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 LikeEscort Services to serve the neighborhoods in city college itself. And the final chapter gets to one of the communitys 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 reservoirs 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. Im happy to answer any questions about it. Supervisor cohen thank you very much. I just had perhaps we could have a conversation. So, while weve got city college, i think this is going to create a unique impact on district seven, nine, these districts having satellite campuses. So, im 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 thats not far from the tline 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. Theres a new chancellor there, new staff and sort of a reboot of their facilitys 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 theres been a lot of work done in the city already. Some of the measures that are in the citys 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 dont 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, its 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, youll 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 theres assumptions that one might make thats 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 im just pointing out problems. I dont 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 youre 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. Im christine hanson. Im 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 colleges 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 doesnt 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 dont pass this thing. Its going to hurt the school. Thank you. Chair peskin next speaker please. Public good morning. Im 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 ill 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 Planners 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 colleges 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 im 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 colleges 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 its 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 PermitParking Program as a swlugs to parking demand. Solution to parking demand. One of the big problems with that program is it doesnt 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 communitys 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 im hoping i can be as serious as much as you are curious what im 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 dont want credit. Right now im 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 cant stop me. I got one minute. But im here to say directly to whoever is in room 200 because you know im not going to Say Something about somebody. I aint going to do it. Room 200 is a total different game and its a shame that i, ace washington, born and raised in the fillmore. I wasnt 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 im 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 thats enough. All right. Next speaker, please. Public down here at silly hall. I done seen it all and im going to tell it all. I will be back and im going to say what i have to say about them chair peskin ace next speaker. Public is it on . My name is michael errands. Im a member of the Westwood Park association and im 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. Its 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 its 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. Whats going to happen when you lose all 2,000 Parking Spaces for a college they want to increase the enrollment . Its now free. So, they said that there is no basis in fact on this report and they reject it in its 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 shouldnt approve this report and its already stated its preliminary and without basis in numbers. And youre 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. Thats 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. Ill 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 im 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 thats not included, i know ive talked about it. Like even though its 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 im sorry. You believe so . Yes or no . I cant speak for the developers, but theyre 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, theres 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. Im thinking im 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 its curious we dont 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. Its a study. But thats how things start. And thats 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 havent hired union labor to do the job. Im 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 reevaluate. 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 weve heard from our citizens advisory commission, a policy body used to advise us. They are against it. I dont know anybody in support of this other than the Police DepartmentPlanning Department. Im 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 cohens point of view. But as i mentioned, to me its the beginning of a discussion and i think the frameworks there. The issues of parking, the issue of improving the transportation really does need further study. One of the things ive 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 doesnt get solved, theres 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. Its be on the agenda with the developers pretty much up front and talking about these issues. Have they come up with solutions . Not yet. Were 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, youre correct in saying that if this were the only thing thats going to be used to solve these issues, i would say i would agree with you. But to me, its not this document does not even try to say it solves everything thats going to be in the future. Some of the things that ive talked about and this seems like, again, informally. I mentioned the shuttle. I mentioned one of the things i didnt mention i think one of the residents mentioned it. If we are going to go into residential parking permits, im 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 im 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, thats my comment. Im 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. Theres 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 arent necessarily about this particular plan, but theyre more about the long term plan. And i think both supervisor yee and ive heard very strongly that theres desires for certain things that because this is going to be a development agreement, ultimately, those things can be negotiated into the final package, such as a shuttle, the amount of parking and otherwise. I think the concerns of the neighbors are very real and this will have a big impact. But i think theres a lot of opportunity and i know supervisor yee has been leading this and ive been kind of backing him up in many ways. So, i feel comfortable moving forward with this. I do have a lot of reservations that supervisor cohen brought up. But i think we can finalize that. Chair peskin commissioner yee. Supervisor yee i also want to mention that i have been asking ting this is a ta meeting, one of the things thats really long term and but im willing to push the discussion. Ive pushed it with the mline in terms of potentially moving from whether its from the st. Francis circle or from west portal tunnel to go under ground. And so, with that discussion, i also was broadening the discussion that we study the city study the possibility of keeping the k under ground from the same point. And that would to me if you put the kline under ground all the way to the bart station, that to me would really reduce the Traffic Congestion around that area. Again, its only possibilities. Maybe when they study it, they will find out that my statement was totally ridiculous or not. If we dont study it, we wont know. Chair peskin all right. Is that a motion commissioner yee . Supervisor yee yes. Chair peskin is there a second for that . Seconded by commissioner kim on the item. A roll call please. Commissioner breed. Thank you. I have some questions about outreach specifically because there is information in the resolution that talks about an extensive outreach process as it relates to this particular plan with community input. And i was hoping to get more information on the follow through specifically that was highlighted in the resolution here. Specifically based on public input received after this Advisory Committee meeting. Commissioner yee requested concerns expressed by members of the public and resulting feedback was in the final report. I just want a little more information about that additional outreach and what was incorporated into the report as a result of that outreach. Mr. Shaw. Thank you commissioner breed. At commissioner yees request, we did return to the community a number of times to hear the concerns. I think part of the challenge was how do we stick with whats the written scope of a Transportation Demand management while acknowledging a lot of Community Concerns that maybe a tdm cant address. We changed a lot of the tdm recommendations or refined them to make sure the communitys concerns are addressed. For example, the data challenge thats been mentioned. There was Additional Data collected a second time and then recommendations were added to refine Data Collection in the future when city college or balboa reservoir go for their analysis. And for things that the tdm cant really address, we wanted to make sure that those concerns were included. For example, safety at transit stops at night is a significant concern. That needs to be addressed at transit stops throughout the neighborhood and beyond. And so, it was included in here. But this is not a capital plan. And so, theres limits to what the tdm framework could do. We tried to focus on strategies that could provide a foundation for and acknowledge those that it couldnt. One last comment. Response that the third or fourth edit i think we invited Many Community members to come in to the Planning Department and workshop and talk about ways to get more of Community Concerns into the document and youll see that in the most recent version. And i think part of the concern is because the plan is the plan. It talks somewhat about community input, but it just seems as if theres a plan that was put together with certain recommendations. But it appears that many of the recommendations are based on the Planning Departments recommendation of the community of what could be done and that information is actually whats put into the report. Is that accurate . I think it comes from a variety of sources of input. The recommendations were from the consultant. So, it started with best practices and their knowledge of San Francisco. There was input from city College Staff at the time. There was input from the two cacs and then that last round of edits focused on a lot more details around data and around so things beyond tdm. We acknowledge theres always more outreach that needs to be done and our intent and hope is that the process and the feedback that weve gotten about the process will inform the future planning. So, when we have an implementable plan, a real plan that the developers at city college are obligated to fulfill, that outreach will be done, reflecting all the comments we have heard over the last two years. Can you talk a little more about the outreach to city college specifically . Because i heard in the comments that there was only one presentation at their board meeting. But can you give me clarity in terms of the board meeting, the students, the staff and the people impacted most by this. Sure. So, the document was first initiated and scoped if this late 2015. So, since that point, there were ongoing coordination meetings and vetting with facilitys staff at city college. And we were happy to present at many times i think at the same time part of the challenge was city college was going through their own facilitys master plan effort. So, there were limited opportunities for the city to present. We are happy to return. Another note and opportunity is i think the facilitys master plan is going through a reboot. Theres a new chancellor. Theres a new project manager dedicated just to the reservoir and parking concerns. And we are very excited to work with them. So, i think all those changes represent an opportunity to improve on the outreach process. And i just want for clarity, this is just a guide. This is not written in stone. There could be changes as any project progresses. But this was basically used a road map to have a better understanding of what the challenges are in the area, what some recommendations can be to fix those challenges. But theres still a lengthy process associated with moving anything forward of this magnitude in general. So, i just wanted to make sure that that was clear. That is absolutely correct. If i could just add one more point. I think the framework created the space or the opportunity for really an unprecedented collaboration. I dont think theres has been to this point in my knowledge around the planning or transportation issue, the consistent coordination between staff of both city college and the city. So, i think its a big step forward and again, its not the only step. Were just starting and it has created a foundation for more collaboration. Thank you. Chair peskin commissioner cohen. Supervisor cohen thank you. Mr. Shaw, you said there was a second meeting, an outreach meeting that you reached out to folks in the city college community. When was that . The second city College Meeting . Im not there were a number of city College Staff meetings. Supervisor cohen okay. Maybe i need to clarify. There was the one presentation mentioned to the board of trustees and the additional meetings were primarily for neighbors or folks coming to the reservoir cac meetings. Supervisor cohen and what was the attendance like . The cac meetings are always well attended. The smaller workshops were intended to have neighbor hood representatives and dig into the text and ideas. There were two or three of those meetings if i recall, with five or seven neighborhood representatives. Supervisor cohen maybe perhaps instead of voting no, maybe we could continue this and there could be a little more Due Diligence and outreach given. The reason why i was thinking about this because something you said to commissioners breed question, this would allow city college to fullidy jers the report that you are proposing. I dont know if youre open to that, supervisor yee. Im sorry. What did you say . Trustee. I dont know. Commissioner. Sorry. [laughter] chair peskin used to be a school board member. Never a trustee. Supervisor cohen i know. I was thinking about the new faculty and facility. You could say, hey, trustee cohen commissioner cohen, stop losing your mind over this. The reality this is how things start. This is how change happens. I sat seven years on the land use committee. This is my eighth year. I have seen this before. I know a thing or two. And im certainly not one to prevent growth and development from happening. But its with that wisdom that im asking these questions and i think that its important that one of the things areas that we as City Employees and county employees fall short on is outreach. We dont have a large budget. We have got largely people volunteering their time and theyre coming in and doing this outreach. I just want to make sure we are doing our Due Diligence and pulling in the information so we have a report that has some substance and some thoughtful conclusions. Now mr. Shaw, im in no way saying, commissioner yee, not saying this isnt substantive. There are very few facts in here and there are questions and i would imagine we need more study, which means we need more time. Perhaps we can continue this and give them another month or two to go out and get some feedback . I find it interesting not one person is here speaking in favor of this. Everyone is against this . I would imagine it has to do with outreach. So, colleagues, maybe instead of joining me with a no vote, maybe youll join me with a continuance so that we can get this level of feedback and get it done and get it right. Chair peskin commissioner, is that a motion . Supervisor cohen yes, i would like to make a motion chair peskin im sorry. A motion would take precedence. If shes making a motion and gets a second we would vote on the continuance first and then go to your motion. So, motion by commissioner cohen. Is there a second for that motion . Seconded by commissioner breed on the motion to continue a roll call, please. To what date . Supervisor cohen thank you for asking. Im open to suggestions. Mr. Shaw, do you have any suggestions to what date or commissioner yee how much time do you think . I can go a full week. Chair peskin commissioner cohen. Supervisor cohen perhaps the next meeting . Supervisor yee this item was actually going to be brought to this board more than six months ago. I said lets continue it so we can do further outreach. In many ways ive taken those steps much earlier. So, for me to have continued this long actually, its been more than six months where we asked the staff to go out and do more. And i dont think doing it one more week will change things. As i mentioned, the reason why im okay with this is because i know well i dont know. But according to mr. Shaw, theres going to be other studies being done. And when they do the study, theyre going to take into consideration some of maybe the drawbacks or the issues that have been raised. Which is like, okay, rather than me always saying do more community outreach, they will vote it into their next process. Rather than whats the other thing that he mentioned . Supervisor cohen i mentioned there was no one in support of these. The way the reports works is they work and built off each other. Sounds like when the question was raised what was the outreach, what was the strategy, the answer wufrnt wasnt thorough. It was we had a couple of meetings, maybe five or six. I want to know when was it scheduled, where was it scheduled, signin sheets. Theres ways we capture information. This is how we do it when im doing community meetings. Im able to say heres a document of every single meeting we held. I dont see that. If we could show the screen quickly. Supervisor cohen there it is. Thank you. I think part of the challenge that we discovered part way through the reservoir process and this framework document is that theyre very interrelated prompts, but they are distinct. So, some arguments there are arguments and questions that need to be addressed by the reservoir. We all acknowledge we are not done discussing the reservoir. Absolutely. This framework was not designed to resolve the reservoir challenges. It was meant to be a Strong Foundation so different agencies and particularly city college and the city could begin talking. It was intended to have robust discussion of what tdm is, because it is a pretty technical term. These meetings were at both cacs in the neighborhood. Some focused on the transportation in general. But in some way they all touched on or focused on tdm. And i think well, i acknowledge the comments we have heard today. They are significant and we take them seriously. There are a number of people who support the framework. I dont think it is only opposition in the neighborhood. There were a couple of the cac meetings that are on the slide before you, we went with previous drafts of the document. There were no comments or objections to advancing that document to this body. But at the time, supervisor yee felt like we needed to do more outreach and we agreed and did that. So, i just want to confirm supervisor yees comments that we have done a number of outreach efforts but by no means is it the end and our intent is to focus the outreach on the actionable plans, the things that will have on future Data Collection. The things we can hold folks to through the environmental process. There are plenty of opportunities and our eyes are looking forward to ensuring the outreach and technical requirements for those. Chair peskin thank you, mr. Shaw. Commissioner cohen. Supervisor cohen i would like to withdraw my request to continue this. You want this to go forward. I will support it and vote for it. Chair peskin thank you. That works for the second. Commissioner breed . The motion to continue is withdrawn and on the motion made by commissioner yee, a roll call, please. Clerk on item seven, commissioner breed. Breed aye. Commissioner cohen. Cohen aye. Commissioner fewer. Fewer aye. Commissioner peskin. Chair peskin aye. Clerk commissioner kim. Kim aye. Commissioner ronen. Ronen aye. Safai aye. Commissioner sheehy. Aye. Tang aye. Commissioner yee. Yee aye. We have first approval. Chair peskin all right. Before we read item eight, i want to thank you mr. Hartnet for patience. I have had a request by a commissioner to make ask for a motion to rescind the vote on item number four. Commissioner yee, would you luke to make like to make that motion . Supervisor yee move. Chair peskin seconded by commissioner safai. Mr. Clerk, we will take that without objection and mr. Clerk, if you could please read item four. Clerk item four election of chair and vice chair for 2018. Chair peskin is there a nomination for chair and vice chair . Commissioner cohen again. Supervisor cohen thank you very much. I would like to nominate commissioner aaron peskin for chair and nominate commissioner katy tang for vice chair. Chair peskin is there a second for that motion . Seconded by commissioner breed. Is there any are there any additional nominations . Seeing none. We will close nominations. Seeing no Public Comment on that motion made and seconded. A roll call please. Clerk on the motion in favor of electing commissioner peskin for chair and commissioner tang for voice chair . Breed aye. Commissioner fewer aye. Commissioner kim, kim aye. Commissioner peskin. Chair peskin aye. Clerk commissioner ronen. Ronen aye. Commissioner safai, safai aye. Commissioner tang. Tang aye. Commissioner yee. Yee aye. Motion is approved. Chair peskin all right. Thank you again colleagues and with that, item number eight. Clerk item eight, update on the caltrain pennisula corridor electric electrification project. This is an information item. Chair peskin mr. Hartnet thank you for your patience. And i want to thank ms. Broussard for the meeting we had yesterday in my office. For those who dont know mr. Hartnet, he is the general manager and ceo of the San Mateo County cta as well as the chief officer of caltrain as well as the head of san trans. With that in his capacity as the head of caltrain. He is hear. Welcome and thank you for coming to our chambers here in San Francisco county. Thank you mr. Chair and commissioners. It is a pleasure to be here. We are happy to report on the status of our electrification project. I would like to thank you for the Great Partnership weve had in bringing forward improvements to caltrain. Not just with the electrification project, but since its origination. We preserved rail service and developed a Robust Community rail service on the pennisula. The electrification project would not have happened without the team work and support of chair peskin and the board and the mayors offers. We stayed together and united and with Regional State and federal support, weve been able to move it forward. I would like to acknowledge also San Franciscos own michael burns, who was chief officer of our electrification project and will be up until this end of this month. As of february 1st, another of San Franciscos own, john fungy will become chief officer of the project. And the next time we report to the board, he will be here to join us in reporting. So, i would like to thank you for the Great Partnership and support and i would like to introduce Michelle Broussard who is the chief officer to thank you. So, we have for you a brief presentation in support of the document you have in your agenda. To talk a little about the whys of electrification. Back in the early 90s the caltrain board supported the average weekday riders and in the last fiscal year 2017 we have in excess 62,000, which really demonstrates the exploding demand for rail service on the pennisula that has much to do with the congestion on the parallel highways of 280 and 101. Really, the growing economy all up and down the pennisula. Our Electrification Program really was slated to be completed back in 2014, but took us a little time to get our funding together and our plan together. But really what it does is it puts us in a situation where we have an aging fleet. The majority of which is more than seven years past its useful life. We are doing a great job keeping service on the road, but for the reasons that we really need to replace that aging fleet, were moving forward with the Electrification Program inner in earnest. The project is comprised of the overhead cat mary system and traction power system as well as what we call our electric multiple units. Those are the electric trains that will replace that aging fleet. We will still have a portion of the fleet that is diesel and that is because the age of that fleet is not 1985 vintage, but 2000 vintage. This will provide for us once implemented remain with speeds up to 79 Miles Per Hour and we will also be able to provide more service to stations on the pennisula and that really will be able to, i think, just begin the era of electrification. We see the potential of electrification something to allow for expansion way beyond what is contemplated with the initiation of pcep. Something that could not be attained with the Diesel Technology we have been operating. This project is fully funded at 1. 9 billion. San francisco has made a significant contribution. We received a core capacity grant in a Grant Agreement we received in may of this past year. In order to ensure that we had the project moving guard, we issued forward, we issued a limited notice to proceed to two specific contractors. The first was to stadler and the second was to ballford, following the receipt of the full funding Grant Agreement, we issued full notices that allowed for us to have these two special groundbreaking events in july and in october respectively. One was locally at the train station and one was out in Salt Lake City where our vehicles are going to be built. With the notice to proceed issued to ballford beatty for the construction of the work, we began constructing. You will see we are constructing the job in phases. Weve got four separate geographic areas that we are working in. Currently were working in areas two and four. Youll notice that San Francisco is located in segment one. What were doing right now in terms of the infrastructure is weve pursued all field constructed field activities. Weve also been already installing foundations in the ground. Weve got more than 100 foundations currently poured. And its a bit of a moveable project. So, what weve been doing is as were constructing, were also working on design and were also pursuing the other contracts that are required as part of this project, which include a Remote Monitoring of the electrified system. And weve got to make some modifications to our maintenance facility. And all of this is accompanied by a series of Public Meetings and outreach to advise local communities that well be constructing in their area. Just a couple of things to talk about specific to San Francisco. As i mentioned we havent started in segment one, yet. But you will see in the summer of 2018 through the spring of 2019, we will be pursuing in activities in parallel and you see them listed here in this slide. Just a couple of pictures here. Proof positive that were out working in the field. This work is largely done in the evenings. We also changed our weekend schedule from hourly to every 90 minutes to allow for full weekends of single tracking to enable us to work around the clock on the weekends. Just a word about the electric trains. Again i mentioned theyre called electrical multiple units. You saw in the first graph that caltrain has experienced explosive growth over the course of the last few years. In many ways, it is a pleasant problem to have, but it has made planning for the initial phase of pcep somewhat interesting. We have been pursuing this design in a way that seeks to balance the needs of the various rider groups, including bikes, adas et cetera. One thing i will emphasize is one of the criteria of the full funding Grant Agreement was that with the implementation of the pcep, that we would have a 10 increase in capacity. We will be achieving that, although it has to be said in order to continue to not only drive demand, but satisfy demand, we are going to be seeking opportunities to be increasing capacity by lengthening. I will talk about that in a moment. So, you see in front of you i mentioned the 1. 9 billion is completed funded. There are essentially i will call it five trenches that require the funding. The first is electrification. The second the scada. There are a bunch of separate contracts dealing with tunnel as well as the support we require in order to delivering the program. This set of numbers here is from november of this year. There is an oversight protocol that governs the business of this project. And certainly on the budget and expenditure side, this is overseeing certainly on a monthly basis with the report we provide to the caltrain board. It is a subject of review on a monthly basis by the Configuration Management board that is comprised of memb