many decades. we are seeing a substantial turnaround in urban preferences in terms of living and job locations. and we do think that by 2065, the city could have a population that is approaching 1.5 million people. getting down to the tangible level of this particular corridor, the area essentially from mission bay to the north,
we want to look more carefully at the growth in this area. you see the extraordinary growth numbers in the population here. almost 200% growth in a population in this corner of the city. you also see the value that we have placed in terms of trying to reconnect, or actually connect for the first time these neighbourhoods to the other neighborhoods of the city. mission bay and it's entirety as a neighborhood has been cut off from the rest of the city. we believe we have a major opportunity to correct that. we could connect as many as six roads in the east-west direction between mission bay and dogpatch and the neighborhoods to the west and connect those neighborhoods to mission bay and the bay. for all those reasons, adds that one of the primary reasons for us taking on this study is to look at how we can get to the trains underground sooner and farther south than what has
previously been proposed. so in that light, we of course as you know, i think, looked at three alignments. we initially had a fourth alignment week considered and rejected which was the alignment which would have threaded between the columns of the highway. that alignment proved to be infeasible. we looked at three scenarios. one is the existing which we called the future with surface rail, with one addition to that existing alignment, which was the trenching of the streets underneath the rail. if you recall, the proposal that had been put forward by high-speed rail was to maintain the grade crossings -- crossings at 16th street and seventh street. the city for many, many years said that is an unacceptable solution to actually have those conditions with the vastly increasing the number of trains that will be coming in the future. in the rush hour, for each hour of rush hour, we anticipate that as many as 20 minutes of the hour, the streets would be
closed with trains, with an ambulance route on 16, access to east and west was an unacceptable condition. the proposal that had been put on the table was taking the streets under the trains. so that scenario, and we will talk about the financial implications of that, is the first scenario. the second scenario is simply taking the existing alignment and extending it farther south and that is what we call the pennsylvania avenue alignment which is shown in orange. it expect -- extends the tunnel farther south to a point south of mariposa, perhaps around the location of the current 22n 22nd street station. the third alignment is what we call the mission bay alignment which is the third alignment that would take -- veer off towards the bay and tunnel under third street. under the third straight line, and connect, as you can see, with second street tunnel around at&t park. why do we need this? we think there are a number of important projects may need to
coordinate. we think it's important to reconnect these neighbourhoods, it as you can see from this image, this is the type of condition we would have if the proposal, as currently proposed, would move forward with moving the streets under the trains. this is actually less impactful than the actual reality, because there's a large piece, the outfall in this area, we would have to dive down as much as 50 feet in some locations in order to transport the streets under the trains, which we do not think his away with that we want our city to go in the future. so we looked at these three major projects. these three projects alone, just in this quadrant of the city, while probably -- probably in the range of 6-$8 billion of public investment in the city. it is so important for us to get this right and make sure these are coordinated. as we look at the various alternatives, we wanted to make sure we were looking at a range of issues ranging from equity to transportation issues and our transportation planning. looking at operational issues,
looking at existing plans and policies, of which, of course,, there are many. looking at construction schedules, potential development and, of course,, cost. as a reminder, we initially looked at five components of the study. the alignment, as i've been talking about, the actual railyard itself, urban form and land use issues with respect to the rail yard, and the surrounding areas. and then we also looked at what would happen if we extended the alignment beyond the salesforce transit centre. and we looked at the issue of 280 and weather it made sense to consider modifying or removing it. i will start by saying that the last two items on this list have essentially been taken off the table. we looked at an extension of the alignment which could happen in the future and we think it has positive benefits. and we looked at whether if we are moving to this portion of 280 made any sense in terms of the overall transit system. whether the freeway would get in
the way, if you will, of a rail alignment or vice versa. whether it would have to be modified. we have concluded there is no reason. there is no real connection, but we can accommodate the alignments that we need without touching the freeway. for now, that is not under consideration. again, just a little more detail, the alignments that i talked about, again, the green is the existing alignment with grade separations they are highlighted in the lower part of the slide. the orange being pennsylvania and the blue being mission bay. with a station in it somewhere in the vicinity of the mission rock development. the second was to look at the railyard itself. it is 20 acres of land in the middle of the city. it is an important part here that many people don't realize. the railyard is actually privately owned. it is owned by a large industrial developer that is based in san francisco but it is, and actually -- actuality, the largest industrial property owner in the world. bait air rights are under the
control of that company. if the trains were to go away, they would have the rights to develop that property with the change in zoning. we looked at possibilities. what if we separated the actual operations that they do on that site from the storage and maintenance and staging creeks two separate functions that happen on that sight? we looked at locations and we believe that there are some locations a railyard could locate to. they are within the ten minute travel time to the terminus which is the requirement that the company has. we think there are two sites that could be possible to relocate the terminal. we looked at urban form and land use considerations and made some very broad assumptions about what would happen here if the railyard was to be removed, or lowered, or modified. we could of course restore the street graded and have much improved bicycle connections and
deal with environmental issues and obviously, housing open space and other uses if that was the way we wanted to go. and then these last two items, again, as i mentioned, we did a very preliminary analysis about extension to the rail, which is shown here. whether it comes out of the salesforce terminal and going across the bay, or looping back around. we looked at whether there was the potential for making this connection via the mission bay alignment. we frankly don't know enough about where the connection should go to the east, yet, to really understand that, and so we think all of these are possible in the future. we know that much, but we don't think, at this point, there is an urgency to making this decision. i will say that breaking through, if you will, the eastern end of the terminal to the east, does not only increase the capacity of the terminal and -- in the long run but it adds a whole new ridership to the terminal from oakland and the
east bay. it is something to consider in the future. as i said, we had initially looked at weather this one and a half or 1.2 miles of 280 were in effect preventing us from a rail alignments that we would offer. we do not believe that it does. we don't believe there is a real connection functionally -- functionally or traffic -wise between 280 and the transit system. so we did not take this any further and are not proposing any changes to 280 at this time. so, getting down to brass tacks on the cost. these are the high-level numbers of the three alternatives. what these numbers include, are full construction costs, they include for the pennsylvania and mission bay alignment, they include a relocated caltrain it yard, and they also include potential revenues that would accrue from land value recapture
on the railyard. similarly to what we did in the transit centre plant. the one qualification on that latter point, is that because the land of the railyard is privately owned, we are not able to capture the land value. the land sales, as we did in the transit centre plan. it is the number -- the revenue generated from that site are not as great as they would be if it was similar to the transit centre area. you will see there is some pretty big differences between the pennsylvania and mission avenue, mission bay alignment. and again, these are comparative costs, and i think an dollars. they could be inflated easily and could all rise proportionally. so, given those numbers, and given a number of considerations, that staffs of all of the agencies have put forward the pennsylvania avenue alignments as being our preferred alignment, and our recommendation to you and the mayor about the city's preferred alignment on this project.
let me just give you a number of reasons. it actually solves one of the fundamental problems that we have seen that it is eliminating the possibility of closing streets. it avoids the trenching problem i mentioned, and most, i think very significantly and a concern we heard when we first started this study, it does not delay the btx design and construction. the reason for that is one of the advantages of the pennsylvania avenue alignments is the dpx contribute -- proceed through engineering on its current schedule while we build to the rest of the tunnel to the south. so we are able to accommodate them on its current schedule without any delay while we further, through the environmental work and engineering work to build a tunnel through the south. it allows all the trains utilize the transit centre they are.
clearly, land use benefits over last -- a mile of the city. and we think, we would like to further study the location of the 22nd street station in order to find -- utilize that land. it is the fastest-growing station in terms of ridership in the caltrain system and yet is not even accessible at this point. it is a very challenging location for a station. there are clearly operational benefits, and it allows the possibility, which we did not include in the cost estimate, of even expanding underground at the fourth at townsend station which would be an underground station at that location. there are obvious negatives to this alignment. there is some increase in cost, about 900 million, we think, that requires additional environmental review of the segment that is south of the railyard. it requires relocating storage and maintenance facilities, as i said, and probably requires some
relocation of utilities. so where are we headed here? we think this is a reasonable, doable timeline, obviously there are factors, that will come into play here, that might affect this timeline. but we are, of course unit may, updating you, on tuesday of next week, we will presenting the same pub -- presentation to the public. over the next five or six weeks, we'll be doing presentations and we will hope to bring a recommendation for your approval either in july or right after your break in august. and finally, and this is, you had this in hard copy before, and this is a little hard to reach, what we are also doing now with our partner agencies is developing an overall strategy, a program of all the various transportation studies that are underway. and each of these, the colour
coding on the raft -- left presents the lead agency. the top line is caltrain -- caltrain, high-speed rail, the city and county, at the last line is barge and other regional entities. there are a number of parallel planning efforts going on and the reason for preparing this diagram, is to really understand how these efforts can be coordinated and to urge our partner agencies to work together on all these efforts as we move forward. which is interesting is how much of them overlapped. they are all going on now and will continue over the next couple of years. it is extremely important, we think, to have these efforts coordinated as we move forward. so thank you for your time and attention. if i may, i would like to ask ron who chaired our citizens working group that concluded it's meetings last night, to make a few comments to the commission as well. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. mr magill? >> thank you john.
chairman, commissioners, i'm ron magill. it's been my pleasure and privilege to share the citizens working group for rail alignment and benefit study. the rep members represented a large segment of our city geographically, particularly those areas which will be most impacted by this project. they are intimately involved in all areas of transit, local, and regional, and they fully understand the complexities in moving the project forward. the study it was conceded by the planning department three years ago. our working group started in august of 2016. we were charged with looking comprehensively at possible solutions to bring high-speed rail and electrified caltrain service into the salesforce transit centre, which will open later this year. our first meeting was august 2016.
our last west yesterday evening. we did walking tours, station tours, discussed efforts and effects on mission bay, system capacity, to be a level, alignment options, railyard reconfiguration clark or relocation, other land-use and urban form used, as well as the opportunities that would be made for housing and space. in other words, what would be best for san franciscans and businesses? as well as service to the greater bay area? any questions regarding i 280 where dispose of earlier on as it did not impact any of the alignments that were worthy of being studied. selection of the pennsylvania route was unanimous last night. coordinating the downtown rail extension, high-speed rail, electric creation of caltrain, to our mind, is the crux of a
once in a hundred year decision. that decision has to start now, and i would be pleased to discuss this with any of you as we move forward. and we have to move forward. we have to start at this point. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. thank you for all of your, and the other see ac members and their work on this. there is more public process coming and the ta is going to be intimately involved in that an oversight and a collaborative role. as wrong -- ron said this is a hundred year decision and it is important that all of san francisco be involved in it. there will be public meetings. when it will those meetings be, and what is the process, going forward, and what when do you think ultimately, this san francisco county transportation authority will be in a position to make a final decision?
>> thank you for the question mr chairman. we have a public meeting on tuesday night at the green room across the street in the veteran building. tuesday at six, i believe. and then we intend to respond to a number of boards and commissions over the following few weeks. planning commission is as early as june and other boards are coming up. we want to make sure, since this is our recommendation at this point, we want to make sure we are hearing from the public and other agencies and their feedback on that recommendation before the city takes a final position. however, what we hope to do, given that, and given that the initial feedback from our sister agencies has been quite positive, to date, we would like to get to you, as a board, and to the mayor, either in late july, or right after your september recess. so that the city is making an official decision, if you will, in that timeframe. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. thank you for your incredible
amounts and quality of work. either questions from commissioners? commissioner few where? >> supervisor fewer: yes, thank you very much. i have a question for mr ram. there are two sights. you mention two sites for a new railyard. where are those sights? >> because they are in private ownership right now i don't want to actually mention the exact locations of those sights. we believe there are physically two sites that are in properly zoned areas that could accommodate them. >> supervisor fewer: and you said that's within ten minutes? >> the requirement -- yes. the requirement from caltrain is that the railyard, wherever it is in the long run, has to be within ten minutes of the terminal. >> supervisor fewer: one is outside of the city of san francisco and one is inside and both of those are privately owned? >> that is correct. >> supervisor fewer: to be have any plans of buying the property at all? >> at this point we do not.
we made assumptions about potential costs and the cost estimates. >> supervisor fewer: so you think these two other sites that are privately owned, do you think the owners might be willing to buy them? , i mean, seldom. >> at this point there is no way of knowing. we would have to pursue that in the future. >> supervisor fewer: okay. you can't tell me where they are likely that was my question. okay. thanks. >> supervisor peskin: commissioner safai? >> supervisor safai: i just want to say, you know, i've been in this room for over a year, and we've had multiple presentations on this. this is extremely extremely helpful today to have this information laid out in the way it is i do have it presented, you know, in parallel form, and have the options in a very clear and concise manner for us to be able to make really informed decisions. i really appreciate the hard work that your staff went into, and the presentation, to me, it makes a lot of the decision-making, going forward,
that much easier. we really appreciate the hard work that you do. >> thank you. >> supervisor peskin: seeing no other questions or comments from commissioners, why don't we open this up to public comments. i have four speaker cards. if you don't want to comment, we will close, okay. if you will line up to my left, you're right, the floor is yours. >> good morning, supervisors. we i'm glad we are starting the right conversation here. and i think if this moves forward you will be hearing more and more good news. storage seems to be a concern. the fact is, we will be abandoning one, and possibly two of the tunnels.
if you look at how long these tunnels are, we have the capacity to store eight trains, you know. between two areas. but, now that we have finally landed on the alignment, as you recall, i presented to this board four or five years ago, i have seen a few supervisors. we can now rethink about where we will be locating the towns -- townsend station. the logical place is to locate it on seventh. because there is nothing there. when we do that, -- so the station will straddle at mission creek. at that point, we will be serving mission bay and other parts. we are proposing to be the station by a loop which we -- will essentially connect chinatown.
but, and closing, we know it will cost is $900 million to go from 22nd street to townsend. why don't you just carry on and spend 900 million, instead of $4.7 billion connecting townsend to the centre? thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you very much. mr olson, we. >> my name is ted olson. it was an honour, it is an honour to serve on the board for this project. i, obviously ask your approval of it, but i am here today to commend the director on the way he conducted and chose all of the participants for this, particularly his collegial work with the other partner departments which means that
this is a uniform intelligence of all of your infrastructure departments. i also want to commend susan, and the entire team for leading our see wg through this process of understanding all of the technicalities that went into this decision. finally i say, about the importance, and as john said, the differences between airports and roads versus railroad, by the time high-speed rail comes to san francisco, and the importance of this is it is a regional plan that we have proposed, by the time it arrives in san francisco, we will have 1 million residents. i urge your approval. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> mr chairman, members of the commission, our interest is
really in getting caltrain extended without any unnecessary delay. i'm glad to see this morning that a lot of the earlier proposals that were highly disruptive to the extension of caltrain, and yet, we are overpriced and this is progress. we are getting closer to something that makes sense now. i did want to talk about one that has been mentioned and that is, the yard. i don't think they really serious they looked at two options for leaving it there. one is to shrink it, because now there are 14 tracks and going down to maybe, nine. put it in the building and billed to the podium above and develop the air rights above. the other is the depressive 30 feet and the whole sight is free. if somebody wants to build some massive parking garage underneath, i don't quite see the problem there. it's not that much more expensive than going down
farther south, and much cheaper on the operational cost than buying new property somewhere else that we don't know anything about yet. so that was one point. we should not lose track of the possibility of keeping the yard where it is. it is operationally better for caltrain to do that. the second thing is, it was a time where they're free weight will get removed and that meant all kinds of nice garden apartments in the southwest corner of mission bay, but the freeway is going to be there, which blights the area for decades. i think it was a good decision to destroy that, but under a freeway, it is not such a bad place for an under, a street underpass. as it is here, the tail is wagging the dog. that underpass is causing a lot of expense to be added to a project that need not be. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> i am representing safe uni.
it is a supporter of the downtown expansion of caltrain. we want to see it didn't -- done as quickly as possible, and as inexpensively as possible. currently, the project is costed out at $3.9 billion. san francisco is now adding a number of conditions to this project. that is grade separation. i have no proper eight -- problem with pennsylvania avenue alignment and no problem with great separation. four years ago, before the beginning of this study, any rail expert would have told you that grade separation is a good idea. the question is cost. according to their figures, the costs is to $.1 billion in excess of the current project. i think san francisco has the
belly up to the bar here, and committing to that extra $2.1 billion. until you do, and until you confront the financing question, you really are never going to be able to get this project done. i urge you to commit to the city's funding capacity to the tune of $2.1 billion to accomplish the city's goals. and get this project done, now. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. are there any other members of the public here for item number 10, seeing none, public comment is closed. i think we are all deeply committed to getting the downtown extension into the trans bay terminal. as a matter of fact, when we hear item 11, and i apologize to mr williams, and the folks who
are here, i think the number of us are actually anxious to go to the opening of that salesforce tower that towers above, or next to that trans bay terminal. so this is an information item. there is much more to come over the months and years ahead. it is our job to make sure that, unlike in phase one, that the san francisco county transportation authority it remains intimatelremainsintimats project is delivered, hopefully as close to on time, and hopefully as close to the squishy budget as it now -- as is possible. with that, mr clerk, could you please read the next item? >> clerk: item 12, internal accounting report, item 11, update on san francisco transportation agencies with chair accessible taxi incentive program and recreational shuttle
service program. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. miss williams, i terribly apologize for dragging you here. but i would like to subject to public comment, and asked my colleagues to continue this to the next meeting. went very much want to hear it and i again apologize to you for having you sit here this morning. hopefully you enjoyed item number 10. and with that, is there any public comment on item number number 11? seeing none. >> to by mr chairman. >> supervisor peskin: you can speak under general public comment which is coming up. >> okay. that's fine. >> supervisor peskin: all right. no other public comment, public comment for number 11 is close. is there a motion to continue this to the next meeting made by
commissioner fewer and seconded by commissioner safai. miss it fallen? by the way, we will continue item 11 to the hearing of june 26th. >> on the deputy director for finance and administration. this is a report on the ta's financials as of the march 31st 2018. in the first nine months after this... revenues totalled 294.7 million. expenditures total to 145.8 million. both revenues and expenditures are in budget for the first nine months of the year. in terms of investment compliance, 62.9% of the ta's
cash, excluding the bond proceeds helped with u.s. banks are invested with the city's treasury pool and are in compliance with the california government code and the ta's investment policy. in terms of expenditure compliance, we had you remember there was a bond in november of 2017. we are five months into that. as of march 31st, we have spent 99.1 of those bond proceeds and have approximately 150.8 million to go and to be spent in the next 31 months. with that i'm more than happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor peskin: any questions? seeing none, is there any public comment on item number 12? seeing none, public comment is close. thank you for that information. is there any introduction of new items? seeing none, is there any general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed, and we are adjourned. [♪]
measure that will be before the voters on june 5th. in 2014, the supervisors adopted a resolution in san francisco that prohibited the sail of cigarette products. a rhenendumb was filed requiring that the ordinance be submitted to the voters. the ordinance will not go into effect unless a majority of voters approve. proposition e is a refer endumb to pass the ordinance passed by the board of supervisors prohibiting the sail of flafrd tobacco products in san francisco. a yes vote means you want to prohibit the sail of flafrd tobacco products in san francisco. a no vote means if you vote no, you want to allow the sale of flavored tobacco products in san francisco. i'm here with dr. lawrence chung, past president of the marin medical society. we're also joined by star
child, outreach director of the libertiaryian party of san francisco. thank you both for being here. i'd like to start with you, star child. why do you feel it's so important. >> well, it's an expansion of the war on drug dos, and we shd know that the war on drugs has been a massive failure. it didn't work with alcohol, it didn't work with cannabis, and it won't work with tobacco. this will create a black market in san francisco for purchase of cigarettes on the streets where they won't be checking i.d. it's already illegal in california for people under 21 to buy tobacco products, so the opposition's claims about oh, it's about kids being able to buy tobacco, well kids can't buy tobacco now. this is about not fringing on adult choices. it's going to lead to more crime, it's going to lead to
more retailers closing. controller's economic office estimated 50 million lost in sales. vaping stores and other retailers that are highly reliant on tobacco sales will close. raping actually helps people quit smoking. it's less harmful. vaping and e cigarettes are included under this proposed ban. >> thank you. dr. chung? >> thank you for asking me to be here? i'm here not only as a concerned physician but as a father. i have two wonderful nine-year-old twin boys and girls, and i am worried that this is allen assault on our k. canny flavored tobacco has only one use, and that's to hook kids into tobacco. this measure is all about protecting our kids, our community, and i feel very strongly that we should uphold this ban on tobacco that has
already been passed by a unanimous decision at the board of supervisors level. so please join me and the san francisco marin medical association, the california medical association and the american medical association in upholding this ban on candy flavored tobacco, vote yes on prop e. >> thank you. i'd like to ask some questions, and i'm going to begin with you, dr. chung. do you believe that this proposition, a ban on flavored tobacco is the best way to fight youth tobacco use. >> yes, i believe this is a very effective way to fight youth tobacco, because we know that four out of five kids who start smoking start with a candy tobacco flavored product, four out of five. so if we ban the sale of these candy flavored tobacco in our stores, we will effectively keep them out of the reach of our kids. it's all about our health.
>> and the same to you, star child. >> absolutely not. as i mentioned, the kids already can't buy tobacco in stores. what this will do is drive sales to the streets or on-line where i.d. check is less effective or in the case of on the streets, it won't take place at all. if you buy things on the street from unregulated sources, he don't know what's in them. we all know the case of eric garner in new york city who was killed by police there. he was selling illegal unlicensed cigarettes on the street, so that's an example of the kind of violence that can be produced by this, and it's not going to be effective at preventing kids from smoking. i mean, kids get tobacco know. i mean, it's a parental decision. keep your nine-year-olds from smoking, absolutely, but prop e won't help make that happen. >> thank you. our next question goes to star
child first, is do you believe proposition e is too broad, there have been some arguments that in addition to it covering candy and flavored tobacco in that sense, that it also covers menthol cigarettes and hookah use in the middle eastern communities. >> we would be against it even if it were only covering a very narrow segment, because your question is does your body belong to you or the government. all of us consume various things that are unhealthy. if we all switched to a raw food, vegan diet, we would be much healthier. does that mean that anything that's not vegan should be criminalized? no, but that's the way that some people want to go. big government, unfortunately, they already make more off of the sale of a package of cigarettes than the tobacco companies do. they're trying to m