your patience with our technical difficulties. Welcome to the January 26, 2026 regular meeting

of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I am Supervisor Myrna Melgar, Chair of the Committee, joined by Vice Chair, Supervisor

Cheyenne Chen and Supervisor Bilal Mahmoud. The committee clerk today is Ms. Elisa Samara.

I would also like to acknowledge Kalina Mendoza at SFGovTV for helping us broadcast this meeting.

Madam Clerk do you have any announcements? Yes Madam Chair please make sure to

silence all cell phones and electronic devices documents to be included as part

of the file should be submitted to the clerk today. Public comment will be

taken on each item on today's agenda when your item of interest comes up and

public comment is called please line up to speak on your right. Alternatively you

may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways. First you

may email them to the land use clerk john carroll j-o-h-n dot c-a-r-r-o-l-l at s-f-g-o-v.org

or you may submit them submit written comments via u.s postal service to our office at city hall

one dr carleton b goodlit place room 244 san francisco california 94102 if you submit public

comment in writing it will be forwarded to the supervisors and also included as part of the

official file on which you are commenting. Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the

Board of Supervisors' Agenda of February 3rd, 2026, unless otherwise stated. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Please call items number one and two together. Agenda item number one is a resolution authorizing

the acceptance and recording of a navigation easement from US 180 El Camino owner for the

development at 180 El Camino Real in South San Francisco at no cost to the

city of San Francisco and making appropriate findings.

Agenda item number two is a resolution authorizing the acceptance and recording

of a navigation easement from Navdeep Bakri for the development of 413 Alita

Way in unincorporated San Mateo County at no cost to the city and county of San

Francisco and making appropriate findings. Thank you Madam Clerk. We have

Ms. Ayanna Volek here, representing SFO. Welcome.

Thank you. The airport is requesting your approval to accept

navigation easements from property owners for construction of the residential component

of a mixed-use development at 180 El Camino Real

in South San Francisco and an accessory dwelling unit at

413 Alita Way in unincorporated San Mateo County.

Under state law, each county containing a public-use airport

must adopt an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

The Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environments of SFO, or SFO-ALUCP,

states that residential developments located within the 65-decibel community noise equivalent level,

or DPCNEL, noise contour, must grant an navigation easement to the city at no cost

as a condition of local project approval.

Residential developments with the 70 dB CNEL contour are incompatible unless they were zoned for residential use

continuously since the 2012 adoption of the SFO ALUCP.

The San Mateo County Airport Land U Commission conditionally approved the project at 413 ELITA

within the 70 dB CNEL contour and continuously zoned residential since at least 2012,

pending the property owners granting an navigation easement to the city at no cost.

The ALUC found the project at 180 El Camino Real, which is within the 70-decibel contour

and not previously zoned for residential use, to be incompatible with the ALUCP.

However, the City of South San Francisco overruled this finding and decided to proceed with the project

pending the property owners granting an navigation easement.

As required under the SFO-ALUCP, the easement would grant the City the right in perpetuity

to permit the flight of aircraft through the airspace above and in the vicinity of the property,

impose noise, sound, vibration, and other effects incident to the operation of aircraft,

and protect the city from lawsuits brought by the current or future property owners or residents related to noise.

Thanks to the diligent efforts of the clerk's office, we did have a minor amendment in each file.

On page 2 of file 251171, line 12 to 13, we have to change the planning letter date from February 1, 2022 to September 9, 2025.

And for file 251172 on page 2, lines 11 and 12, changing the date to June 24, 2025, we've submitted these amendments for your consideration.

I'm joined with members of the planning team and happy to answer any questions

Thank You miss Fulak. I don't see any questions or comments from my colleagues

So why don't we go to public comment on this item madam clerk?

Members of the public who would like to provide comment on items 1 and 2 please line up to on the right hand side along the curtains

Seeing no speakers madam chair, okay public comment on this item is now closed

Madam Clerk, I'd like to make a motion to amend the legislation as written to the record by Ms. Bollick

And then to send

both items as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation

On the motion to amend both items one and two and recommend it with a positive recommendation

Vice-Chair Chen

Chen I remember Mahmood

Mahmood I chair Melgar I Melgar I there are three eyes, okay

that motion passes. Congratulations. Thank you so much.

Let's go to item number three, please, Madam Clerk.

Item number three is an ordinance amending the planning code to make various clarifying

and typographical changes and prohibit massage establishments and massage

practitioner uses as accessory uses to residential uses and

making appropriate findings. Okay.

We have Ms. Lisa Gluckstein here.

you have amendments it's what I'm okay

good afternoon committee Lisa Gluckstein planning department staff the proposed

ordinance would amend the planning code to make various clarifying and

hypergraphical changes to the planning code.

It would also prohibit massage establishments and sole practitioner uses as an accessory

use to residential uses.

The planning commission initiated these code corrections on September 18th of last year.

They then adopted this item on October 23rd, 2025, and at that time unanimously adopted

a recommendation of approval with modifications.

The one modification was a non-substantive amendment to remove the proposed definition

for planning entitlement application.

The family zoning plan amended all references to planning entitlement application to development

application, and this proposed definition was no longer required.

After the commission hearing, we noticed that we erroneously deleted mixed-use districts.

So on page 29, lines 12 through 8, it should still read as Eastern Neighborhoods Mixed-Use Districts.

Additionally, Section 890.60 was missing the word hotel on page 44, line 5, and we changed that.

Lastly, there were additional changes to reflect code, changes from other legislation that has since become effective since this was introduced.

These recent ordinances are made to conform with this ordinance.

in the proposed amendments before you.

These amendments were circulated to you earlier this morning,

I believe by Veronica, who's out today.

And we ask that you amend the file to reflect these amendments today.

That concludes the commission report.

Okay, thank you, Ms. Gluckstein.

Let's go to public comment on this item, please, Madam Clerk.

Members of the public who would like to provide public comment on item number three,

please line up to speak on your right.

Seeing no speakers, Madam Chair.

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

I would like to make a motion to adopt the amendments as written to the record by Ms. Gluckstein,

and then to send this item out of committee to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended.

On that motion to amend item number three and send it forward with a positive recommendation,

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen, aye.

Member Mahfoud?

Mahfoud, aye.

Chair Melgar?

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

There are three ayes.

Okay, that motion passes.

Thank you.

Let's please call item number four.

Item number four is an ordinance amending the planning code to permit on-site wine, beer,

and or liquor sales in movie theaters that also operate as bonafide eating places and

make conforming changes in the planning code definitions of bar and bonafide eating place

uses, permitting certain movie theaters in the Upper Fillmore neighborhood commercial

district to sell wine and or beer and offer entertainment, cultural, artistic,

dramatic, musical, or leisure activities, performances, or exhibitions,

and making appropriate findings. Okay, thank you. We have

Lorenzo Rosas here with Supervisor Cheryl's office who's going to present

on this item. Welcome. Good afternoon, Chair Melgar, Vice Chair

Chen and Member of AHUD. Thank you for hearing this item today. As

drafted, this ordinance encompasses three code changes. First, it amends the definition of movie

theaters in planning code section 102 to allow theaters to provide on-site beer, wine, and or

liquor sales only as a minor in incidental use. Second, it amends the planning code's definition

of bona fide eating places, adding a subsection that specifically exempts movie theaters from the

gross receipts threshold applied to other eating places. And lastly, this ordinance amends the

Upper Fillmore Neighborhood Commercial District to add a provision that specifically exempts the

Clay Theater from needing a conditional use authorization for changing their non-residential

use size in excess of the limitation. As we all know, movie theaters are an essential piece

of our cultural fabric. They are community cornerstones, gathering spaces, and cultural

touch points for the arts. Yet, over the past decades, movie theaters have been threatened by

shifting streaming habits, the pandemic, and more. Supervisor Cheryl introduced this ordinance to

support our cherished movie theaters bottom line while ensuring these theaters are not subject to

unreasonable enforcement penalties designed for traditional restaurant establishments. Today I'm

here to respectfully ask for amendments to be added to the file on behalf of Supervisor Cheryl.

These amendments have been circulated with your offices as well as with the clerk and they were

approved to form by the city attorney's office. Specifically there are four amendments that we are

asking to be included, three of which at the recommendation of the planning commission and

one in response to community feedback. The amendments are as follows. On page five, line nine,

remove the word fixed in subsection B of the movie theater definition. On page seven, line nine and

line 14, which solely affects the clay theater, remove the phrase with no fewer than 150 fixed

seats oriented towards the screen and the phrase with an ABC license type 41. These amendments are

to ensure consistency with planning department policy and remove unnecessary language that does

not further the intent of this legislation. Additionally, the amended file moves the language

on page 7, lines 10 through 13, into page 5 under the movie theater definition. In short, this allows

all movie theaters to offer a broader range of programming, hopefully bringing more attractions

to these theaters while still needing to obtain any necessary authorization from the Entertainment

Commission. Lastly, in response to community feedback, Supervisor Cheryl is hoping to amend

on page 7, line 14, deleting the phrase by ticketed customers and replacing it with on-site consumption to both ticketed and non-ticketed guests.

This last amendment pertains solely to the Upper Fillmore NCD.

Following introduction, Supervisor Show engaged in conversations with the Clay Theater's project sponsor and the nearby community

to expand their beer and wine sales to all patrons, not just ticketed customers.

The project sponsors see this change as vital to the sustainability of the Clay Theater as a community art space,

and they've held numerous tours on site with interested neighbors to explain why serving beer and wine to all is necessary to their operations.

Through their extensive community outreach, they've been able to earn a lot of support for the specific change,

including but not limited to the Fillmore Merchant Association and the Pacific Heights Resident Association.

We are grateful for the project sponsor's ambitious vision to restore the Clay Theater as a gathering space for all,

a community cornerstone where you can run into your neighbors while catching an independent film.

and we want to help ensure that all neighbors can gather in this renewed clay theater even if one

friend in the group does not have the time to join the others for a movie with these four amendments

we are confident that this ordinance will not just enable clay theater to successfully reopen but

help support the livelihoods of our cherished theaters for years to come thank you again

committee members for hearing this item today and I'm here to answer any questions on behalf of the

district 2 office thank you mr. Rosas I would stay there because it seems like we have comments and

questions. Supervisor Chen. Thank you, Chair Margo. I don't have questions, but I want to share some

comments about the legislation, and I think many of us remember the nostalgics for the days when

many of our neighborhood commercial district donned movie theaters. In my very own district,

The Granada Theater first opened its first door in 1922 and unfortunately made its last showing in 1982 to the charging of Excelsior residents.

This establishment have long been integral to the fabric of our neighborhoods, providing performances to the delight of our local communities and fostering a very vibrant cultural sense that draws visitors from near and far.

And I know that this legislation begins with some of the needs and goals to identify with the clay theater alone.

And I am very supportive of those changes to the call to affect theaters citywide.

For the relatively few neighborhood theaters that are still around,

I know that they are also struggling to find a business model that will enable them to thrive and continue to serve the neighborhood.

Allowing these theaters to incorporate bonfire eating places with beer and wine services will enhance the overall experiences for patrons and also contribute positively to the local economy.

This is especially true because this legislation establishes very clear controls to prevent the sales of alcohol to minors,

while enabling patrons under 21 to continue to enjoy the cinemas.

So I thank you for the word, and I will be supportive of this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I did have a question.

So thank you, Supervisor Chen, to all the comments that you said, which I totally agree.

And, you know, there's no question that culturally these institutions are really important in commercial corridors and in neighborhoods and that Netflix and Amazon Prime have totally changed the business plan for many of these.

And so they need to adapt.

And we have seen some really good, successful, you know, ways and people have adapted like the Alamo Draft House, you know, and it goes along these lines.

so along those lines why did you decide with your amendment to limit the issue of ticketed and

non-ticketed customers just to the clay theater not to everyone because everyone still has to go

through licensing with the state anyway right and comply with everything else so why not just do it

with everyone two things off of that one the clay theater we see as unique in that the way that the

lobby functions it's you know if I'm thinking of AMC Kabuki and Fillmore for example you walk in on

the first floor the first thing you see is the ticket booth and then you get take the escalator

and you have the beer wine garden effectively and concession and theaters so you know specifically

to the clay theater the way that the lobby functions it's a little more of a gathering

space ahead of the ticket booth necessarily. So we started there and at the planning commission

we had the same question and we said we are amenable to this being included elsewhere but

we thought that that would invite potentially a lot more community conversation than the intents

of this legislation to specifically help restore the clay theater. That being said if we see this

as a pilot and a really good success story of the Clay Theater, which I think we're all bullish on

their operations going forward. If this is a great opportunity for other neighborhood theaters to

engage in this type of gathering space, I think there is a lot of appetite to also expand that

to other theaters as well. Okay, I appreciate that very much. Thank you. And I don't see any

other questions or concerns, so let's go to public comment on this item, please. Members of the public

who would like to provide public comment on item number four should line up to speak now.

Seeing no speakers, Madam Chair.

Okay, public comment on this item is now closed.

Supervisor Chen, do you want to move the amendments?

Oh, okay, I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

I would like to move the amendments to the file as distributed by Supervisor Cheryl's office

and presented by Lorenzo Rosas today and continue the item to the February 9th meeting.

right on that motion to amend item number four and to send it to the

February 9th land use meeting vice-chair Chen Chen I member of Mahmoud

I chair Melgar I Melgar either three eyes thank you and for those of you who

are here for this item we're sending it to the ninth because the amendments are

substantive thank you let's go to item number five please item number five is an

ordinance amending the Planning Code to permit parking of up to two operable

vehicles not including boats trailers recreational vehicles mobile homes or

buses in driveways located in required front setback side yards or rear yards

and making appropriate findings okay thank you we have again miss Lisa

Gluckstein and I have copies of the amendments for the committee members as

well sorry to make you walk Elisa

good afternoon again Lisa Gluckstein Planning Department staff I'll provide a

quick overview of the ordinance and also provide the Commission report so

So currently the planning code prohibits parking in required front setbacks in yards, requiring

all off-street residential parking to be screened and enclosed, typically in a garage.

This ordinance proposes to legalize a widespread but currently noncompliant practice allowing

up to two operable vehicles to park in existing driveways, provided they do not encroach on

the public right of way.

provide a summary of the key provisions again it's up to two operable vehicles

boats trailers RVs mobile homes and buses would remain prohibited there's no

encroachment allowed in the public right-of-way screening requirements

would not apply to these driveways and this parking would not count towards

minimum towards maximum parking limits this the prohibition on driveway parking

that we're proposing to change dates back to the 1979 down zoning ordinance

which also restricted at that time multi-family housing in our districts

That ordinance prioritized aesthetics and neighborhood character.

Today, the city's policy priorities have shifted towards increasing housing density

and reducing regulatory burdens.

This ordinance aligns with those goals by legalizing a common-sense use of private property

and removing disincentives for converting garages into new ADUs.

The planning department has received numerous complaints about driveway parking,

but its enforcement is inconsistent. Some residents face citations while others do not,

depending simply on whether a complaint is filed. This ordinance would reduce inequitable enforcement

and unnecessary fines for residents who park in a manner consistent with this ordinance.

Importantly, this ordinance does not change laws prohibiting vehicles from obstructing sidewalks.

Enforcement of the public right-of-way will remain under the jurisdiction of SFMTA.

The Planning Commission heard this item on October 23rd

and unanimously adopted a recommendation for approval

with modifications.

The recommended modifications were as follows.

First, specify that parking for up to two vehicles may be allowed

on driveways that formerly provided access to enclosed parking.

Two, restrict applicability to driveways that provide

or previously provided access to screened parking places,

parking space rather, and one and two are quite similar in concept.

Three state that parking in the front setback is not considered an addition of

parking that would trigger compliance with front setback landscaping and

permeability requirements.

The amendments proposed for adoption today address these concerns by

reorganizing the originally proposed language in a new section to better

define permitted driveway parking.

namely the amendments specify that the parking is allowed between an existing

curb cut and a parking area already authorized by the code for example

screened parking or garage and to provide an explicit exemption to allow parking

to continue where garage has been converted to an ADU or a junior ADU to

more specifically call out the amendments in section 132 we're adding a

reference to a newly created section 152.3 in section 136 we're removing

previously added provisions that will instead be reorganized under 152.3 in

142 we're referencing this newly added section 152.3 as creating as as creating

the exemption from screening requirements and finally creating this

new section 152.3 that specifies that permitted driveway parking provisions to

limit that specifies that permitted driveway parking is limited to parking in the vehicular

path from the public right-of-way, that is the curb cut, to the authorized parking, meaning

the garage or carport, where that path is limited to the minimum width needed for such

access.

So the punchline of that change is that it's not the entire front setback that can be covered

by parking.

It's just the path between the curb cut and the garage.

This new section also explicitly allows parking in driveways in front of garages that have been converted to ADUs or junior ADUs with the intent of incentivizing new housing construction.

We ask that the committee adopt these amendments and move this item forward with a positive recommendation.

That concludes my presentation.

Happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I do have a question, just a clarification, and I think I heard it in your presentation, but if you could say it again, I'd appreciate it.

So in District 7, that's one of the complaints that we get the most, particularly on some streets.

And that is that almost all of the lots in District 7 have a much narrower sidewalk than the public right-of-way,

which most people think, oh, this is my property, but it's actually not.

It's an easement for utilities or whatever.

So your amendments actually make it so that people will not get a ticket if they're like two inches into what is the public right of way if it's not a sidewalk.

Can you clarify that?

Yeah.

So if there's any encroachment on the public right of way, then the parking is not permitted.

So it has to be wholly within that person's private property.

And how do they know?

I mean they should know what is their private property.

How will the MTA ticketing officer know?

Because it's not clear at all.

So what I'm saying is like almost every neighborhood in District 7 has a sidewalk.

But the public right of way is like several feet into what people think is their front yard.

Because it's like an easement for utilities or whatever.

And it is a public right of way not an easement.

So how will people know?

Okay.

I suppose practically speaking, those aren't the types of cases where people are going to call in enforcement

because it's not creating practical issues for individuals using the sidewalk.

But it does create an enforcement question that I might not have the answer to right now.

Sounds good. Thank you.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chairman Melga.

I also want to thank for the presentation.

I also have learned a little bit more about what are the potential impacts that this ordinance might have in relations to active curb cuts.

Lisa, I want to make sure that you are.

Okay.

Okay.

Active driveways and curb cuts can be, you know, very dangerous to pedestrians and seniors and people with disabilities.

And they also make it difficult to upgrade protected bicycle facility to protect facilities.

So under this ordinance, garage to ADU conversions would keep curb cuts active

and remove one of our fuel tools to remove old driveways.

In my district, there are corridors such as the Alamany-Boloa

that have remained on the city's high injury network for years

and have surplus of curb cuts.

So can you speak a little bit more about how this ordinance would potentially impact

our ability to advance by projects to improve safety for pedestrians and also active transportation

users? Thank you. Yeah, thank you for that question. So currently the planning department requires

curb cuts to be filled in where any garage space is being rendered non-functional. So if someone is

expanding their garage into a game room or what have you, that curb cut would be required to be

filled in. And that would remain the case except for where that conversion is to a new housing

unit in the form of an ADU or junior ADU. And that was a call that we made because we wanted

people to be incentivized to create new housing units. ADUs are one of the tools that we have for

adding small-scale density to our residential neighborhoods, and we don't want to create a

disincentive from folks doing that. And that's the reason that we crafted it that way. As far as

the Alamany circumstance, I mean, we certainly support the creation of more bike lanes across

the city. And the challenge with Alamany, as you know well, is that it has a lot of this

single family or duplex residential along its length. But for this legislation to be a functional

barrier, it would require that the majority of those properties convert their garages to ADUs

and thus maintain their curb cuts.

If other people are making other modifications to their properties

that negates the use of their garage,

they would still be required to fill in that curb cut.

So it's a tradeoff between adding density in the form of ADUs

or requiring people to fill in these curb cuts,

and we decided that we wanted to support folks converting.

And then the other thing just about alimony

is I know that's within the recent changes

under the family zoning plan

imposed minimum density requirements

for all the TOC areas under MTC's

transit-oriented communities plan,

and that includes Alamany,

which means that any new housing construction

that happens there is going to have to be

multifamily residential,

which this ordinance won't meaningfully impact.

This is really focused on small-scale residential

and existing construction, not new construction.

Okay, thank you so much, Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Ms. Gluckstein.

I will save my comments until after our public comment, so let's go to public comment now.

Members of the public who would like to provide public comment on item number five, please come forward now.

You will have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Tom Adulovich with Livable City.

Yeah, I feel like we're being told again by government that we can't have nice things, right?

That if we want more housing in the city, which I absolutely want, and I've spent a good part of the past 10 years trying to allow incremental development and legalize ADUs, but if we want that, we can't have safer streets, right?

We've got to give up this idea that we're going to have green front yards, and of course the purpose of requiring front setbacks was not to create space to store cars between buildings and the public right-of-way, but actually to create gardens and green space.

Same thing with the reason we require rear yards.

And I think there's a whole body of evidence that says we are happy, healthier human beings

when our neighborhoods are greener, when we have those green spaces in front of our homes,

behind our homes, and when we have green streets that are also walkable and safe.

Curb cuts just do create pedestrian hazards.

The child that was killed in Hayes Valley was killed on the sidewalk by a car pulling out of a driveway.

So the more that we can do as a city, as we incrementally develop, as we grow denser,

to make the sidewalk a safe and comfortable place for people to walk,

to make the curbside where there's important things like transit-only lanes or bike lanes,

to make that safe and usable as well, we should be doing all of those things.

I think in some ways the incentives are going wrong.

The reason that there's a disincentive or the reason there's an additional cost

to removing driveways is we make it really expensive.

Supervisor Melgar, you did the Love Our Neighborhoods ordinance.

That got rid of a lot of the rigmarole and cost of improving the public right-of-way,

greening, adding trees, doing those sorts of things, for individuals doing it.

But it didn't change the rules for development projects.

I think you should streamline the rules for development projects,

maybe give grants to people who remove driveways and garages

because they have improved the public realm.

So don't make it costlier and more time-consuming.

make it easier to do but keep our strong standards so that as we grow.

Thank you for your comments.

Are there any other individuals who would like to provide public comment on item 5?

Seeing no speakers, Madam Chair.

Okay, public comment is now closed.

So I am a co-sponsor of this legislation.

I am the District 7 supervisor.

And I think that, you know, notwithstanding the great need for safety, I am, as most people know, an avid biker.

That's how I get around town and want to have better infrastructure.

The fact is that many folks rely on their car, particularly on the west side where we have those front yard setbacks and also front yards, you know, to get around.

And I would much rather have those cars stored in a driveway than on the public street where bikes and people travel.

So I think that because it is private property that we're talking about here, it doesn't feel to me the same as allowing for free parking on the actual public right of way and having that be like the only solution for people not parking in their own driveway.

So, you know, there's nothing in public policy that is perfect one way or another.

There's always, in a city as diverse as ours, given trades, you know, given takes in every decision that we make.

And this is a decision that feels okay to me because given the amount of constituent feedback that I've gotten on this issue for all of these years,

it seems like a pretty easy thing to do, notwithstanding the changes that we need to make going forward as we densify,

as we deal with things like incentives for people doing the right thing in moving the needle on car ownership,

which has already been moving for the last couple decades in San Francisco anyway.

How do we incentivize the behavior that we want to see?

I absolutely agree with that.

So I am in support of this legislation.

I want to thank Ms. Gluckstein for all of the care and work that you took in doing that.

And, you know, in terms of the infrastructure for bikes and the safety for pedestrians,

we will keep working on that as well.

Supervisor Chen, did you have something to add?

Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Melga.

I share a lot of what you said.

I also believe this legislation is a common sense change to ensure that our city's driveway parking policy

accommodates the reality of our city's multi-model city.

Our current San Francisco laws do not permit residents from parking their cars in their own driveways.

And these rules are outdated, leading to unnecessary fines and neighborhood stress.

So in my very own district, concerns about parking amount the top quality of life issues that residents report.

So I believe this legislation mitigates one of the most persistent everyday frustrations that working families who are reliant on their cars face.

This legislation only eases restrictions on outdated parking routes in private driveways and will no longer penalize residents for reasonable behaviors.

I have listened to the questions and concerns that community advocates have raised, and I want to say that I hear you.

What we don't want to do is, in quotes, on the public right-of-way.

This legislation retains all the restrictions and tools to ensure that we keep the public right-of-way free and clear.

We do not want to undermine our climate justice goal.

This legislation does not incentivize additional parking.

It only legalized the parking that residents rely on that is already happening.

We do not want to undermine our ability to advance future sustainable transportation projects.

I do believe that the broader challenges that the city faces in designing protected byways are beyond the scope of this particular piece of legislation.

So with that, I am voting to support this legislation.

And, Chair Melga, I would also like to make a motion to adopt the amendment as written to the record by Ms. Glasson.

Thank you, Supervisor Chen.

Did your motion also include sending it out as amended?

I can also do that.

I would like to make a motion to adopt the amendment as written to the record

and also send it to the football as a committee report.

Thank you.

With a positive recommendation.

With positive recommendations.

I don't think it's agenda as a committee report.

Yeah, it's just with a positive recommendation.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, on the motion for item five to accept the amendments

and send it out with a positive recommendation,

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen, aye.

Member Mahboud.

Mahmoud, aye.

Chair Milgar? Aye.

Milgar, aye. There are three ayes.

Okay, thank you. That motion passes.

Let's go to item number six, please.

Item number six is the resolution adding the commemorative street name

Stephen Tennis Way to the 200 block of Eddy Street

in recognition of Stephen Tennis' decades of service, stewardship,

leadership, and community building in the Tenderloin neighborhood of San Francisco.

Okay, Supervisor Mahmoud.

Thank you, Chair Melgar.

This item is a resolution to add the commemorative street name,

Stephen Tennis Way, to the 200 block of Eddy Street

between Joan and Taylor in front of Bodecker Park in my district.

Stephen was one of the first and longest-serving corner captains of Safe Passage,

guiding thousands of children safely through the streets of the Tenderloin

and ensuring their passage to school, home, work, and after-school programs

was joyful, safe, and welcoming, be it rain, shine, or a San Francisco fog. After Stephen's passing

late last year, this street renaming aims to commemorate his many decades of service

and leadership in the Tenderloin and his lasting contributions to neighborhood stewardship,

stability, and community building. Stephen Tennis was a constant presence and advocate in the

Tenderloin, and this designation reflects the real lived impact of his work on residents and local

institutions. This will be the first commemorative street renaming for an individual in the

Tenderloin, making it especially meaningful for a neighborhood that has too often been overlooked.

This designation preserves a local legacy, builds neighborhood pride, and publicly affirms the value

of long-term community service. Colleagues, I respectfully ask to support this resolution to

the full board with a positive recommendation. Okay, thank you, Supervisor. I don't see anyone

on the roster with comments or questions and thank you for introduction and let's

go to public comment on this item please members of the public would like to

provide public comment on item number six please come up for now hi my name is

Jaime Valoria I'm a tenderloin resident I wasn't expecting this I didn't see this

on the agenda when I looked at it I'm appreciative and supportive of this

resolution Steven tennis was one of the first people that I've done work in the

Tenderloin with over 10 years ago to the Tenderloin Healthy Corner Store Coalition.

He's one of those folks that you would love to see in the neighborhood.

Brings a lot of smiles.

One of the few folks that can take a joke.

I was fortunate enough to roast him before he passed away.

So I just want to say thank you for putting this out there.

And there are also a lot more people in the Tenderloin that also deserves that recognition.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Are there any other individuals would like to provide comment on item number six?

Seeing none, Madam Chair.

Okay, public comment on this item is now closed.

Supervisor Mahmoud, would you like to make a motion?

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation.

On that motion to send item six with a positive recommendation, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen, aye.

Member Mahmoud.

Mahmoud, aye.

Chair Milgar.

Aye.

Milgar, aye.

there are three eyes okay that motion passes thank you congratulations

supervisor Mahmood let's go to item number seven please item number seven

is a resolution amending the street encroachment permit terms for maiden

lane regarding the designated permitty permitty and permissible activities

amending and rescinding the board of supervisors authorization for the

street closure of maiden lane between Stockton and Kearney streets and urging

the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors

to modify the street closure hours for such streets

and authorizing the Public Works Director

to finalize a modified street encroachment permit

for Maiden Lane.

Thank you so much.

We are now joined by the sponsor of this legislation,

District 3 Supervisor Denny Sautter.

Thank you, Chair.

And I'll speak briefly on this item.

And before I do, I want to note that the hearing

on the Central Subway, item number eight,

will begin immediately after this.

So, colleagues, item seven is a resolution to update permissions to activate Maiden Lane,

which, as many of you know, is an iconic alleyway in Union Square.

Maiden Lane has been closed to vehicular traffic during the daytime for many years,

and there has been a resolution in public works order for the alley dating back to 1973.

This resolution makes a number of small changes.

Specifically, it updates the name of the entity from Union Square Association,

which ceased in 2010, to Union Square Alliance, which is the current operator.

It places authority to close the street with SFMTA, aligning this with the charter mandate

and current practice.

It urges the MTA board to modify the hours of the street closure, essentially expanding

the period of closure.

And I'll make a comment on an amendment I have on that hour, on that timing, which has

been requested by the Union Square Alliance in a moment.

next it delegates authority to public works administratively amend and finalize an updated

encroachment permit that allows for additional activations beyond tables and chairs during

street closure hours the intent of this permit is is to allow things like temporary art

installations stages speakers and lighting the resolution also directs public works to

permit activations on maiden lane involving food and beverage vendors and the deputy city attorney

is working with us to finalize a public works order that puts all this into effect.

In short, this cleans up a number of items and I think makes the permit much more flexible

and responsive to the moment that Union Square and downtown is in as we're trying to activate

spaces like Maiden Lane even further.

The Union Square Alliance has been working with us hand in hand on this.

They've conducted neighborhood outreach and have had a lot of excitement about increasing activation at Maiden Lane.

Nothing but overwhelming support and excitement.

I believe that Marissa Rodriguez, the CEO of the Alliance, yes, she is here to answer any questions, if we may have them of her.

We also have OEWD and Department of Public Works here who have been working with us on this in partnership.

In closing, I would like to ask for one amendment which has been circulated and hard copies

have been distributed.

And that amendment is that on page four, line three, we strike 10 p.m. and replace it with

9 p.m.

We found out that that would work much better for the Alliance and the neighbors.

So we strike 10 p.m. and replace it with 9 p.m.

And with that, I'm happy to take any questions on this item from colleagues.

Thank you so much, Supervisor Sauter.

I think this is wonderful.

I would like to hear from Ms. Rodriguez, if that's okay, how this fits into her grand vision for all of this, which I wholeheartedly support.

Good afternoon, and thank you, Madam Chair Melgar, and to all the other supervisors.

Marissa Rodriguez, CEO of the Union Square Alliance, and really happy to see so many community members here as well.

I know they'll be championing for something that also supports our downtown.

We are strongly in support of the Maiden Lane Resolution before land use and transportation today

because it meaningfully advances public activation that we need to help enhance our community.

And certainly this alley, I think a lot of us have a lot of feeling around this alley reaching its full potential

and what that could truly mean and making it easier to get there and do things to help support it.

So we want to thank our supervisor, Danny Sauter, for all you've done to lean in to this effort.

Our community is really excited for all of these opportunities.

We recently came off an incredible weekend, actually, celebration on the lane,

seeing a lot of people come and support.

It's called Latinas Forever.

It was a great activation, and we even had drag shows in the alley,

and that was just really fun.

It brought community, it brought activation,

and it brought what we want to see in the district more and more.

There are photos, historic photos of the alley,

people shoulder to shoulder, handing out flowers, celebrating the holidays, Mother's Day,

all the things that we really have, nostalgia that is assigned to Union Square for so many of us

San Franciscans and Northern Californians and Bay Area residents. So we just want to see this

reach its full potential and make it easier for us to do that as we continue with the momentum,

bringing back this really important space. I did want to just add one bit. The amendment we're

actually hoping for shifted we did talk to recology just saturday as we were um in the

throes of this event and we'd like to change that time to actually closure at 8 p.m not yeah not 9

and that's just because it takes them about another hour to get through there and we don't

want to bang around in the alley after hours too late because we do have residents in that alley so

and we're happy to have residents and we look forward to welcoming more residents to the

district at some point so any questions okay thank you very much miss Rodriguez

okay thank you okay with that I don't see anyone else on the roster with

questions or comments well done as supervisor at let's go to public comment

on this item please members of the public would like to provide public

comment on item number seven please come forward now seeing no speakers madam

chair okay public comment is now closed I would like to make a motion that we

adopt the amendment as presented by well eight o'clock instead of that's right

the amendment page for line three would be striking 10 p.m. replacing with 8 p.m.

8 p.m. and yes that's the amendment and then sending it out with a positive

recommendation to the full board please madam clerk on the motion for item 7 to

amend it as stated to 8 o'clock and to send it out as with a positive

recommendation vice chair Chen Chen I member Mahmoud Mahmoud I chair Milgar

I Milgar I there are three eyes okay thank you that motion passes

congratulations madam clerk let's go to the next item

final item number seven please item number eight I'm sorry number eight yes

item number eight is a hearing on the status and performance of the central

subway including ridership station conditions train frequencies and

reliability and future plans for extension and requesting the municipal

transportation agency to report okay thank you so much supervisor solder

Thank you for introducing at this hearing. I will now turn it over to you.

Thank you so much, Chair Melgar.

I want to first thank my colleagues on this committee for welcoming me

and allowing me to give this topic the time and attention it deserves.

As you can see, we have a full house, and I know this takes a lot of your time, so thank you.

I called this hearing so that we could have the space to examine the current performance

and future extension of the Central Subway.

As you may recall, the Central Subway has been open since November 2022,

and this followed more than two decades of planning and community advocacy,

particularly from the Chinatown community.

The Central Subway linked to the existing 3rd Street T-Line,

meaning there is now a continuous Muni rail from Chinatown in the north

to the Bayview and Viz Valley on the southern terminus.

A few years in from beginning operations and a few decades removed from initial planning,

We should reflect on what is working, where we've fallen short, and what's next.

And before we do this, I do want to acknowledge the fiscal reality of the moment we're in

and how critical this year is to shore up operational funding for our transit systems.

This year, we will ask voters to weigh in on two separate ballot measures.

This year...

Excuse me.

Let's try that again.

This year, we will ask voters to weigh in on two separate ballot measures that are,

and it's not an exaggeration to say this, make or break.

I want to make it clear that that will be my primary focus this year

when I ask everyone here today to make it theirs too.

That being said, I do think it's important that we also give our transit riders

and our voters something bigger to believe in.

A system that is ambitious and that acknowledges that we can and should have rail and rapid bus lanes across much more of our city.

That is the message that will help keep our transit systems alive and keep our city excited for what comes next.

There are two portions to our hearing today.

The first is to examine current performance and near-term improvements.

The second is to examine the feasibility, funding, and sequence of next events necessary

for extending the central subway.

So operationally, I've requested that we split up our presentations and conversations

accordingly, first focusing on the current state of the subway and then next on the extension

plans.

We will have presentations from SFMTA in both sections and then an SFCTA presentation for

the second section.

After we go through each, we will take public comment.

And I do want to appreciate everyone for joining today.

I see many faces from our District 3 community, many who have been advocating and working

on this for more than a decade now.

And I want to thank you for your advocacy in the past and much more that will be needed

in the future.

Let's begin in this section by focusing on the current performance of the T-Line.

I've asked SFMTA to share information on ridership trends, station operations, and

opportunities to increase speeds and reduce bottlenecks on the line. With that, we have

Sean Kennedy from SFMTA to begin a presentation. Wonderful. Thank you for that wonderful

introduction. Sean Kennedy, I am the Chief Planning and Delivery Officer at the SFMTA,

and excited to talk about one of my favorite subjects, expanding transit service. So thank

you, Supervisor Sauter, for this opportunity and the rest of the committee. Really appreciate that.

So quick overview. I'm going to talk through kind of current performance of the T-line

itself and then specifically, of course, the Central Subway section. Talk through some

ongoing challenges and what we're doing to address those challenges. And then I'm going to kind of

tee up the second part of that discussion about from the MTA side where we see the future going

both mega projects in the city of San Francisco

as well as the phase three of the T-line

or the Central Subway Extension

is another way to say that.

And then my colleague, Rachel Hyatt,

will come up and talk about,

from the CTA, will come up and talk about

additional info related to next steps.

So before we delve into too much detail,

I do want to take one second to just reflect back.

the the T line itself was conceived as part of a large package a large program projects to connect

all the way up into Fisherman's Wharf down to the Bayview planning on that line started back way back

in the 1980s if you can believe that I mean I my as my my son would say way back in the 19s like

as if it was just wagons and stuff back then but long time ago so we we ended up separating the

project into several phases as part of that process. And the first phase, of course, was

the street running portion on 3rd Street from 4th and King down to Sunnydale. That construction

started in 2001 and was completed in 2007. We then moved into the second phase or the central subway

phase. And that runs, of course, from 4th and King up to Chinatown, Washington Street specifically.

That's about a 1.7-mile segment.

Construction started on that work in 2013,

and then we went into revenue service in November of 2022.

So just a little bit over three years ago.

Before I talk about a few of the good things,

I do want to acknowledge,

and I'm not going to spend a lot of time

on the construction disruption,

but I do want to acknowledge and remind people.

I'm sure I don't have to remind,

especially people in the audience,

That was not an easy time.

Ten years of heavy construction in one of the densest neighborhoods really in North America came with a lot of tradeoffs and a lot of hard moments for both residents and businesses.

So I did want to acknowledge that.

That said, the T-Line itself now has the second highest rail ridership of any rail line we have in the system at over 20,000 riders a day.

Most of those trips are either starting or ending in the central subway portion.

What's really exciting about this is who's using it and how people are using it.

One of the reasons I work for Muni and everybody, the 6,000 employees we have at the MTA are in business and are working for the MTA is not to move trains.

We are not in the business of just being there for fun like a big toy set, moving trains around or buses around.

It's to connect people to opportunities.

That's the whole reason why we do our job.

And the T-line extension is really proving just that.

If you look at ridership on our really robust surface bus network north of Washington Street,

so specifically the 30 and 45, we have higher ridership on those lines now than we did pre-T opening.

At the same time, if you look at ridership on the 30 and 45 south of Washington Street,

along the exact alignment that the T goes,

so down Stockton and then 4th Street,

we actually see almost the exact same ridership.

It hasn't moved.

So what's that saying is that people are,

it's inducing people, we've induced people

to take transit and then transfer the T line.

So these are new people to the system,

new trips that are being made

and has not changed the overall trip pattern

for the rest of the line and our bus service.

That was not something we were expecting,

but we're very excited about that because that really proves that people are using this,

and we're expanding our catchment area, our ridership catchment area,

providing more opportunities for folks to get around.

That said, we obviously have a number of challenges that I want to talk through

and go over specifically some of the things we're doing to address those challenges,

and I'm going to talk about them in three different buckets.

I think the first one is along the surface portion of the T, that first phase that I mentioned earlier.

There are a number of, I guess you'd say, design, I won't use the word flaw, but design issues that really create some friction for T travel along that segment.

It takes 45 minutes to get from 4th and King on the T, from 4th and King to Sunnydale.

There are 68 traffic signals in that stretch.

Over 20 locations allow left turners to cut in front of the train.

So as a result, about 20% of that 45-minute travel time is stuck at traffic signals,

which is a very high number, obviously, and not something that we think,

It actually offers a lot of opportunity to improve, but semi-embarrassing that that is where we're at at this stage of this project.

I will say we're doing a couple things recently to try to improve some of that.

One, we do have a new transit lane, and by new, I use that in quotes if you look at the timeline of this overall project.

It's brand new, but it's about two years old now.

We did transit land on 4th Street Bridge, saving about 20% travel time between Barrie and King Street.

If you ride that line often, you'll know that that was really the biggest pinch point in the whole line.

So we're saving about a minute just in that one-and-a-half block stretch, which is great.

Secondly, we're really trying to advance and improve our transit signal priority functions.

And we did a pilot project for five signals that go from Barrie to Brannon.

So that's the five or so signals that go into the subway itself.

And we saw up to a 35% improvement in travel time by this new way that we're approaching transit signal priority.

Very exciting.

And we are now rolling that out to the rest of the line.

And we'll be working on doing that at all 68 intersections over the next several months.

So that's kind of super near term what we're going to be working on.

And then we'll be looking at, you know, where are additional pitch points, places that we can do additional transit priority measures that might be a little bit more intrusive on the street,

but make big savings for small sections, much like that 4th Street bridge transit lane,

you know, a couple block and a half section, but made a huge difference

when you're looking at the overall reliability of the line.

We also, of course, have well-documented and known vertical transportation issues.

Obviously, the central subway, being so deep, is reliant on having easy and quick access

from the platform all the way to the surface of the street, which is 100 to 120 feet in

depth.

So if that vertical transportation is not working and we're working well, it really

is a hindrance to people wanting to use the system.

And so the first probably year and a half to two years was really difficult.

We were working through a ton of issues and kinks as we tried to figure out the new elevator

and escalators, how long they are, cause breakdowns and things.

But we have been working on it now, as I said, for almost three years.

The last six months have seen a ton of improvement in that area.

We're now seeing our vertical transportation infrastructure along the central subway corridor

match our overall uptime, they call it,

for our vertical transportation all over the system,

which is about 90%.

So we're about high 80s to low 90% uptime on those elements,

but of course, that is not the end.

I mean, we need to get it to 100%, obviously.

That 10% is really, really difficult for people

to try to get up that 120 feet.

So we are doing a number of things, including changing how we diagnose problems.

We've changed how we store and what we store as far as parts replacements, and are storing things differently now.

So we have a lot more parts on site, so it can be fixed much quicker.

We've got a much quicker process now for deploying those specialty services that, you know, only a few,

only, it's very niche, you know, kind of mechanical person that needs, that fixes elevators and

escalators. And so we had a process originally that took too long to diagnose issues and get

somebody on scene to fix it. So we've gone about fixing that as well. So we're going to continue

to work on that, contribute to Trevorshoot, and hopefully get that number even higher than the 90%

that we see today. And then lastly, I do want to point out we have two different retail spaces

on the property. Neither one are currently leased, but we are close, we think, we hope,

to getting one of them leased. The other one is not even on the lease market right now. We

are having flooding issues in that second location, have done a number of things to try to resolve

that flooding, but right now when it gets a ton of rain, it's still overwhelming our

mitigation measures there. So we're still working on trying to figure that out, but we hope to get

that done soon so we can lease out that space as well. So I think those are the things I wanted to

cover as far as current setup of the system. I think with that, maybe we'll take a little break

can answer questions or however you want to go next.

Kind of comments and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I just want to first on the current ridership trends.

I think those are fairly remarkable.

I mean, a lot of the perception of the central subway,

and rightfully so, is the challenges and the overruns and the time.

but when you look at the numbers, there's a lot of promise being shown here.

In particular, the fact that this is now the second busiest rail line, that's remarkable to me.

But more specifically, 63% of southbound trips starting in the central subway,

70% of northbound trips ending in the central subway.

I think it speaks to the fact that this increased demand in ridership

and it gives me a lot of hope that if we were to extend it or when we extend it,

we will see that same boost in ridership.

So that's very promising to me.

I'd love to dig in a little bit on the options we have here

to improve the bottlenecks and improve speeds.

I'm happy to hear of the 20% improvement with the transit lane on the bridge,

35% improvement in the SOMA,

signal timing changes, if you keep stacking those and we get a minute here, a minute there,

that starts to be meaningful and people start to realize and recognize that.

Can you tell me more about the, as we go into the dog patch here, the phase two,

when those will be in place and if there's anything that can be done to speed up the installation of those?

And you're referring to the signal changes?

Yeah. So we hope within the next two months to have the next segment done, which will go from channel down to about 20th.

And that should be in the next few months. And then within a few months after that, probably in the four to six month range, we plan to get all the way down to Sunnydale.

So we, I, you know, it sounds easy to, you know, to just change signal timing, but there's a ton that goes into that work in the background.

Not only just technical staff time, but then we've got to go out and reprogram things.

And so it does just take a while.

Staff time just takes a little while to get all that in place.

And we've got to do it safely and make sure that we're not causing other problems, especially from a safety perspective when we mess with the signal changes.

But that's why we kind of did a pilot first to see how it would work, and we think we can replicate that fairly quickly.

And tell me, with the signal timing here, is this optimizing speeds, or is this actually giving priority to the trains?

Right. Without getting into too much detail, A, it's going to use a cloud-based system.

So we're going to be using, you know, we'll be able to talk to intersections way down the line on what we're seeing and when a train is showing up.

And that is able to adjust the signal timing for a number of intersections so that it kind of gets what's called a green wave is the idea you get.

You know, if a signal system knows that, hey, a train is, you know, four minutes away on average, we better start going through our process right now to clear traffic out of the way so when it shows up in my location, it can just get a green light and go through.

Basically, what we've done is created more opportunities for green time.

So for that north-south trip, for the train itself to call what's called the transit signal priority phase.

And so traditionally what happens is you go in a cycle, so you only get a few opportunities to hit that green window.

What we've done is change how those phases work so that there's a lot more windows for the train to hit.

So it doesn't have to be, it's not about being as precise as a more about giving it more opportunities to catch that green window.

Okay. So it sounds like you're committed to the additional all these phase two signal timing, and that's fantastic. And then in terms of the cross traffic and the left turns, how does that impact the speed of the trains, and what does that look like?

yeah so um so right now i mean if you ride the t it's uh one of the most frustrating things to

just be sitting there with a hundred people or so on the on the train and you know you're just

waiting while somebody takes a left right in front of you um you know like i said that's at over 20

intersections um along the along the alignment uh you know we're hoping that this the the way we've

we're designing this transit signal priority stuff will really help reduce some of that

and get us to be able to go before the left turn phase on most locations.

And at most times, there will more than likely still be locations where, you know, the transit

signal work cannot solve.

And so those locations we want to understand.

And then it could be a number of methods that will be more kind of, I guess you'd call them

more intrusive.

So we'll need to talk with, of course, do a bunch of outreach, talk about the tradeoffs, and talk with people about what that means because that could be anything from restricting lefts to restricting movement across the track altogether.

So not even the straight movement across the track from the cross street.

So then you start getting into cutting off access and things.

And so it's definitely some trade-offs there, and that's why we want to do this signal priority first and just see how far we can get and then go this next step.

You know, I think the comment about how this has not necessarily impacted, you know, there was a theory in the past that once this would open, the bus lines would really change.

And there was some thought this might actually lead to some of those lines not being necessary.

and we've clearly seen anyone who rides at the 30 or 45 or 8 sees that,

but that's not the case, which I think is,

you can look at that a lot of different ways, right?

It is good in the sense that a lot of this ridership on the central subway is new demand.

I've heard anecdotally a lot of people that are using, coming into Chinatown more,

they're finding that to be easy to transfer off of BART

or transfer off of Muni Metro on Market Street.

On the other hand, it's an indictment of the slow speeds of the trains.

We're not seeing a lot of ridership for residents that live north of Chinatown.

We're just seeing them continue to take the buses rather than the central subway in many cases.

And so for that reason, if we are to continue to improve these speeds, that gives me a lot of hope.

If we can take two minutes here, three minutes here, all of a sudden we're stacking those up to five, seven, eight minute.

That starts to feel meaningful.

Last question, and then I'm happy to have colleagues.

Just want to ask a little bit more about the retail kiosk in Chinatown in particular, how that process is going.

If you have small businesses, local businesses that you've identified that you're hopeful to bring in there.

Great.

Yeah, like I said, we are in the process right now of in deep discussions with somebody to lease one of those two spaces.

And then, you know, the idea is, of course, that local businesses would be the ones occupying that space.

The second one, like I said, you know, we are not in a place right now to try to lease that out or even start talking to people about it.

we've got some work to do to shore it up, make sure it doesn't leak before we start talking to

people about filling that space. And one last thing, I do want to appreciate the improvements

that have been made on the escalator and elevator access at Chinatown Rose Pack.

There was a period a few years ago where it felt like it was 50-50 if those were going to work.

And for the depth of that station, for the population that that station serves, older adults,

extremely painful when there's any downtime so thank you for the

improvements there and if we can keep closing that gap I know that will be

really really felt okay so supervisor thank you I just had a couple questions

so thank you so much for the presentation it's really great thank

you for calling the hearing my first question is you know I've been writing

this line since we had the grand opening ceremony you gave out umbrellas which were awesome

and one of the things that I have anecdotally observed of course it is getting busier and

busier and that's great and I see now you know your staff but I'm wondering if you could at

some point provide us a comparison over time since it opened and I'm asking this because

the frequency of this line is really not what most of us hope it would be. And at the beginning,

it was because, you know, it was a new thing. Not a lot of people were writing it. So I'm wondering

at what point do we reassess what the frequency could and should be? A supervisor at Sauter said,

yes, it was that people are going to abandon the 30 and they're going to do this. But in fact,

it's not. The 30 is as crowded as ever. And now this is crowded too. So at what point do we

reassess frequency. That's the first question. The second question was about, you know, the

renting of the kiosk. And I hear what you just said, but, you know, I wonder when it's, when

things in a big bureaucracy are like one-offs, they don't get a lot of attention, right? And so

this is like a one-off right now, but yet you also have all this property that we just looked at in

the, you know, family zoning plan, and thinking about, you know, the use of that property, the

leasing, the, you know, like, I mean, at what point do you have capacity in-house in your structure

to actually make this a thing? You know, because these two spaces are an opportunity and a good

one because it's a new space, but yet there are, like, lots of other stations and properties that

the MTA has that could be, you know, activated to support the comfort of riders and at the same

time provide some income for you? And so at what point do we make that, you know, a thing?

Great. So first question, frequency on the T. And I, you know, I would say I agree with everything

you said, and we are seeing, we've still got quite a bit of capacity, even though it's true that

certain times of the day and things are getting very crowded on the tee, we still do have some

capacity on there. That said, I think one exception being when there's chase events,

it gets crazy. We have usually anywhere from two to six additional trains on the tee line when

there's a chase event just to cover that extra demand. Right now we have a 10-minute frequency

for most times of the day except in the evening that's at a 20, and then on the weekends I think

it's a 12-minute frequency on the main part of the T. We are definitely interested,

and once demand kind of picks up even more, I mean, like I said, we still got some capacity

on there, so there's still some wiggle room there, but we are, that is, adding frequency

is something that we are very interested in doing.

I think the actual report...

But that's my question.

Forgive me.

That is my question.

Yeah.

What is the formula?

I think...

If you say we have already, like, you know, like, what's that magic number at which we

say, okay, now we need to...

I mean, typically, I mean, right now we're seeing somewhere around 60% at the crush load,

so to speak.

So it's, I think, roughly 220 passengers on a two-car train is what we consider crush.

And so if that is happening 85% of the time, you know, that's a time when we want to say, hey, let's add some more service.

But, you know, it's also, you know, we're talking about the whole system, right?

We have, you know, 70 lines throughout, you know, give or take throughout the system, both bus and rail.

and so as we start talking about when we want to increase frequency,

it's much more of a soft calculation than it is a hard calculation,

mostly because we have resource constraints,

and if we could just make hard calculations

and then correlate that to when we're going to put on stuff

because we didn't have any resource constraints, then we would.

But as Supervisor noted in the beginning,

we are in dire financial straits right now,

so there's no time in the near term that we're going to be adding frequency.

And then even in the long term, it is squishy just because we're trying to make sure we do the right thing throughout the whole system, not just one line.

Hopefully that is not a great answer, but it is an honest answer.

Okay, thank you so much.

Now about my other question about capacity at the MTA to do like lease ups and, you know, manage your portfolio.

Yeah, so we're doing, we're starting an asset scan in this next quarter to try to see, you know, now that the family zoning is passed, we got to see like what that means for our property, where we can take advantage of that, you know, where we need to use third parties and where we can do stuff ourselves.

So that is something that we're ramping up internally to be able to address.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay, well, I'd love to now turn to the second portion of the hearing, which is around the

prospects of extending the Central Subway to North Beach and Fisherman's Wharf. And as we begin,

I want to start with just a few facts about a future Central Subway extension.

First, it is popular. Every study has shown between 70 to 85 percent support for an extension

to North Beach and Fisherman's Wharf. Number two, it is practical. The tunnel has already been

board to North Beach. We just don't have a station there. And this would cut down significantly on

future project costs. Third, it is feasible. A 2015 study, 158-page study, by the way, showed that it

would score extremely competitively for FDA New Starts funding, which is the same program that has

funded recent rail extensions in Chicago, Minneapolis, and Austin. So with that brief introduction,

Mr. Kennedy asks you to continue to look forward to the extension.

Great. Thank you.

So I'm going to talk about this from the MTA perspective,

and then Rachel from the SFCTA will come up and delve even further into it.

I did want to start with just a nod to the other mega projects

that are happening in the city right now.

From a Muni standpoint, the trend control upgrade is vital

to maintaining service in the subway.

We've got to upgrade those mechanics in there.

Additionally, that's going to help the whole rail surface transit as well,

so it's not just a subway project, but very big money.

Additionally, the portal connecting high-speed rail, or at least Caltrain,

to the Salesforce Transit Center, and then, of course, the SeaWorld program.

And why I bring these up is because, of course, all of these,

Several of these are using the same kind of funding sources and staff time that would be related to extending the central subway work as well.

I just wanted to set the plate that there are other things already in the queue.

That said, back in 2020, we worked with the SFCTA and the city planning colleagues to come up with the Connect SF transit strategy, prioritize five specific projects or kind of alignments or connections for rail in the city of San Francisco.

You'll see them on the map here.

A, of course, is in black.

It's a different color because that's the portal that I was talking about earlier that's kind of already in further along in the process.

But the other four locations, including Central Subway Extension, are all kind of in that mix right now of ones that we want to advance and want to continue pushing further in the process.

I will note that we've done a number of studies about what an extension would look like.

Coming off of the capacity or the rather phase three concept study in 2018, we did start an extension alternative study in 2018 and actually even did a round of outreach around that project.

It was then put on pause during the pandemic when we had other issues to deal with, but are excited and interested in getting that work going again.

In the near term, I do just want to note, and as Supervisor said, we are facing an existential operating crisis.

And so from an MTA standpoint, in the near term, our resources, both staff time and dollar availability, will be focused on projects that improve transit efficiency.

So as a way to lower our operating costs and deal with, at least deal or attempt to deal with some of the budget deficit issues that we're going to be having.

So that's things like the Transit Signal Priority Project along 3rd Street that we were just talking about a few minutes ago.

So that's what we're going to be focusing on in the near term.

But we are also very interested and excited about coordinating with the SFCTA and other partners,

including your office on next steps in the long-range planning process and how we can be involved and advance that work.

So with that, maybe I will turn it over to Rachel, and she can take it from there.

A couple of questions for you, Sean, first.

On the Connect SF transit strategy slide,

so putting the Central Subway against three other remaining projects,

how do you consider those?

How do those compete in your mind?

Great.

So I'll say a couple of things from NTA's perspective,

and then I think Rachel can answer that as well.

So all four of those projects are at different levels of both funding need, dollar amount, like how much the projects can actually cost, as well as timeline, as well as scope and scope need and scope effort.

And so, you know, I envision a world where we can start talking about all four of those at the same time because they're all going to be in different phases of the timeline as we start working through what's next in the mega project outlook.

As I noted before, we've got three mega projects going right now in different phases.

So, you know, advancing additional projects at the same time is not something that I think is necessarily preclusive.

preclusive. I would, I mean, I think that's all I'd say there. I mean, you know, we've got,

there is some money that the SFCTA has that can go to advancing all four of those projects. And

as, you know, as we start moving down the timeline and looking into each of them,

I think usually what happens is one or two kind of go, yeah, these ones need to go first and

these ones can go later as we work through that process. But, you know, we have some seed money

to start that work.

And Rachel, if you want to take it from there.

And just to jog everyone's memory,

northernmost station, of course, Chinatown.

But the tunnel boring machine taken out in North Beach

at Columbus and Filbert.

I'm looking at you, Dario.

Right next to Piazza Pellegrini, the old pagoda theater.

So one could say the tunnel has already been dug

to North Beach. Of course, it's not in perfect operating order by any means. But what does that

mean for an extension? I mean, does that cut down on cost? For sure. Yeah, no, for sure.

It definitely cuts down on cost. In 2020, in 2020 dollars, we were looking at about a $1.6

billion dollar cost for that one mile extension. Right now, as you noted, about half mile of that

mile extension is already kind of, quote, pre-dug or dug with the tunnel boring machine.

None of it, of course, is up to, I mean, you know, we'd have to do a ton of work in there

and then do that last half mile, at least, if we were going to do the extension. I don't know what

that does for the dollar amount. That's something that, you know, we need to work through as we

talk through these alternative analyses, but for sure it's a great down payment, a beginning spot,

and will definitely make it cheaper in the long run. I don't want to throw out a number right now

because it would kind of be back of the envelope, but it for sure would make it cheaper.

I think, just real quick, and then I introduced Rachel Hyatt. I think that's one of the things

we need to find out relatively quickly, which is what is the difference between just a North

Beach Station and a full extension to Fisherman's Wharf and kind of see that difference. But

we'll have you back up and thank you, Mr. Kennedy. Okay. Okay. With that, I want to ask

SFCTA. I know they're going to give a lot more detail on where we are now and then how we get to

a lot more depth in our planning work. Rachel Hyatt, please. Yes. Good afternoon, supervisors.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to present with you and answer questions. My name is Rachel

Hyatt. I'm the Deputy Director for Planning at SFCTA. And as I bring up my slides here,

just for folks who may not be familiar with us, SFCTA, the San Francisco County Transportation

Authority, is a small agency that partners with all MTA, Caltrain, BART, all of the other transit

operators serving San Francisco. And we are responsible for long-range planning, long-range

transportation system planning, as well as administering local significant sources of

funding for transportation, such as the local transportation sales tax. And it's the board,

as SFCTA commissioners, who oversees our work doing that. And I wanted to compliment Sean's

presentation by sharing what that long-range transportation planning process looks like,

because that's how these mega projects, these generational investments are delivered.

One moment here.

And SFGovTV, I'm sharing my slides.

These are generational investments, and they do take decades to plan and fund and deliver.

But we have done it, and we always need a pipeline of generational investments.

And so I want to share a little bit about how that's approached.

We, as SFCTA, prepare the San Francisco Transportation Plan, or SFTP.

And it's our 30-year county-wide multi-operator, multi-network vision for San Francisco and the plan for how we invest our resources to reach that vision.

The SFTP has identified and funded through its investment plan some of these major projects that we have delivered in San Francisco.

So the Central Subway itself went through this process.

The Caltrain, which was just electrified and was a huge, also a mega project, went through a process like this.

And Sean mentioned the portal, which is a current prioritized effort that is also a significant piece to deliver.

These projects require not just the benefits, but also the resources, right?

And that's what we're here to talk about is how to make that happen.

As Sean pointed out, through the decades, San Francisco has done planning, this long-range planning, to identify priorities.

and the Central Subway extension to the north has consistently been one of the short list of priorities identified.

The image that Sean also showed here from the 1995 Four Corridors plan,

three of those have been delivered in a significant way.

So the 3rd Street Light Rail, the Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit, Geary Rapid Transit,

the Central Subway extension is one that remains,

and most recently, as Sean shared, is identified as one of five transit network expansion priorities in the SFTP that our agencies jointly develop together.

So the project is in a conceptual phase, but that's where all these projects start.

And what it takes to get them to the next phase in the process for this project and for most San Francisco projects, and I'll explain why,

is really to focus on that demonstration of local commitment that is needed to support the project

over the sustained amount of time that it will take to do all of the work.

So what I'm showing here are the criteria for how both the Federal Transit Administration

and us locally assess project competitiveness

competitiveness and the criteria that we need to meet to compete for funds and to position

a project like this to be effective in securing funding.

So on the left are the criteria used by the Federal Transit Administration in their capital

investment grant program, which the portal, Central Subway itself, the existing phase,

Van Ness, BRT, all of these projects have depended on federal funding to be delivered.

And project justification are the benefits that we're all looking for.

Mobility, so ridership, travel time improvements, environmental benefits, congestion benefits, land use, and supporting our land uses.

San Francisco typically competes very well on those kind of criteria.

We have many projects that do well there.

Where we need to focus to be most competitive is on the portion that is just as important from the federal perspective here, which is the local financial commitment.

And that's both demonstrating the ability to not just build but then operate and maintain the major investment over time and a local commitment of matching resources as much as a dollar for dollar at a minimum, at a minimum dollar for dollar for programs like these to both those phases, especially the delivery.

On the right are the criteria that we use in the transit network strategy that Sean mentioned

and our countywide transportation plan to assess project benefits.

And as you've pointed out, projects in San Francisco typically do very well on those benefits.

An example of the kind of creativity that we would want and need to bring to a project like this one

is sort of illustrated by the Salesforce Transit Center.

So the Salesforce Transit Center, another major significant transit investment that we've made.

The way that we achieved the local financial commitment, the local resources,

was in part through a special district and through leveraging the land use changes that were also planned.

and one of the main reasons for the project to support the land uses

and to support downtown and support growth,

we were able to, the city family and all partners,

to have a land value capture component from the special district,

and that provided significant funds for that project.

So it's an example of the kind of creative thinking

around possibilities for local match that we would want to have a conversation about as part of this project.

The phases that any of these projects go through are sort of illustrated here,

with the Central Subway Extension being sort of maybe in between the first two phases.

There has been a lot of planning done.

What I would encourage folks to do who are interested in supporting this project,

and the further steps it needs to take

is those demonstrations of local commitment.

So we want to go after grant opportunities

to fund the work that needs to be done,

match it with the seed funding

in the local transportation sales tax.

And so having community demonstrated support,

letters of support for those is helpful.

And also as part of that work,

we want to talk about the shape of

and the possibilities for that local financial commitment, the resources commitment.

The SFTP, this long-range process that I'm speaking about right now,

we're going through a minor update of this long-range plan to take into account

the fiscal crisis that we're in.

Our resources are down.

Also, the changes in travel patterns that COVID has brought.

we aren't in this update which we plan to bring to our board for consideration

later this summer has not itself prioritized among the five so in other

words list in order the priority of the five that is work that further

prioritization could be done that the nine County Bay Area Metropolitan

Transportation Commission is launching their major update to the region's transportation plan,

and that is where we contribute our long-range plan, we contribute that to the region, and then

we work with them there to set up our San Francisco projects as regional priorities as well.

That process will launch later this year in 2026, MTC's process, and we will be participating in

that's our next opportunity.

And I am happy to answer any questions

about how we can advance the work on this project

through these processes and the considerations

that we'll want to talk about as we do so.

And I'm happy to take your questions.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you.

If we can go back to slide seven, maybe as a starting point,

please.

Have I skipped over?

Have I gone too far?

Let's see, seven.

I'm sorry.

There we go, that one.

Okay, so what will it take for us to get to that second phase?

If we're on the first phase, what is required to get to phase two?

Yeah, let's finish the alignment work that MTA has started, right?

So there are still some questions.

It sounds like there's still some questions about some of the alignment options.

And then environmental review is the next big step.

And so there's some questions that we want to decide before going into environmental review.

I invite MTA if they would also like to speak to this.

But what are the alternatives?

What are the finite set of alternatives to be evaluated in the environmental review?

And depending on how many of those questions around that still remain from the study that MTA has begun, we may need to do some more refining to have a manageable set of alternatives going into environmental review.

There is local match funding in Prop L. As Sean mentioned, the local transportation sales tax, there's about $2.5 million over this current five-year period available.

That is not itself enough for an environmental process for a major project like this.

It would need to match another source.

But that's a doable endeavor.

It's just that's the work at hand to define the scope, the remaining questions that are pre-environmental, and then complete the funding picture for how that environmental would be funded.

Do you have an approximate time and cost to get from where we are right now to that environmental plan?

I invite Sean as well to give his thoughts about this.

But to go faster, I think, requires the vocalization of the support, right?

So having conversations like this that do demonstrate and show the interest in the project,

and we can turn those into letters of support for grant applications to fund the work.

And the SFCTA board, with the Propel funding that's available, could direct or could express the interest in investing resources into completing, for example, the study that is currently on pause.

Did Sean want to add anything?

Sure, thank you.

So, we, you know, as I was talking about in our presentation, we have this 2018 study that we wanted to look at alternatives through and with.

And so, that's kind of the first step for us, as far as we're concerned.

We want to talk through the alternatives that would then go into or feed into the environmental review process.

We think that that original study from 2018 that's on hold right now is probably in the million-dollar range to complete.

And then we need to get into the environmental process, which the environmental review, once we have a few, as Rachel was saying, a few specific alternatives we can look at, is a multimillion-dollar process.

And just to sort this out, 2015 concept study comes out, planning, SFCTA, SFMTA, 158 pages.

Long story short, it says the ridership will be strong.

This will compete.

This will be a priority for federal funding.

A really good report, I think.

Leaves a lot of questions up in the air about alignment, but really positive.

2015.

The 2018 report you're mentioning that was never completed, what is that?

So that was then looking at, so we have this 2015 base, right?

And then we need to narrow some stuff down, look at what is the technical.

That was more like alignments and stuff, and now we had to get into the technical,

like where is it actually possible, which maybe some of those fall off because they're no longer technical.

Is this the alternative study?

Yeah, that was the alternative.

So the next step to pick this back up is to complete the alternative study.

From our standpoint, yeah.

And we have some funding for that, but not all the funding?

We have...

I will let Sean speak to what your cost estimate is for completing the study.

What I can say is that the Prop L sales tax has $2.5 million in this five-year period,

the period over which we program those dollars, that is for studies like this.

So we'd have to compete for that.

But there is, from CTA's side, a T3 phase 3 feasibility study,

which I understand has $370,000 remaining.

What is that, and how does that compare to the alternative study from MTA?

Would you like to answer that?

Yeah, that's yours please.

Sure, so that is part of that funding.

We would be assuming that that would be going to this alternative study.

Okay, so we were talking about a million dollars, about $350,000 to $370,000 or so

is already kind of Prop K allocated, and then we need the rest of that.

Okay.

The rest of that, about $600,000.

Okay.

I have a few more questions, but please.

An extension of that question as well,

just about how do we make progress in the next steps

in light of how much it costs to get us to the extension that we have today.

I mean, the central subway costs almost $2 billion.

And so what are the concrete steps that you're taking

to make sure it doesn't cost the same amount the next time for the next phase?

The actual construction project itself, yes.

I will defer that question to Sean.

The funding for the study work that this is my area of expertise is not in the construction,

but in the planning process and how that is done.

We do have more funding opportunities than just the sales tax.

It's the sales tax leverages and matches those opportunities and the funding opportunities that we have.

We do need to compete.

So the example that is relevant right now is a regional funding program called One Bay Area Grant Program.

SFCTA administers the local county portion of that.

It is a work like this and environmental review, for example, is eligible.

This is a funding program that does return cyclically at the regional level.

We would want to put together jointly with an MTA project sponsor a proposal to compete for that regional funding program,

but they will be looking for our indication of how the project is prioritized in our long-range planning

And having a completed alternatives analysis study is a really important milestone because it will give that status that locally we have advanced the planning effort.

We know enough now that we are comfortable committing the resources needed for the next phase, multi-millions of dollars for the environmental study, and we've completed the work to narrow down the scope of that as much as we can before going into it.

That is my advice for how to best fund the next work, the next phase of work.

I realize that doesn't answer your question about how we can keep the cost down.

So that's a question for Sean.

Great question.

So we fortunately or unfortunately learned a ton in the first phase.

Actually, I should say second phase, central subway completion.

As a reminder, we originally estimated that project to cost about $650 million,

and it ended up being, you know, to be with a billion after it, a $2 billion project.

As of 2020, we were assuming this project was going to be 1.6.

Of course, you know, construction has gotten nothing but up since then.

And so, you know, a good, a nice piece is that we do have a half a mile of tunnel already dug, which is great.

but that is probably just going to hopefully offset the increase in cost since 2020

by the time we actually get to construction.

That said, that's why this alternatives, we keep mentioning this alternative study,

is so important because we need to start taking at least cursory looks at the engineering

and see what is actually possible to try to find something that would control these costs

and try not to make it too big.

But we wouldn't even know until after.

we're years away from knowing what specifically we need to do to control costs because we don't

even know what the alignment is yet. We don't know what are some of the obstacles we'd be facing

through that alignment. So there's a lot to think through. And that $1.6 million number that I've

said a couple of times is a placeholder, a best guess at this point. But of course, as we start

getting into it, just like we did with Central Subway, you find issues and things go wrong that

you didn't know were going to happen.

And so that number could for sure go up.

There's no concrete, maybe three mistakes that were made.

Oh, yeah.

If you want to talk about specific mistakes, I mean, there's probably more than three.

If we want to talk about that, I'd probably call up Albert Ho, who did all that work and

was in charge of constructing that, if that's something you want to talk to right now.

So the viability of the next place of the plan depends upon us having a high ROI, convincing, you're mentioning you need to get funding.

Yes.

Why is anyone going to fund this if they think it's going to overrun the budget?

And why should voters or residents believe it as well?

Yeah, so you're talking about cost controls.

Cost controls, because that also affects the timeline.

Of course, of course.

So I'm trying to use this hearing as a context to develop, do we have learnings that we can know what we should do differently?

And are there actions at the board that we should be taking to help you not run into the same mistakes?

Great.

I mean, those are questions we can get back to you on and follow up, especially on a plan on what we do afterwards.

But, you know, right now it's hard to answer those without, you know, an alignment and knowing where we're going and, you know, how we're going to get there.

So we have to spend a couple more million dollars to learn why we overran a couple billion dollars?

Oh, no, no, no.

We can cover that right now.

Albert can come and talk through some of the main

takeaways from that

but a plan for the future and how

we control cost and things or something we'll have to

come back with you on but we can definitely talk about

some of the major missteps that happened

in the first round

Albert you want to come walk through

a couple major ones

Hi Albert Ho

program director for Central Subway

so what we've done is

as part of the completion of

the central cell, but we did actually a post-construction evaluation of the program.

And so we did this with our partner, FTA, and our local partner, CTA, to sort of understand

what could we do better.

A couple of key ingredients that we felt that we could do better was, one was basically

our construction methodology.

We've had different methodology that we use.

So I think this is somewhere that this body can actually help us in terms of trying to

sort of streamlined some of the contracting methodology.

It's a mega program with not very many bidders that actually would bid on this type of job.

And unfortunately, we had several turns doing the bidding that we had to sort of readjust

our bidding strategy.

Again, the original concept was that we're going to do a seven contract bid cycle.

Unfortunately, for various different reasons, including competition, we actually had to

consolidate the four station contract into one mega contract.

While it was efficient to do it under one contractor,

it also had other issues that was developed, including

I've been in front of this board many times discussing the actual contractor

tutor. So if we can somehow readjust or

rethink about that, that's one of the recommendations that we provided to FTA. And it's not just

us. All Newstart projects have similar issues

just going forward.

Large project just has that developmental issue.

The other thing also is basically I've been on the program for 22 years,

and we've had a lot of stop and go throughout that cycle.

And if we can define, you know, supervisor,

you're talking about scope and all that.

If you define that early and not change,

that helps a lot in terms of scope creep and cost creep.

And, of course, it's just moving forward.

a lot of time, especially when you look at the various different stations,

the depth of the station matters a lot.

Original cost, $700 million, was a shallower station configuration.

We went deeper.

It helped us a lot, but also cost us a lot more.

So all these things, as Sean was talking about,

will help in the initial evaluation.

And I think if you invest money in now to do the initial investment

in looking at various different strategies,

It will go a long way in identifying where the cost overrun potentially could be and control that.

And that's what most of the FTA project, Newstart project are going forward with.

How do you control cost and schedule?

Got it. Thank you.

So just to reiterate, you're saying that one of the primary ways the board can help is a review and streamlining of the contract procurement process would be one major element to help.

Yeah. I mean, you know, different way of contracting strategy.

We looked at different ways of delivering the contracting of various different contracts.

No two are the same.

So even with stations and systems, you can deliver in different delivery methods.

But unfortunately, when we combined them, we had to do it under one delivery method.

Thank you.

I have a few last questions.

Okay.

I haven't gone yet.

No, please, please, please.

Okay, thank you.

I just had one, and I wanted some feedback because both the TAs, I mean MTA and CTA,

used this map with the Connect SF Transit strategy from 2020.

So my question is not to provide even more complication and nuance,

but there are other things that we dream about.

Like on the west side, we've always wanted that north-south connectivity.

And we did do the study of, you know, the subway extension on the west side.

And so first question is, when are we reviewing this?

And then how do we prioritize it?

Because I love the idea of extending the subway to North Beach and, you know, poor properties beyond.

But I also want the, you know, 19th Avenue connection as well.

and so how do we prioritize that with all of the different things you know equity you know local

funding what is the formula how do you we make those decisions and you know and then how do we

align with the regional stuff because you talked a little bit about planned bay area we put out

you know also like old bag funds we put out you know the planned bay area strategy itself has

change from transit-oriented projects to transit-oriented communities.

How do we keep up with all of this stuff, and how do we, as decision makers, and also

communicating that with our constituents, make those decisions based on those priorities?

Yes, great questions.

Thank you.

I'll start with your question about the Geary 19th, the West Side subway work.

So as you pointed out from the transit network strategy from 2021-22, one of the other five priorities is looking at a subway out Geary and down the west side, so alignment under analysis.

and that study is at this initial phase here, the strategic planning phase,

and the findings from that work are anticipated to be brought before the SFCTA board within the next few months,

and our rail program manager, Jesse Kaler, who's overseeing that study, is here and can speak to it.

Yeah, and I wasn't asking specifics about that because I'm very familiar with that study, as you know.

What I'm asking is how do we make those decisions?

Given that in different neighborhoods we have different dreams, different priorities, and limited funding, and I believe in infrastructure.

I think infrastructure is nothing but good, but it is predicated on growth, on population growth.

So how do we make those priorities?

How do we plan accordingly?

And how do we communicate and deal with each other since we have these competing priorities?

Thank you.

So the place where our priorities get formalized into policy is through the San Francisco Transportation Plan.

That's a key place because it is San Francisco's formal input into the nine county Bay Area's transportation plan, the regional transportation plan.

These plans are adopted every four years, so they're updated every four years.

Yes.

and the next update to the region's Plan Bay Area is launching later this year in 2026

and then will be updated in a four-year period, so 2030.

And in parallel with MTC preparing that plan,

we also locally would prepare the update to, for example, this transit strategy.

So the map here from this transit strategy, that was prepared by SFMTA to be a component of the SFTP.

And so what we would do to make our priorities clear to the region so that we compete for that regional funding, such as One Bay Area Grant Program, is we adopt that view as policy in the long-range plan.

And what do we consider?

So you asked about the metrics.

So the goals, our local goals here around economic vitality, equity, environmental sustainability.

There are quantifiable metrics that certainly we look at, that the federal funders look at, ridership today and in the future.

Equity is one, so are we supporting equity priority communities?

Performance and congestion relief, so reducing travel times.

And also supporting our land use growth, supporting local economic activity.

we will San Francisco and will do well and typically does do well on those

metrics the one that is challenging for us because we have so many worthy

projects is the local financial commitment part so where we I recommend

we would focus to position the project best is on the nature and the shape of

that local financial commitment. Okay just a few more questions and I really

want to get to public comment and I appreciate everyone's patience here. So

I'm wondering if there's anything when we talk about environmental review I'm

thinking about our Senator Scott Wiener's SB 71 which I believe expands

CEQA exemptions for transit projects. Would that be applicable here? Does that

that save us time? Are you aware if that would help in this case? I do not know the answer to

that. We will look into that question. I myself do not know the answer. If that were to be the

case, I believe that expires in 2030. So I think that gives us urgency to move to take advantage

of that. And I think that would amount to significant cost and time savings. In terms of

the $370,000 that's allocated from SFCTA for the study, I understand that was put on hold,

understandably so, during the pandemic, but that you're ready to pick that back up and engage on

that. What would that look like? How does that start out? You know, how do we start on that?

But then I think more importantly, how does the community get involved in a process like that

restarting? Yeah, the funding has been allocated by the SFCTA board to MTA, so there would not need

to be an action by the SFCTA board in order to resume. It would be the project sponsor

proposing perhaps could share with the SFCTA board the new approach. So the

new approach for relaunching that and completing the work, the tasks and the outreach efforts that

need to be completed the remaining questions to be answered okay well let's let's do that then

I'm very eager to do that okay that's it for now chair if you if there's any other colleagues or

if you want to go to public comment okay there seems to be a lot of interest in this so let's

go to public comment madam clerk thank you and thank you miss Hyatt and mr. Kennedy mr. Lung

Members of the public would like to provide public comment on the hearing for item number eight.

Please come forward.

Thank you.

So first, thank you, Supervisor Sauter, for getting this on the agenda and back in the public discussion.

I actually live in the marina, and I attended one of those hearings.

It's not really a hearing, but meeting, public meeting, December 2018 on the alternative study.

And all the alternatives, actually, none of them stopped at Fisherman's Wharf.

All the alternatives included continuation on through the marina and the Presidio.

And you know the 30 and the 45 buses.

Our buses in the marina aren't great.

So the one thing that I would urge is for you to coordinate with our District 2 supervisor, Stephen Shirell.

I've actually talked to him about this too.

And to press MTA to complete the alternative study, get all the input from people, figure out what the alignment is,

nail down our game plan so that when funding actually gets available, we're not then scurrying around.

Let's get our ducks in a row now, get the input, get our plan in place,

understanding the money might come in phases, but get a good game plan

and keep moving on that, and don't forget the marina.

Thanks very much.

Thank you for your comments.

By the way, I provide this presentation to your staff,

the one that was given out at the marina middle school.

So thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hello.

My name is Ramey Tan.

I'm a local architect here,

and thank you for the presentation.

That was excellent.

And it sounds like there is a need for the Central Subway to extend out in the marina,

perhaps even out to the Presidio, but the issue is the cost.

And I think one of the biggest mistakes that they made was hiring Tudor Perini,

which is known as a, I'll put it this way, a change order artist.

I mean, he did the SFO Airport International Terminal.

It's a $300 million project, and it being $660 million.

So he knows how to play the change order game.

So, you know, you have to really qualify the contractors to make sure they're not going to do that to you when you do the project.

So that's really key.

The airport's been really successful with design build.

so that would probably be the preferred

delivery method for future large scale projects

to avoid this change order problem

and then the other thing is the west side of town

really needs much better transit

it also affects people living up in Marin

and down in San Mateo County

that have to pass through the west side

that doesn't even have a freeway

there's no subway out there

So I would say that project on the 19th or Sunset, wherever that runs, connecting to the Geary, should be a fairly high-priority project.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Bethany Golden.

I'm a resident of North Beach, and I just want to thank our supervisor for taking the leadership and moving this project.

The idea that we're talking about it as a concept is unusual, considering we have a tunnel built.

We've had many studies on this topic.

The real question of whether we need to do millions of dollars,

I think we need to look at the fact that we have talent

and many retirees who are engineers and environmentalists specialists

who live in North Beach who are willing to do this work

and also look at public-private partnership

with the entities like the San Francisco Art Institute,

which is opening, that is going to be leveraged by many billionaires.

I think that there's opportunities for funding that's a little different and I think that it's very important to bring the rest of the city to North Beach and beyond.

I do think this should be a master plan going to Presidio and to the marina, but right now we have a tunnel that is just needing a station.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Howard Wong, founding member of Save Muni.

SAFE Muni was founded actually to oppose the central subway at the time when the

subway was proposed we did our own analysis we have many transit experts

in our board and including former Muni managers who helped build the metro

system so looking at the data we were very concerned about several issues one

estimates of costs kept rising estimates of ridership did not seem valid and the

reality turned out to be true that the project was not a 670 million dollar project it's now

over 2 billion the benefits were low new ridership is never met even the most conservative estimates

we felt that the west side in the southern part of the city were had

transit deserts that needed to be addressed the we offered options and

studies of things that could be done not only in the west and south or the portal

and the regional hub at for rail but we offered suggestions such as after the

1989 earthquake, a free bus shuttle loop from Moscone Center to Union Squared,

Financial District to North Beach, Chinatown, and Fisherman's War,

was a very, very good solution to solve the business problems after the pandemic.

There's a lot of organized support for the Central Subway, but it's not transit-oriented.

it's about real estate development and I think that we have to focus on transit

look at the data thank you thank you next speaker my name is Jim Chappell I'm a

49 year San Francisco resident and an urban planner by training I live in

southeast San Francisco but I come in at least three days a week and on the

underground and change to the T line at Market Street and I find that it is fast

clean reliable and dignified and from my point of view it is a successful project

Today you're going to hear all kinds of reasons, I'm sure, why this extension project is not feasible.

It's too expensive.

There will be disruption, so on and so forth.

And that is not what we need to talk about.

We need to talk about the vision.

Where do we want to go as a city?

What are our goals and criteria?

And we'll get to the cost soon enough.

but no successful project ever started by talking about the cost.

We built BART. We built Muni Metro.

We built the airport. We built the T-line.

When all of those started, there was no money for any of them,

but there was a vision, a vision on the part of the supervisors,

a vision on the part of the neighbors that made those happen.

In the 1990s, Gary Street was teed up to be the next rail line.

There wasn't the vision in the neighborhood, and there was the vision in Bayview-Hunters Point,

and that's where it was built.

So I just say to you to build the constituency, to focus on the vision.

You have a room full of people here, hopefully, who will become lobbyists for this project.

and will convince the TA and the MTA.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

My name is Tony Wessling.

I'm the chair of the North Beach Neighbors Public Spaces and Transit Committee.

I'm also a member of SF Next Stop, a group advocating for the extension of the subway.

I'd like to thank you, Madam Chair and Supervisor Soder, especially for bringing this issue up,

because it's tremendously important.

We've seen what has transpired with the Central Subway, how really successful and useful it's become,

but it's still underutilized, and it's not living up to its potential,

because its potential lies in North Beach, Fisherman's Wharf, and in the marina.

This could be the most important connection between the southeast and the northeast we could ever build.

In fact, connection between the peninsula, Caltrain, and the northeast,

BART, downtown stations, and the northeast.

This really has the opportunity to bring transit riders, to bring jobs, to bring housing,

all if we have that vision that Jim talked about.

But we have to plan ahead.

Look at what we missed.

There should be a station at the Pagoda Theater.

Now we're fishing around for other new stations, right?

Maybe the 700 Bac of Columbus could do it, right?

There's just an auto repair shop

and some very old, decrepit Victorian buildings

with empty shops.

But we have to look further.

We have to think about where this is gonna go

because it meshes with the family zoning plan.

It meshes with developments, even ones that are hated,

such as the Safeway and the Marina.

Where are all those people going to go in cars?

They could go there in a subway.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Thank you for this opportunity.

I'm Blair Helsing.

I'm the president of North Beach Neighbors.

We've been supporters of the Central Subway

when plans were announced, and even before public operations,

several of our board members took a guided tour of the tunnel.

That's how excited we were about the subway.

In the years of construction, we held on to the hope

that the tunnel termination in North Beach could possibly lead

to a station making the subway accessible from our neighborhood.

We still have that hope.

We found the T-line from Rose Pack Station traveling south

to be safe and reliable.

We know that a station in North Beach would increase ridership, help ease vehicle congestion and parking,

make visiting North Beach for a meal or event even easier for many people,

including barred riders who would then have a direct transit line from Union Square to Columbus Avenue.

Our friends at Fisherman's Wharf would feel similar benefits.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Ira Kaplan. Thank you for holding this hearing today.

I'm all for studying an extension of the Central Subway to Fisherman's Morph, to the marina, wherever.

I don't think it makes any sense to wait for those decisions to be made to go ahead and build a station on the existing tunnel.

living in North Beach with my wife and our little dog and no car.

A lot of my trips begin or end in Washington Square

because that's where the bus stops are, that's where the bay wheel stations are.

And as it happens, that's where the tunnel goes

and where for eight years now there's been a burned out building on top of that tunnel.

It would be great to have the city buy that and build a station there.

also on my way here tonight this afternoon several of the traffic lights

were out of service in North Beach in Chinatown our traffic lights have been

having a lot of issues lately it would be nice to have an alternative that

doesn't rely on the surface transportation system for getting to

market Street because that's kind of the gateway to everywhere else in the city

and in the Bay Area. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon. My name is Robert Hoffman. I'm a resident D6. I was born in the city,

and I previously worked as infrastructure analyst in EV charging and legislative staff at the state

level. I'm really happy to see that there appears to be a lot of both citizen and expert consensus

of the public benefit of a northern extension to the Central Subway.

But there's a lot of questions about how do we pay for this kind of a project,

and that's a question that I have asked myself,

and I've spent a significant amount of time trying to research that question.

I've read through about 20-plus years of the Central Subway's project documents

from public comment to the EIR documents.

And one thing that's incredibly clear from reading all of those documents is that very early on, there was not a focus or systemic analysis on controlling costs in construction and the return on investment of that infrastructure.

and so the results are really clear.

The Chinatown station cost $400 million to build.

Moscone took $180 million.

I mean, these are huge numbers for single subway stations.

And similarly, the $1.6 billion extension estimate

includes a lot of infrastructure projects.

That data that they're using to generate that estimate

includes a lot of large overbuilt projects.

You know, you look around the world,

they're building projects for similarly sized trains

in Milan, Italy, that are fully automated

for $5 to $10 million a station.

I mean, it's just extraordinary how much cheaper

the rest of the world is able to do this.

It's precedented.

There's a clear public benefit.

And so hopefully we can do this better the next time.

Thanks.

Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

Hello. My name is Shbam Naik, and I'm a Chinatown resident.

I've lived there for the last five years, and I want to just give a little perspective on the T-Subway in my life.

I use the T almost every day. I don't use it to commute to work, but I use it to commute around the city.

I think it's one of the most important lines for me and many Chinatown residents.

As you know, the 30 and the 45 are incredibly packed all the time.

It is crowd crush, especially during rush hour, both directions.

The T is incredibly useful as it provides people an alleviation for that,

and clearly there is a lot of demand.

SFMTA just, I think two years ago, added a new station in front of the Chinatown station

northbound Stockton in Washington, and I can see plenty of people trying to transfer.

And that is still a very uncomfortable transfer area, yet people are still doing it,

which means that there is a lot of un-pent-up demand.

I think that extending the tea will provide people of both Chinatown

an additional access point into North Beach,

as well as provide North Beach a greater access into the rest of the city

that still needs supply for the incredible amount of demand in this area.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Before the next speaker, members of the public,

audible sounds of opposition or support are prohibited in this chamber if you'd

like to use their supportive fingers you're welcome to do so but we do require

no no audible sounds so that we can hear each of the speakers next speaker

please hello I'm Seamus I'm a materials engineer and I live and work in the city

I love the T line I take it all the time if you can get it on time it'll take you

all across the city faster than the 30 or the 45.

The biggest problem is definitely the frequency with the T.

In the evenings, it can be up to 30 minutes almost.

It's basically problems that were talked about earlier

with the cars interactions on the left lanes.

I've seen cars park entirely in front of the train

for no reason, blocking the train.

So anything that can minimize that

would definitely help the frequency with the T.

And I think one of the reasons the T is so underutilized

is because of its frequency.

We talk about increasing the frequency with more ridership,

but riders are going to take it over the 30 or the 45 if it's more frequent.

So we don't want to create that negative cycle

where we're only increasing the frequency when people ride it

because people aren't going to ride it

if the frequency isn't high in the first place.

And regarding an extension, we definitely do need an extension,

not just into North Beach but beyond.

And I think one of the things we definitely are concerned about is time.

I was eight years old when we started the construction.

So now I'm 24 years old,

and I hope that I will not be at the Columbus Street station at the age of 40.

I hope we can get it done quicker than that,

and I think that taxpayers and budget definitely care about that.

I think they care a lot more that the thing is done quickly

than that it's done at a lower cost,

because we definitely feel the time more.

And I think that if I can stand at the opening of a station

in Marina or in North Beach in five years instead of 10, 13, or 15.

I think that makes a lot more difference to the taxpayers

and to the people who put their money into these projects

and to the riders of the future.

And to us, I want to be able to ride it at all.

And thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Scott Kettner.

I'm the president and CEO of Pier 39.

In addition to all the great benefits to residents,

tourism is a major economic impact to San Francisco.

In 2026, we projected that 24 million visitors will come to San Francisco spending $10 billion.

The majority of those 24 million make their way or stay in Fisherman's Wharf and North

Beach and the northern waterfront area.

And while the F-Line is a great experience for them, it's quickly overwhelmed.

You know, extension to North Beach and Fisherman's Wharf will really provide the ease of tourists,

not just getting to Pier 39 or the Northern Waterfront,

but also getting to other parts so they can explore other parts of the city

in a more efficient way.

The other thing that's important is the support and the employment

and the labor that it takes for this tourism industry.

At Pier 39 alone, there are 2,500 employees.

We have people on property 24-7.

And most of those folks, the vast, vast majority of them,

do not live in Fisherman's Wharf, North Beach.

Many of them even live outside of San Francisco and so to support really that economic engine

It's important that we have the ability to get people to and from that part of the city

I just want to say thank you very much for your consideration of all this

We're immensely supportive of bringing Central Subway to North Beach to Fisherman's Wharf and elsewhere. Thank you

Thank you for your comments. Next speaker

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

My name is Trey Sedeby.

I'm a homeowner here.

I've lived in San Francisco for 15 years, and I'm raising my young family here.

Underground Metro Transit specifically helps build a city for people, not just cars.

And this project connects another major hub of our city, supports small businesses, and

strengthens our local economy in a way that protects against our historical boom and bust

cycles.

The central subway extension to North Beach is exactly the kind of forward-thinking investment we need.

I encourage the city to build proactively, prioritize connecting vital economic hubs,

and build a resilient metro system that works for the future generations.

Please move forward with the extension.

Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Caitlin Thresher.

I'm the deputy director for the Fisherman's Wharf Community Benefit District.

I'm really excited to speak on this topic. I am a San Francisco resident as well, and I take Muni from the mission to Fisherman's Wharf almost every single day.

While we do have current above-ground public transit options, such as our cable cars, F-Line, buses, these options aren't necessarily always reliable.

They're really packed, and particularly during large citywide events, it's really difficult to get around.

um fisherman's wharf brings it is the number one tourist destination in san francisco we bring

approximately 13 million international and domestic visitors to san francisco every single year

and our visitors especially our international ones really do expect world-class public transit to get

from the airport and market street to fisherman's wharf a central subway extension would create

seamless connections across the city with iconic destinations. This includes Fisherman's Wharf,

Chinatown, North Beach, Union Square, Oracle Park, Chase Center. And then looking towards the

workforce, our neighbors right here at home, we need public transit to get to and from Fisherman's

Wharf. I know personally, I plan at least an hour to get from the mission to Fisherman's Wharf,

and that's three miles away. So we have almost one million business-related commutes into the

wharf each year, so these workers do need accessible and reliable transit options to

support the economic vitality of our neighborhood. Our district is currently made up of only five

percent of residential property. However, this is a prime location to increase housing density

in the city with the new family zoning plan. The Fisherman's Wharf community is very supportive

of more residential neighbors in the district,

so we must consider what public services

our current and future residents need.

Increasing the amount of residents in the district

without increasing public transportation methods

will not set us up for long-term success,

so now is the time to set the right path

and future for the wharf in the city.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

Before the next speaker,

I would like to let the public know

that Chair Malga has some urgent matter,

and she's stepping out,

and we have Supervisor Sauter replacing her role.

And I would like to draw a roll call to excuse Chair Milgar.

Yes, I have a motion to excuse Chair Milgar.

Member Sauter?

Sauter, aye.

Member Mahmood?

Mahmood, aye.

Vice Chair Chen?

Aye.

Chen, aye.

There are three ayes.

Thank you.

Now we can continue.

Thank you, and good afternoon, Supervisors.

Thanks so much for having us here.

My name is Clara Baumgarten.

I'm a resident and a renter in Russian Hill

and have lived in District 3 for almost seven years now.

And I wanted to say today how exciting and both critical this project is.

Completing Phase 3 of the Central Subway, specifically extending it hopefully to that station at the Pagoda Palace location,

would make a huge impact in mine and obviously many fellow citizens' lives.

not to mention the use make a vacant lot on such a vibrant square so much more exciting and a

contributor to the local economies we have bus lines right now we know many of us take the 30

and 45 but they are deficient experiencing delays and overcrowding at commuter times

I imagine many people know how demoralizing it is to watch a bus pass you by on your way to work

but so I think it's really critical that North Beach extension goes there

but then beyond that I was looking at the study that was conducted years ago and I think it's

really important that we go into this phase while also planning for the future and extensions ideally

to the west those neighborhoods are much more dense than Fisherman's Wharf and while I completely

sympathize with the tourism and need for that expansion to Fisherman's Wharf. I think it would

serve a greater purpose by allowing more households of workers, families, students to get better access

to the core network of the city's transportation, while even the extension to North Beach would

provide tourists a much easier way, even still, so easier access all around. But I think many of us,

as it has already been referenced,

we know expenses will continue to be a matter.

But considering what the speakers have mentioned

about scoping out large ambitious plans

to become a leader in this country

and still have that reputation

that aligns with our scion as a technical powerhouse,

I think it makes a ton of sense to invest now

in those resources and in transit

so that it aligns and continues to let us grow going forward.

So thank you so much for taking comments today and look forward to see this project progress.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Andrew Goldbronson.

I'm a 10-year resident of Knob Hill.

I frequently ride the T, the 1, and the 49.

And I'd love to see if the T, you know, extended to North Beach and around to the marina and eventually Presidio.

But as it exists, there's a half-mile section south of Kirkwood.

There is mixed traffic and, as mentioned, 20 different left turns.

I rode the 49 here today, which is, if you guys haven't, it's an amazing improvement.

You know, now with these dedicated lanes, there's only one left turn at Broadway.

Fly down Van Ness, and I think that we should have the same treatment on the T for the surface running portion.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, I'm Brian Hayes.

I have the privilege of living and working in Fisherman's Wharf,

and I'm just here to ask you to consider the extension.

I think it's a great idea for the tourists and our workers in the Fisherman's Wharf.

They really have a tough time getting there.

They really want to be there, but I will tell you the truth.

It's tough.

So I know there's a lot of needs, and there's a lot of always naysayers,

and I've got to tell you the truth.

I've got to be honest.

I'm kind of one of the naysayers on things, you know.

So you can't listen to guys like me as far as naysaying.

The fellow mentioned earlier the vision, have a vision and seek the vision.

It's super important.

It makes the world go round.

It makes butterflies fly.

So please don't listen to the naysayers too much because it's easy to naysay.

It's hard to vision, and it's hard to see through projects.

And we appreciate your efforts here, and we salute you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Brian Adam.

I'm a resident of District 6.

I moved to San Francisco during the pandemic, so I took the plunge on the city then.

I've lived in a variety of districts, and San Francisco has been good enough to me that I was willing to sell my car

and to really commit myself to Muni.

I just wanted to express my support for, you know, continued study into extending the tunnel,

just making that station happen.

I think that, you know, I've lived around Potrero Hill,

around Dubose Park, and now in the Soma.

I would say that North Beach was always kind of a no-man's land.

I would never dare set foot there.

It's just too hard to get to.

But living near the T, it's, you know, just I can get there.

And being in the area, like now I'm a little more knowledgeable.

I know I can ride the 30 and the 45.

But I think I've had a weird privilege of running some kind of exchange program

for Japanese middle school students

in the city of Narita, Japan,

and the adults that were chaperoning them

came to San Francisco and to the peninsula,

and they were like, wow,

America really is a car society.

I'm like, you're right.

But they were really excited to ride an awaymo,

but that still left a hole in my heart

that maybe our transit should be a little bit better.

And I think thinking for the future,

if we want to support growth in San Francisco,

if we want there to really be,

want to insist on there being lots of dense housing and making more room in

San Francisco, we should also make sure that there's more options for people to

get around, not just in a car, because we have close to a million people and we're

approaching half a million cars in the city, and I imagine parking, traffic, and

all the stuff that goes with it is just going to get a whole lot worse. So I hope

you'll invest in these stations, these tunnels, and in the future of San

Francisco. Thanks so much. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker. Yes, hello, Dakota.

So I live in District 3. I'm very fortunate because it is the densest district in San Francisco.

I think all areas of San Francisco should be like District 3.

We're a great leader in the fact that not only do we have great transit, even though it could be better,

but the dense housing is what it should be like all over San Francisco.

And a lot of people think that's controversial. I'm okay with that.

Because I see San Francisco as the leader of the West.

It's the leader of the United States.

I think we should continue to attract global capital,

continue to attract the greatest minds in the world here,

and we shouldn't be timid on the plans that we make.

That's why we have artificial intelligence starting here in San Francisco.

So we've got to make bold moves.

We've got to make a plan on how we're going to pay for it,

and we've got to stop being so timid.

This is the best place to live in the world,

and in order to continue to have that reputation,

we have to make sure we're not being timid.

Okay, so yeah, we got to be pragmatic with the budget.

I totally agree.

I have an organization that's all about supporting moderates here in San Francisco.

So of course we're pragmatic with the budget,

but I sort of have a meta view of this.

If we're going to attract the best people in the world,

we've got to work across with city partners all around the Bay Area,

How can we collaborate with the CTA, the Bay Area Rapid Transit, all of that,

to continue to attract capital and using that family zoning plan to continue to build around the transit corridors,

speaking of SB79 and having a lot of that.

So if we want to grow as a city, we have to have great transit.

That's the succinct message here.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Alan Thorpe.

I'm a resident of North Beach.

Mr. Sauter, I want to thank you very much for bringing up this item.

It's an area of passion for me.

But in the spirit of our depressing budgetary and planning viewpoints we've received today,

I appeal to you to not boil the ocean.

Okay, today I walked, as I've done for many times, from Washington Square Park to Chinatown Station.

How many people in the room have done that?

Yeah, it's great.

Have you tried it in a wheelchair?

Maybe with a cane?

No.

Chinatown is too vibrant and too busy, those streets.

I've had my sister out here with mobility issues, and I wanted to be proud of her to see this station.

and we walk up there, and it was terrifying to her to try to make it there.

The potential, your predecessor should have made sure North Beach Station opened.

Let's not make the same mistake again,

because if we have to wait for Fisherman's Wharf and not get North Beach,

then we're doing injustice to the people of Telegraph Hill and to North Beach and Russian Hill.

So please consider a phased project.

I heard the people from the western side of the city and from Marina and from the Fisherman's Wharf,

and I want to see it.

We want to connect everything, but let's not lose sight of something that can be budgetarily handled a little easier.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name's David.

I live in the Dogpatch.

On a personal note, so my wife and I don't have a car.

We take Muni, BART, and Caltrain to get everywhere in the Bay.

and we basically never go to North Beach and the reason is because

it's just not easy enough to get there and yes you could transfer to one of the

bus lines you could

you know walk if you're able to but also say don't underestimate the power of a

single seat ride

for a lot of people that's basically make or break the second you require a

transfer you've lost a lot of people the second you require two transfers

you've lost basically everybody so that would be extremely valuable

for for residents who live in the south part of the city to get

into North Beach and beyond. And on another note about cost overruns, so there's a lot of reasons

why that happens, but a big thing that happens in this country is we just don't do this enough.

We wait 15, 20, 30 years between major projects, and then we make every project a generationally

large project. That's a recipe for projects to get way out of scope and for institutional

knowledge to be completely lost between every project. There's already a tunnel there. Just

build the one station. I'll echo what the previous speaker said, which is that, yes, of course,

we should continue to extend this to Fisherman's Wharf and beyond, and we should build a large

system. But it would be a really good idea to do small incremental changes more frequently so that

we understand what we're doing. We learn from past mistakes. We learn new things. We maintain

that institutional knowledge so the next time's easier, and the next time after that's even easier,

and easier is cheaper, and easier is faster, and faster is cheaper, right? So again, there's already

a tunnel. Just build the station and extend the line to it. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors. First, I want to thank Supervisor Sauter for bringing this

forward. My name is Noah. I run an event space called the Melody of San Francisco, and I support

importing and improving and expanding the central subway. Many of our guests use public transport,

and I believe that will be a huge win for small businesses. And so thank you for hearing my

comments. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker. Hi, my name is Suyash. I live in North

Beach. I'm an engineer. I work in FIDI, so whenever I look on Google Maps, like taking the bus only

saves me five minutes by walking compared to walking, so I would definitely looking for the

T-line. It's kind of dejecting to see that we have to wait for the Caltrain extension of Salesforce

because that's a project that's primarily going to help people who live in the peninsula in the

South Bay. Not many people in SF are going to benefit from that. I'd like to see the city

prioritize people that live in the city and projects that help us rather than people who live

and cushy single-family homes.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lance Carnes.

I live in District 3.

And I followed the Central Subway from the beginning,

maybe about 20 years ago.

Anyway, the thing I wanted to get to today

is that we have another subway in San Francisco.

It's called the Market Street subway.

And every so often I go down to the port

and listen to their discussions of they're

trying to rebuild the piers and the port and control whatever.

They're afraid that if the tides rise,

come over the embankment and go down the Market Street

subway, which will be a disaster.

I also read some of the materials here,

and Supervisor Sauter and others have said,

we have to extend the subway to the north.

Now, if you go north along Columbus Avenue,

you get to Aquatic Park, which is the bay, essentially.

I think you need to look for a different way.

If you want to go to the marina, you

going to probably have to drill through Russian Hill or something, or maybe go around.

I don't know how to do it.

But I think going near the bay is going to be a disaster for us all.

And I strongly caution against that.

So there you go.

I guess I don't have any other comments.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Harlan Gonzalez.

I live in the outer Richmond, and I'm here

in support of North Beach.

I'm really happy to see all the support here today,

and I just wanted to come up here to reiterate what Rachel

from the CTA said.

This is a generational investment,

just as previous generations have invested in our transportation

infrastructure today, which is, I think,

some of the best in the country.

We have the opportunity to invest in future generations

and their access to transit.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon.

I'm John He.

I represent Chinatown Trip.

And we're celebrating our 50th year of doing advocacy for transportation

and development and research in the D3 area.

Not to correct anyone or anything, but the first concept that I remember

of this central subway was about 40 years,

and we were going to go all the way to Marina Greens.

But as funding kept coming and la-di-da-di-da,

we ended up at Rose Pack Station.

It was a tremendous dream that we support now that may come to fruition

to at least go down to Fisherman's Wharf,

which would help the viability of North Beach

and a lot of these tourist venues in Fisherman's Wharf, Chinatown, and North Beach.

The connectivity that we foresaw was, this is a long time ago,

was to get people from Candlestick Park to North Beach.

Okay, that's changed.

But depending on how housing goes and housing development,

in the North Beach area, in the wharf area, down by the Kirkland Yard,

or out by the old stick.

This is very viable.

And I definitely encourage,

TRIP encourages and supports

the Board of Supervisors to proceed.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, supervisors,

and thank you CTA and MTA representatives

for bringing this to the community.

This is my first time at one of these meetings, and that tells you how excited I am about the Central Subway.

I live in North Beach. I've lived in D3 for eight years now.

And I also, like one of my other neighbors, don't have a car.

And so rely on walking and transit to get around the city for things that are necessary and things that are fun.

I work in entertainment part-time and sympathize with all of my friends that are in hospitality,

that getting to and from our jobs can be really hard.

especially late at night.

And so relying on transit for those things,

more frequent, more fast, more reliable.

And if you build it, we will come.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jaime Villoria.

I'm an outreach and organizing manager

for San Francisco Transit Riders.

Appreciate Supervisor Souther

for looking at transit improvement

and thinking in the long term.

Over a year ago, only two supervisors explicitly mentioned transit on their speech after being sworn in,

and it makes me even more hopeful that more supervisors and even the mayor have been explicit on their support for public transit,

especially everyone here on this committee.

This is the type of long-term thinking I've been looking for since I started transit advocacy less than five years ago.

I would also challenge Supervisor Souter, this committee, and everyone on the board of supervisors

to look at the entire system rather than specific aspects of it.

What's amazing about transit is it's a great metaphor of how the system touches almost every aspect of San Francisco life

and how improvements on the system affects the rest of the system in different degrees.

It would be great to have the T-line that goes to more places,

and let's also not forget projects we can do now, like Red Transit Lanes Project, Signal Priorities,

and many other transit improvement projects.

Let's not forget the needs of the Bayview Transit users when they are going to be cut off from the T

when the Isis Creek Bridge is replaced for a two-year period.

I want to emphasize that this isn't an either-or challenge, but a yes-and challenge for improving transit services so it becomes the best transportation options for San Franciscans.

I'm looking forward to hearing more about this project and hopefully more for the entire muni system in the future.

But let's not forget what we can do now to improve transit with no delay.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hey, good afternoon.

My name is Nima.

I'm a North Beach resident for nearly two years now.

I just wanted to say on behalf of myself and three other close friends who also are North Beach residents,

we're in full support of extending the Central Subway, and thank you for everything today.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hello, I'm Dylan Fabris.

I'm the Community and Policy Manager at San Francisco Transit Riders,

which advocates for better public transit here in San Francisco.

I echo the comments my colleague Jaime made a few speakers ago,

and also want to thank

Chair Melgar and committee members

and Supervisor Sauter for

having this conversation. These

projects take time so it's important

to have these conversations now.

I'm glad that

this project is not getting lost

in all of the other really important conversations

we're having about Muni.

We really need to continue

to move this forward if we want to get

there eventually. We heard earlier how long

projects like this take.

The ridership accomplishments we heard earlier are amazing,

and those will only grow more if it extends to Fisherman's Wharf and North Beach.

I live along the F, and I dread having to take the F between the ferry building

and Fisherman's Wharf because it is always so packed.

And it's packed because it's a cool line, but also because a lot of people are going there,

and extending the tea there will help relieve some of that,

make it a much more pleasant experience for everybody,

give people more choices.

It makes sense from an infrastructure perspective to pursue this.

The tunnel's already there in part.

We should also be thinking as part of this process

of how we can leverage other existing infrastructure.

Like there's a tunnel under Fort Mason

between the Maritime Museum and the Marina Safeway.

can we extend the F and really leverage the investment in the T-line once that opens up,

just creating more connections for more neighbors.

But as Jaime mentioned, investment should also not forget about other parts of the city

and other parts of the line.

We still need better transit priority on 3rd Street,

speedy construction of the Islase Creek Bridge

so that the T isn't cut off for an extended period of time

and we also need to stay committed to the other projects

that are in the works like the Portal

the Trink Control Upgrade Project

other proposed subways like on Geary 19th Street

so thanks to Sean Kennedy and Rachel Hyatt

for highlighting that

anyway again thank you for moving this forward

I look forward to hearing about the next steps of engagement.

I look forward to engaging on the next steps of some of the alignment work

and alternatives analysis that were mentioned today.

I know our many members are also interested and excited to begin that work

and continue advancing the world-class transit system

that San Franciscans deserve to more neighborhoods.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Vladimir, Hayes Valley resident, D5.

I actually have some renderings that I created as well.

Is this?

Okay.

So I'm just going to jump right into it.

I do believe the city can do something innovative

and complete a station buildout at Washington Square Park

and bring Muni Metro service to North Beach

before financing for the rest of Phase 3 is in place.

We can call this Phase 3A of the Central Subway.

We can do this before deciding whether the rest of the line

should continue up Powell or terminate at the Kirkland Bus Yard

with transit-oriented development above,

or continue up Columbus Avenue.

So we're all aware that the state of public transportation funding

is in right now, but that only reinforces the city's need

to come up with scrappy, outside-the-box solutions.

Let's get a real understanding of how much this interim phase three would cost

and revenue projections from all the new routers that would use the North Beach Station

while we wait for the future funding to come online.

So, again, the North Beach Station entrance can be in a new pedestrian plaza on Powell

between Union and Columbus.

That's city-owned land with space for fire lane access.

Alternatively or additionally, a station entrance can anchor the ground floor

of the far-too-long, fire-burned-and-vacant 659 Union Street.

Additionally, the bread-and-butter issues I'd like to bring about,

the current status of the central subway.

The Union Square station does not have signage.

We spent $1.7 billion, and if you're a tourist sitting on top of Union Square,

you don't even know that the station entrance is there

because we don't have signage for the station entrance.

That's the same thing for Stockton and Alice as well.

We can do that while we wait for these bigger ticket funding items.

Also vacant to vibrant in the Union Square Station.

Let's get some retail in there.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, everyone.

I'm Joseph.

I take the T-line almost every day.

So thank you for continuing to support the Central Subway.

I've learned that there will always be plenty of detractors.

I'm sure you all remember in 2022 when the subway opened.

Articles in Mission Local, SFS, how terrible the central subway is.

No one rides it.

And then you come to 2026, ridership goes up, and then all of a sudden people forget.

All of the negative detraction, naysayers, everything.

So once it's there, people will use it, especially if it's made to optimize usefulness.

I think it's also important to put this into perspective.

I think the best time to have done the extension was at the time it was built.

Geary Subway probably even further in the past, maybe 40 years ago.

And looking up the history of this, I learned that the first proposal to build a rail line on Geary was in the 1930s.

And it was supposed to cost $13.6 million.

It was considered too much money.

adjusting for inflation that would have been about 312 million dollars today which is much

much much cheaper than it'll cost if we try to do it now so the best time to do projects like this

is in the past as soon as possible as soon as you can and just to put it in perspective too

this wasn't the most expensive project if for all those who've been to new york and know about the

Second Avenue extension, that was much more expensive, $4.5 billion to go 1.8 miles, three

stations, and they're still expanding because they know how important it is.

Second Avenue subway, I think, was supposed to be built in the 1900s.

So the longer we wait, the harder it'll get.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Christine Gaudenzi, chief of staff for the San Francisco Travel Association.

I'm so glad that Scott pointed out the economic impact for tourism here in the city,

and I know the supervisors in the mayor's office is always aligned with us as we do our job,

and our job is about competition.

We're constantly competing with other destinations.

On the convention front, you can imagine transit comes up all the time.

We are fortunate that we're having conversations now about transit and other things and not so much public safety.

But we have to be able to speak to everything the city is doing to improve the visitor experience.

We cannot be stagnant in this area.

Secondly, we are asked what's new.

When we try to get the media coverage that we desperately need to compete as a destination,

the first thing a journalist asks is what's new in San Francisco.

We need to demonstrate that we're continuing to invest in the visitor experience,

getting around our city of beautiful neighborhoods,

so that they will continue to tell the story about San Francisco as a world-class city.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Well, I would very much like to compliment Supervisor Sauter for making a TikTok

announcing this meeting, which is the only way I heard of it.

and in that TikTok when he mentioned, yes, we should extend to North Beach and Fisherman's Wharf.

The visual for Fisherman's Wharf was a typical postcard shot,

but the visual for North Beach was that burnt-out building at the corner of Powell and Union,

and I'm really hoping that that's where the station will eventually be,

And I personally live in the building that was built on the property that was used to pull out the boring system, which solved a big problem for San Francisco at the time.

I researched it because I was interested in that.

And basically, the developer, Joel, worked out a deal and got some benefits out of it.

and the city got a benefit of not having a mess when they pulled out these huge things on that property.

So it seems to me the developer of that property at the burnt-out building

would have an incentive to work out a deal to put a subway station in the basement,

a part of the basement of that building.

So I would hope that that image was not totally randomly selected

and that you are thinking along these lines, and I think that would be an excellent solution

as opposed to destroying Marini Plaza, which is quite attractive.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Alyssa Huntington.

Thank you so much for holding this hearing.

Your comments in the back really resonated with all the negative coverage

on these type of large capital improvements,

and it's very warranted when those experiences hurt small businesses and cost overruns,

But I just want to say that I grew up in District 3, and I just moved back after 10 years away.

So following it from afar, it seemed so painstaking and complex, which I'm sure it was over time.

But then as I moved back in the fall to really experience these transit systems that are the 49 bus and the central subway,

to really see that and zip around San Francisco now, it really has ushered in a new era.

And I'm proud to be back in San Francisco, and I'm really excited for the next frontier of transit and sustainability.

and getting people around the city.

So thank you for bringing this forward.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

My name is Tallulah.

I'm a resident of North Beach.

I don't own a car.

I commute 51 minutes each way every day to Oakland for work.

I absolutely echo everything,

especially as young people move into a phase of our lives

where we have families and time becomes really precious.

I think this is one of the many steps

that will truly start to keep young families in San Francisco instead of relocating to the East Bay.

I also just wanted to make another note.

This is my first board meeting, so I'm not sure if this is usual.

I know this is a really long meeting, but there were a few times I looked up

and there was no eye contact with the speakers.

So I just would love to encourage that type of participation,

especially in an increasingly online environment.

I think it would be really important.

Thank you for your comments.

Are there any other individuals who would like to provide public comment on the hearing for item number eight?

Seeing none, Madam Vice Chair.

Seeing no other speakers, public comment is now closed.

Thank you.

Supervisor Salter.

Thank you, Supervisor.

I want to begin by thanking my colleagues.

I know this took the majority of your meeting today, so thank you for welcoming me.

thank you for welcoming this community who cares about this so much. I think most importantly I

want to thank everyone who joined today who gave public comment or even if you didn't give public

comment everyone who's here following along and also recognizing that it is Monday afternoon and

there are many many who were not here many who had to take time off of work to be here so thank you

your passion on this gives me hope and gives me motivation to continue this and I appreciate how

there was general

overwhelming support, but there was a lot of different reasons for that support.

I think that speaks to the importance of this project. We had people

who were coming at this from a tourism lens, people that were coming at this

from a lens of wanting to stay

or grow up in San Francisco. So many good reasons to work on this project.

I believe it is our responsibility,

particularly my responsibility as the district three supervisor to keep momentum and move

planning ahead on this project and I think we can do that in measured and tangible ways it's exactly

what I intend to do I am under no illusion that there is a clear path to construction of the subway

in the next few years not with this administration in Washington and not with the current funding

challenges we face. But substantive work on this project was last done in 2015. And all of a sudden

we look up and it's now more than a decade later. It is very expensive, especially in our line of

work, to wait. And I don't want us to do that again. I don't want us to wait another decade.

You know, there are questions that we looked at today and that we asked today that frankly we

should have answers for by now.

When we're asking questions about costs

or options of stations in different alignments,

we should have those answers by now.

And it is my intent to use the next few years

to get those answers.

And so then when there is a more favorable administration

in Washington, one that believes in things

like public transit again, believes

in working with cities like San Francisco again,

that we will have a good case ready to compete for the funds at the federal level that we

will need for this project.

I think there's a lot, actually, that we have to work with here today that we found out,

and I want to thank CTA and MTA for their presentation and time on this.

There's a lot in terms of the short-term improvements with speeds and reliability that I'm excited

about, and then I think we can keep pushing to really secure.

And there's work to be done immediately and right away to pick back up planning.

The planning on this should be continuous, and we have money identified to restart this planning,

and that is exactly what I intend to do.

So if there's no other questions from my colleagues, I would ask, please, yeah.

Thank you, Supervisor Saura.

I also would like to take a moment to thank the members of the public and the community to take time to come out to inform today's discussion.

I also would like to appreciate SFMTA for the tremendous achievement of the central subway

and also for rolling up your sleeves to continue to work on some of the operational challenges

that also have been shared today.

San Franciscans care deeply about our transit.

For so many, it is a lifeline to meet our daily leads to live, to work, to play, to pray, and to study.

This is especially true in neighborhoods like Chinatown where car ownership is among the lowest and transit ridership is among the highest in the city.

I do also think that our priority now should also be face down our immediate financial crisis impacting Muni.

Rising the long-term operating revenue we need to enacting the cost-effective improvement to existing services and projects.

I appreciate continuing the discussion to strive for a larger scale capital expansion to our system,

such as the proposed extension to North Beach and the Northern Water Fund.

But at the same time, I also want to say that I am also very concerned about the construction impact to small business at the moment,

and also open spaces that come with this large scale construction projects.

I would also like to thank Supervisor Salter for holding this hearing,

and I also look forward to the implementation of the next steps, both near-term and long-term,

to boost the central subway and to realize our vision as a city for a transit-first city.

With that, would you like to make a motion?

Yes, thank you, Acting Chair, Vice Chair.

I would ask that we file this hearing.

Madam Clerk, will you please do a roll call?

On that motion to file item number eight, Member Sautter.

Aye.

Sautter, aye.

Member Mahmood.

Mahmoud aye. Vice Chair Chen. Aye. Chen aye. There are three ayes. Thank you. The motion to file the hearing process. Madam Clerk, is there any other business before us today? That concludes our business for today. Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.