San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: For your patience with our technical difficulties. Welcome to the 01/26/2026, 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 Chyanne Chen, and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood. The committee clerk today is Ms. Lisa Samara. I would also like to acknowledge Kalina Mendoza at SFGov TV for helping us broadcast this meeting. Madam Clerk, do you have any announcements?

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: 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. CARROLLSFGOV dot org, or you may submit them submit written comments via U. S. Postal Service to our office at City Hall, 1, Doctor. Carlton B. Goodlett 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 Supervisors' agenda of 02/03/2026, unless otherwise stated.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Please call items number one and two together.

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number one is a resolution authorizing the acceptance and recording of a navigation easement from U. S. 180 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 navdee baccari for the development of 413 Elida Way in unincorporated San Mateo County at no cost to the City and County of San Francisco and making appropriate findings.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, Madam Clerk. We have Ms. Ayanna Volak here representing SFO. Welcome. Thank you.

[Ayanna Volak (San Francisco International Airport)]: The airport is requesting your approval to accept avigation 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 Alito 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 environs of SFO or SFO ALUCP states that residential developments located within the 65 decibel community noise equivalent level or DPCNEL noise contour must grant a navigation easement to the city at no cost as a condition of local project approval. Residential developments with the 70 DB CNL 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 Use Commission conditionally approved the project at 413 Alita within the 70 dB CNEL contour and continuously zoned residential since at least 2012, pending the property owners granting an avigation 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 avidigation 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 two a minor amendment in each file on page two of file 251,171. Line 12 to 13, we have to change the planning letter date from 02/01/2022, to 09/09/2025. And for file one two hundred fifty one thousand one hundred seventy two on page two, lines eleven and twelve, changing the date to 06/24/2025, We've submitted these amendments for your consideration. I'm joined with members of the planning team, and happy to answer any questions.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, Ms. Volak. 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?

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Members of the public who would like to provide comment on items one and two, please line up on the right hand side along the curtains. Seeing no speakers, Madam Chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. Madam Clerk, I'd like to make a motion to amend the legislation as read into the record by Ms. Volak, and then to send both items as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: On the motion to amend both items, and two, and recommend it with a positive recommendation, Vice Chair Chen, aye. Member Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye.

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: There are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Motion passes.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: No, thank you so much.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Let's go to item number three please madam clerk.

[Lisa Samara (Committee 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.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. We have Ms. Lisa Gluckstein here. You have amendments, is what I'm Okay. Thank you.

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planning Department staff)]: Good afternoon committee. Lisa Gluckstein, planning department staff. The proposed ordinance would amend the planning code to make various clarifying and typographical 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 18. They then adopted this item on 10/23/2025 and unanimous 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 eight, it should still read as Eastern neighborhood Eastern neighborhoods mixed use districts. Additionally, section 890.6 was missing from missing the word hotel on page 44, line five, 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 are made to conform with this ordinance in this 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.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Gluckstein. Let's go to public comment on this item, please, madam clerk.

[Lisa Samara (Committee 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.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (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.

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: On that motion to amend item number three and send it forward with a positive recommendation, vice chair Chen Chen aye member Mahmood aye chair Melgar aye there are three ayes

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: okay that motion passes thank you let's please call item number four

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Item number four is an ordinance amending the planning code to permit on-site beer wine beer and or liquor sales in movie theaters that also operate as bona fide eating places and make conforming changes in the planning code definitions of bar and bona fide 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.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay thank you. We have Lorenzo Rosas here with Supervisor Cheryl's office who's going to present on this item. Welcome.

[Lorenzo Rosas (Office of Supervisor Catherine Stefani, District 2)]: Good afternoon Chair Melgar, Vice Chair Chen, and Member of Mahmood. 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 and 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 touchpoints for the arts. And 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 toward 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 seven lines 10 through 13 into page five 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 page seven line 14 deleting the phrase by ticketed customers and replacing it with on-site consumption to both ticketed and non ticketed guests. The last this last amendment pertains solely to the Upper Fillmore NCD. Following introductions, Supervisor Chyanne 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 this 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 two office.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. Mr. Rosas, I would stay there, because it seems like we have comments and questions. Supervisor Chen.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Chair Melgar. 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 don movie theaters. In my very own district, the Granada Theatre first opened its first door in 1922 and, unfortunately, made its last showing in 1982 to the of Exelcia residents. These establishments 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 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 21 to continue to enjoy the cinemas. So I am thank you for the work, and I will be supportive of this legislation. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: 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 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 ways that people have adapted, like the Alamo Drafthouse. 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?

[Lorenzo Rosas (Office of Supervisor Catherine Stefani, District 2)]: 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 in Fillmore, for example. You walk in on the 1st 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.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: 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.

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Members of the public would like to provide public comment on item number four should line up to speak now. Seeing no speakers, Madam Chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (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 think I didn't

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: see your I

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: 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 9 meeting.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Great.

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: On that motion to amend item number four and to send it to the February 9 land use meeting? Vice Chair Chen, aye. Member Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar? Aye.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Melgar, aye. There are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: For those of you who are here for this item were sending it to the ninth because the amendments are substantive thank you. Let' go to item number five please.

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: 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 and driveways located in required front setback side yards or rear yards and making appropriate findings.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you we have again miss lisa glockstein

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planning Department staff)]: and I have copies of the amendments for the committee members as well sorry to make you walk lisa good afternoon again lisa gluckstein planning department staff I'll provide a quick overview of the ordinance and also provide the commission report. So, currently, the planning code prohibits parking in required front setbacks in yards requiring all off street residential 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. To 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 multifamily housing in our districts. That ordinance prioritized aesthetics and neighborhood character. Today, the city's policy priorities have shift 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 eight 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 as of of s f m t a. The planning commission heard this item on October 23 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 screen 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 amendment specified that the parking is allowed between an existing curb cut and a parking area already authorized by the code for example screen parking or garage and to provide an explicit exemption to allow parking to continue where garage has been converted to an adu or junior adu. To more specifically call out the amendments in section 132 we' 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 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 punch line 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.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: 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' actually not it' an easement for utilities or whatever so your amendments actually make it so that people will not get a ticket if they' two inches into what is the public right of way if it' not a sidewalk? Can you clarify that?

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planning Department staff)]: 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.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: And how do they know?

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planning Department staff)]: I mean they should know what is their private property I guess How

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: 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?

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planning Department staff)]: 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.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Sounds good thank you. Supervisor Chen.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you chair Melgar I also want to thank for the presentation I also have learned a little bit more about what the potential impacts that this ordinance might have in relations to active curb cuts. Lisa, I want to make sure that you Okay. Active driveways and curb cuts can be 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 cuts active and remove one of our few tools to remove all driveways in my district there are corridors such as the Alameni Borough that have remained on the city' 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

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planning Department staff)]: 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 nonfunctional 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 80 or junior 80 you and that was a call that we made because we wanted people to be incentivized to create new housing units 80 use or 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 alimony 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 it along its length. But for this legislation to be a functional barrier it would require that the majority of those properties convert to convert their garages to 80 use 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 trade off between adding density in the form of 80 use 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 on the family zoning plan imposed minimum density requirements for all the toc areas under mtc's transit oriented communities plan and that includes alimony 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

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay thank you so much supervisor Chen thank you miss Glatzine I will save my comments until after public comments so let's go to public comment now

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Members of the public who would like to provide public comment on item number five, please come forward now. You will have two minutes.

[Tom Radulovich (Livable City)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Tom Adulovich with Livable City. Yeah, I feel like 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 ten 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 wrong. The reason that there's a disincentive or the reason there's an additional cost to providing these driveway or 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, you know, 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. You know, 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

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Are there any other individuals who would

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: like to provide public comment on item five? Seeing no speakers, Madam Chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay, public comment is now closed. So I am a co sponsor of this legislation. I am the District seven supervisor. And I think that 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 cars, particularly on the West Side where we have those front yard setbacks, and also front yards, 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 the only solution for people not parking in their own driveway. So 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, give and 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 identify, 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 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 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.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, chair Melgar. 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 multimodal city. Our current San Francisco laws do not permit residents from parking their cars in their own driveways. These rules are outdated, leading to unnecessary fines and neighborhood stress. So, in my very own district, concerns about parking among the top quality of life issues that residents report. So, I believe this legislation mitigates one of the most persistent everyday frustration that working families who are reliant on their cars face. This legislation only eases restrictions on outdated parking rules 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 encroach on the public right away. 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 legislate 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 Melgar I would also like to make a motion to adopt the amendment that is read into the record by Ms. Glossen.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, supervisor Chen. Did your motion also include sending it out as amended with the committee?

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: I can also I do would like to make a motion to adopt the amendment into the record and also send it to the football as a committee report. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: With a positive recommendation.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: With positive recommendations.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I don't think it's a It's Gen Committee with a positive recommendation.

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Okay, thank you. Okay, on the motion for item five to accept the amendments and send it out with positive recommendation, Vice Chair Chen. Chen, aye. Member Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Aye. Melgar, aye. There are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. That motion passes. Let's go to item number six, please.

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: 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.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Supervisor Mahmood.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: 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 Boudicca Park in my district. Steven was one of the first and longest serving corner captains of safe passage, guiding thousands of children safely through the steets 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 Steven'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,

[Blair Helsing (President, North Beach Neighbors)]: and community

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: 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 forward this resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: 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.

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Members of the public who would like to provide public comment on item number six, please come up for now.

[Jaime Veloria (San Francisco Transit Riders; Tenderloin resident)]: Hi. My name is Jaime Veloria. 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 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 ago through 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 smile, one of the few folks that can take a joke 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Are there any other individuals who would

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: like to provide comment on item number six? Seeing none, Madam Chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay, public comment on this item is now closed. Supervisor Mahmood, would you like to make a motion?

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Yes, I'd like to make a motion to move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation.

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: On that motion to send item six with a positive recommendation, Vice Chair Chen, aye. Member Mahmood, Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay, that motion passes. Thank you. Congratulations, Supervisor Mahmood. Let's go to item number seven, please.

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Item number seven is a resolution amending the street encroachment permit terms for Maiden Lane regarding the designated permittee permittee 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.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much. We are now joined by the sponsor of this legislation, District three Supervisor Danny Slaughter.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: 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, 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, 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 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 Myrna 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 ten p. M. And replace it with nine p. M. We found out that that would work much better for the alliance and the neighbors. So we'd strike ten p. M. And replace it with nine p. M. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions on this item from colleagues.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: 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.

[Marisa Rodriguez (CEO, Union Square Alliance)]: Good afternoon, and thank you, Madam Chair Melgar, to all the other supervisors. Marissa Rodriguez, CEO of the Union Square Alliance. I'm 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 Souter, for all you've done to lean into 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 in the throes of this event, and we'd like to change that time to actually closure at eight p. M. Not yeah, not nine. 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. Any questions?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay, thank you very much, Ms. Rodriguez.

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Okay, thank

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay, with that, I don't see anyone else on the roster with questions or comments. Well done, supervisor. Let's go to public comment on this item, please.

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Members of the public who would like to provide public comment on item number seven, please come forward now. Seeing no speakers, Madam Chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay, public comment is now closed. I would like to make a motion that we adopt the amendment as presented by, well, 08:00 instead of

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: That's right. The amendment page four, line three would be striking 10PM and replacing it with 8PM.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: 8PM. And yes, that's the amendment. And then sending it out with a positive recommendation to the full board, please. Madam Clerk.

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion for item seven to amend it as stated to 08:00 and to send it out as with a positive recommendation, Vice Chair Chen, aye. Member Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. That motion passes. Congratulations. Madam Clerk, let's go to the next item. Final item, number seven, please.

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: 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,

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: thank you so much. Supervisor Soder, thank you for introducing this hearing. I will now turn it over to you.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: 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 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, and 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, and 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 a SFCTA presentation for the second section. After we go through each, we will take public comment. 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.

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: 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, really appreciate that. So quick overview, I'm going to talk through kind of the current performance of the T Line itself and then specifically of course the central subway section. I'm going talk through some ongoing challenges and 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 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 way back in the 1980s, if you can believe that. I mean, I my my my son would say way back in the 19s, like 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 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 this 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 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 trade offs 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 most everybody that 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. We're 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 at the T Line. So these are new people into the system, new trips that are being made and has not changed the overall trip pattern for the rest of the line in 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, won't use the word flaw, but design issues that really create some friction for T travel along that segment. It takes forty five 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 forty five minute travel time is stuck at traffic signals, which is a very high number, obviously, and not something it's something that we think 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 of 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 lane 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 Barry to Brandon. 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 sixteen, eight 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 where are additional pinch 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 fourth Street bridge transit lane, 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're not we need to get 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 only a few it's very niche kind of mechanical person 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 contributor to troubleshoot 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 and can answer questions or however you want to go next.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: 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, challenges is and the overruns and the time. But when you look at the numbers, there's a lot of promise being shown here. In particular, you know, the fact that this is now the second busiest rail line, you know, 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 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 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 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?

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: And you're referring to the signal changes? Yeah. So, we hope within the next two months to have the next segment done, will go from channel down to about twentieth. 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. 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. So it does just take a while. Staff time just takes a little while to get all that in place. And we've 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.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: And tell me, with the signal timing here, is this optimizing speeds or is this actually giving priority to the trains?

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: 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 can, 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 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 at 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 more about giving it more opportunities to catch that green window.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: 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?

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: Yeah, so right now, I mean, if you ride the T, it's one of the most frustrating things to just be sitting there with 100 people or so train and you know you're just waiting while somebody takes a left right in front of you. You know like I said that's at over 20 intersections along the alignment. You know we're hoping that this, the way we're designing this transition to 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, they will more than likely still be locations where 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, I guess you'd call them more intrusive. So we'll need to talk with, of course, do much 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, you know, the straight movement across the track from the cross street. So that, you know, that's then you start getting into, you know, cutting off access and things. So it's definitely some trade offs there. And that's why we want to do the signal priority first and just see how far we can get and then go this next step.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: I think the comment about how this has not necessarily impacted 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. Clearly seen anyone who rides at a 30 or 45 or eight sees that. But that's not the case, which I think is, can look at that a lot of different ways, right? It is good in the sense that a lot of this ridership on the subway is new demand. I've heard anecdotally a lot of people that are using, coming into Chinatown more, 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. You know, 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, right? If we can take two minutes here, three minutes here, all of a sudden we're stacking those up to five to 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, that process is going, if you have small businesses, local businesses that you've identified that you're hopeful to bring in there.

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: Great. Yeah, like I said, we are in the process right now of, in deep discussions with somebody at least one of those two spaces. And then, you know, and the idea is, of course, that local businesses would be the ones occupying that space. The second one, like I said, 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.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: And one last thing. I do want to appreciate the improvements that have been made on the escalator and elevator access at Chinatown Rosepack. There was a period a few years ago where it felt like it was fiftyfifty if those And were going to 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, know that will be really, really felt. Okay. So, supervisor chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. I just had a couple questions. Thank you so much for the presentation. It's really great. Thank you for calling the hearing. My first question is, 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 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 hoped it would be. At the beginning, it was because 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 Sauder said, yes, 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 the renting of the kiosk. And I hear what you just said. But I wonder, 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 family zoning plan and thinking about the use of that property, the leasing, I mean, at what point do you have capacity in house in your structure to actually make this a thing? Because these two spaces are an opportunity and a good one because it's a new space. But yet, there are lots of other stations and properties that the MTA has that could be 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 a thing?

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: 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 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 T Line when there's a chase event just to cover that extra demand. Right now, have a ten minute frequency for most times of the day, except in the evening, it's at a 20. And then on the weekends, think it's a twelve 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,

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: That's actually my question. Forgive me. That is my question.

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: Yeah.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: What is the formula? Think Did you say we have already, you know, like, what's that magic number at which we say, okay, now we need to

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: 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 two twenty 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 you 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, 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 the 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 is an honest answer.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay, thank you so much. Now about my other question about capacity at the MTA to do like lease ups and manage your portfolio.

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: Yeah, so we're doing, we're starting an asset scan in this next quarter to try to see now that the family zoning is passed, we got to see what that means for our property, where we can take advantage of that, 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.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: 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% support for an extension to North Beach and Fisherman's Wharf. Number two, it is practical. The tunnel has already been bored 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, a 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, I ask you to continue to look forward to the extension.

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: Great, thank you. So I'm going to talk about this from the MTA perspective and then, you know, 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. And so 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're seeing 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 out, and 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 I just 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. I'm 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 could take it from there.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: A couple of questions

[Howard Wong (Save Muni)]: On for me, Sean,

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: the Connect SF transit strategy slide, so putting the central subway against three other remaining projects in, how do you consider those? How do those compete in your mind?

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: 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 project's going to 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 that timeline as we start working through what's next in the mega project outlook. As you 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 precluded, precluded. I would I mean, I think that's all I'd say there. I mean, we've got, there is some money that the SFCTA has that can go to advancing all four of those projects. And 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 could go later as we work through that process. But we have some seed money to start that work. And Rachel, if you want to take it from there.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: And just to jog everyone's memory, northernmost station, 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? Is it For sure. Yeah.

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: Yeah. Yeah. No, for sure. It definitely cuts down on cost. In twenty twenty dollars, we were looking at about a $1,600,000,000 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, 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 we need to work through as we talk through these alternative analysis. But for sure, it's a great down payment, a beginning spot, and we'll definitely make it cheaper in the long run. 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.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: I think just real quick and then I to introduce Rachel Hyatt. I think that's one of the things we need to find out relatively quickly, 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, thank you, Mr. Okay. Okay. With that, I want to ask SFCTA. I know they're going 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.

[Rachel Hyatt (SFCTA Deputy Director for Planning)]: 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 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. SFGov TV, 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 about how that's approached we as SFCTA prepare the San Francisco transportation plan or SFTP and it's our thirty 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 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 was 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 our 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 nineteen ninety five four corridors plan, three of those have been delivered in a significant way. So the third straight light rail, the Van Ness bus rapid transit, Geary rapid transit, the central subway extension is one that 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 developed together. So these the project is in a conceptual phase, but that's where all these projects start. And the way that it, 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 that is needed to support the project over the sustained amount of time that it 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 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 sort of just as important from the federal perspective here, is the local financial commitment. And that's both the ability demonstrating the ability to not just build but then operate and maintain the major investment over time, and a local commitment of matching resources, you know, 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 in 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 to 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 you know 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 for the 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 in maybe in between the first two phases. There there has been a lot of planning done what I would encourage folks to do who are interested in supporting this project and it's the further steps it needs to take is those demonstrations of local commitment so we want to go after grant agree grant opportunities right 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, you know 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 that 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 are down also the changes in travel patterns that that COVID has 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 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. 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.

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: Thank you. If we can

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: go back to slide seven, maybe as a starting point, please.

[Rachel Hyatt (SFCTA Deputy Director for Planning)]: Have I skipped over? Have I gone too far? Let's see, seven. I'm sorry.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Maybe I have 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?

[Rachel Hyatt (SFCTA Deputy Director for Planning)]: Yeah, let's finish the alignment work that Sean that MTA has started, right? So there are still some questions. It sounds like there's still some questions about a lot 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 it might depending on how many of those questions around that still remain from the study that MTA has begun, we may want to 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 $2,500,000 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, remaining questions that are pre environmental, and then complete the funding picture for how that environmental would be funded.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: So do you have an approximate time and cost to get from where we are right now to that environmental plan?

[Rachel Hyatt (SFCTA Deputy Director for Planning)]: I invite Sean as well to make any to give his thoughts about this. But to go faster I think requires the local, 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 there there there

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: the

[Rachel Hyatt (SFCTA Deputy Director for Planning)]: SFCTA board, with the propel funding that's available, could direct or could express interest in putting investing resources into completing, for example, the study that is currently on pause.

[Unidentified North Beach resident (first-time attendee)]: Did Sean want to add anything? Sure,

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: 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. Was We think that original study that from 2018 that's on kind of hold right now is probably in the million dollar range to complete. And then, you know, and then we need to get into the environmental process, which the environmental review, once we have a few, as Rachel was saying, few specific alternatives we can look at, is a multi million dollar process.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: And just to sort this out, 2015 concept study comes out, planning SFCTA, SFMTA, 158 pages. Long story short, it says this is, 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?

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: So that was then looking at, so we have this 2015 base, right? Then we got it, 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 The alternatives. Alternatives. Alternative study? Yes. That was the alternative.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: So the next step to pick this back up is to complete the alternative study.

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: From our standpoint, yep.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: And we have some funding for that, but not all the funding?

[Rachel Hyatt (SFCTA Deputy Director for Planning)]: 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 $2,500,000 in this five year period, the period over which we program those dollars, that is for studies like this.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: So we'd have to compete for that. But there is, from CTA's side, a T3 phase three feasibility study, which I understand has $370,000 remaining. What is that, and how does that compare to the alternative study from MTA?

[Rachel Hyatt (SFCTA Deputy Director for Planning)]: Would you like to answer that? Yeah. Sure.

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: So, is part of that funding. That would go we would be assuming that that would be going to this alternative study.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Okay.

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: It's 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.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Okay.

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: The rest of that, about 600,000.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Okay. I have a few more questions, but super An quick. Yeah,

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: extension of that question as well is 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 cost almost $2,000,000,000 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?

[Rachel Hyatt (SFCTA Deputy Director for Planning)]: The actual construction project itself, yes. I will defer that question to Sean. What 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 is a regional funding program called 1 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 you know does return cyclically at the regional level. We would want to put together a jointly, you know, with the MTA project sponsor, a proposal to compete for that regional funding program. But they will be looking for the 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.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: So maybe Sean.

[Rachel Hyatt (SFCTA Deputy Director for Planning)]: That's a question for Sean.

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: Sure. Great question. So we fortunately or unfortunately learned a ton in the first phase of, actually I should say second phase, central subway completion. As a reminder we originally estimated that project to cost about $650,000,000 and it ended up being you know to be with a billion after it $2,000,000,000 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 costs 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, you know, and try not to make it too big. But that 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. That $1,600,000 number that I've said a couple 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 know, 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.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: You don't there's no concrete, maybe three mistakes that were made.

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: Oh, if you, 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 my, Albert Ho who did all that work and was in charge of constructing that, if that's something you want

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: to talk my to right question is that 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?

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: Yeah, so you're talking about cost controls.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Cost controls, because that also affects the timeline.

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: Of course, of course.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: So, course, 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?

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: Right. Those are, I mean, are questions we can get back to you, 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 without you know an alignment and knowing where we're going and why you know how we're going to get there

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: so we have to spend a couple more million dollars to learn why we overran a couple billion dollars?

[Sean Kennedy (SFMTA Chief Planning & Delivery Officer)]: No, no. Can cover I was just going say, 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'd control cost and things are 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 Albert, first you want to come walk through a couple of major ones?

[Albert Ho (Central Subway Program Director, SFMTA)]: Hi, Albert Ho, program director for Central Subway. So what we've done is as part of the completion of the Central Subway, we did actually a post construction evaluation of the program. And so we did this with our partner, FDA, 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 streamline 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, you know, 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 new start projects have similar issues just going forward. Large project just has that development issue. The other thing also is basically, I've been on the program for twenty two 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 could 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, $700,000,000 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 Chyanne was talking about will help in the initial evaluation and I think that's 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?

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: 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.

[Remy Tan (local architect)]: Yeah. I mean,

[Albert Ho (Central Subway Program Director, SFMTA)]: different way of contracting strategy. We looked at different way 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 combine them, we had to do it under one delivery method.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Thank you.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: I have a few last questions.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I haven't got any. Just All

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: right, please, please, please.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. I just had like 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, and 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 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 19th Avenue connection as well. And so how do we prioritize that? With all of the different things, equity, local funding, what is the formula? How do we make those decisions? Then how do we align with the regional stuff? Because you talked a little bit about Plan Bay Area. We put out also OBAG funds. Put out, you know, the Plan Bay Area strategy itself has changed from transit oriented projects to transit oriented communities. Like 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?

[Rachel Hyatt (SFCTA Deputy Director for Planning)]: Yes. Great questions. Thank you. And 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, 'twenty two, 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 if you Yeah,

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: and I wasn't asking specifics about that because I'm very familiar with that 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, you know, 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, you know, these competing priorities? Thank you.

[Rachel Hyatt (SFCTA Deputy Director for Planning)]: 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 this 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 in 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 in that as policy in the Long Range Plan. And what do we consider? 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 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.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: 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 SB71, which I believe expands CEQA exemptions for transit projects. Would that be applicable here? Does that save us time? Are you aware if that would help in this case?

[Rachel Hyatt (SFCTA Deputy Director for Planning)]: I do not know the answer to that. We will look into that question. I myself do not know the answer.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: And 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? How do we start on that? But then, I think more importantly, how does the community get involved in a process like that restarting?

[Rachel Hyatt (SFCTA Deputy Director for Planning)]: 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.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Okay. Let's do that then. I'm very eager to do that. Okay. That's it for now, Chair. If there's any other colleagues, or if you want to go to public comment.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: 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, Ms. Hyatt and Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Lung.

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Members of the public would like to provide public comment on the hearing for item eight item number eight. Please come forward.

[Unidentified Marina resident]: Thank you. 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 we I attended some of those 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 to the through the marina and the Presidio and you know the 30 and the 45 buses our buses in the marina aren't aren't great so the one thing that I would urge is for you to coordinate with our district two supervisor Steven Chyanne and 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments.

[Albert Ho (Central Subway Program Director, SFMTA)]: And, by

[Unidentified Marina resident]: the way, provided this presentation to your staff, the one that was given out at the Marina Middle School. So, thank you.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Remy Tan (local architect)]: Hello, my name is Remy Tan. I'm a local architect here, and thank you for the presentation. That was excellent. And, you know, it sounds like there is a need for the central subway to extend out in the marina, perhaps even out to the presidue. 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, a $300,000,000 project, ended up being $660,000,000 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, you know, 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. It doesn't even have a freeway. There's no subway out there. So I would say that project on 19th or Sunset, wherever that runs, connecting to New Geary, should be a fairly high priority project. Thank you.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Bethany Golden (North Beach resident)]: 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 environmentalist specialists who live in Northmeach who are willing to do this work, and also look at public private partnership with entities like the San Francisco Art Institute, 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 there 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Howard Wong (Save Muni)]: Howard Wong, founding member of Save Muni. Save 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 cost kept rising, estimates of ridership did not seem valid, and the reality turned out to be true, that the project was not a $670,000,000 project. It's now over $2,000,000,000 The benefits are low. New ridership is never met, even the most conservative estimates. We felt that the West Side and the southern part of the city had transit deserts that needed to be addressed. 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 nineteen eighty nine earthquake, a free bus shuttle loop from Moscone Center to Union Square Financial District to North Beach, Chinatown, and Fisherman's was a very, very good solution to solve the business problems after the 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments.

[Brian Hayes (Fisherman’s Wharf resident/worker)]: Thank

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: you. Next speaker.

[Jim Chappell (urban planner; SF resident)]: My name is Jim Chappell. I'm a forty nine 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 tee 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'll 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 criteria and we'll get to the cost soon enough but no successful project ever started by talking about the cost we built Barrt 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 nineteen ninety's, 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, to you have a room full of people here, hopefully, who will become lobbyists for this project and will convince the TA and the MTA.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Tony Wesseling (North Beach Neighbors)]: My name is Tony Wesseling. 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 Sauter, 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, Fishman'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 this 700 block of Columbus could do it, right? There's just a, there's an auto repair shop and 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Blair Helsing (President, North Beach Neighbors)]: 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've found the tee line from Rosepac 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 bart 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Ira Kaplan (North Beach resident)]: Hi, my name's Ira Kaplan. Thank you for holding this hearing today. I'm all for studying an extension of the central subway to Fisherman's Wharf, 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Robert Hoffman (D6 resident)]: Good afternoon. My name is Robert Hoffman. I'm a resident of 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 twenty 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, you know, the results are really clear. The Chinatown Station cost $400,000,000 to build. Moscone took $180,000,000 I mean these are huge numbers for single subway stations. And similarly, the $1,600,000,000 extension estimate includes a lot of infrastructure projects that that data that they're using to generate that estimate includes a lot of two 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 $10,000,000 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Chyanne Chen (Chinatown resident; public commenter)]: Hello. My name is Chyanne Chen, 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'd 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 tea is incredibly useful as it provides people 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 and 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 unpen pent up demand. I think that extending the t 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 is still needs, you know, supply for the incredible amount of demand in this area. Thank you.

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: 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 your supportive fingers, you're welcome to do so. But we do require no audible sounds so that we can hear each of the speakers. Next speaker, please.

[Seamus (materials engineer; SF resident)]: 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 thirty or the forty five. The biggest problem is definitely the frequency with the T. In the evenings it can be up to thirty 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 of 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 ten, thirteen, or fifteen, 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Scott Kettner (President & CEO, PIER 39)]: Good afternoon. My name is Scott Kettner. I'm the President and CEO of Pier thirty nine. In addition to all the great benefits to residents, tourism is a major economic impact to San Francisco. In 2026, projected that 24,000,000 visitors will come to San Francisco spending $10,000,000,000 The majority of those 24,000,000 make their way or stay in Fisherman's Wharf, in North Beach, in 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 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 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. Pier 39 alone, there are 2,500 employees. We have people on property 20 fourseven. 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. Pierre Thine, we're immensely supportive of bringing Central Subway to North Beach, to Fisherman's Wharf, and elsewhere. Thank you.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Trey Soudeby (SF homeowner)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Trey Soudeby. I'm a homeowner here. I've lived in San Francisco for fifteen 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 future generations. Please move forward with the extension. Thank you.

[Caitlin Thresher (Deputy Director, Fisherman’s Wharf CBD)]: 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. Fisherman's Wharf brings it is the number one tourist destination in San Francisco. We bring approximately 13,000,000 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 1,000,000 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 5% 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Before the next speaker, I would like to let the public know that Chair Melgar has some urgent matter, she's stepping out. And we have Supervisor Salter replacing her role. And I would like to draw roll call to excuse Chair Melgar.

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. On the motion to excuse Chair Melgar, member Sauter, aye. Member Mahmood, aye. Vice Chair Chen Aye. Chen, aye. There are three ayes.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Now we can continue.

[Clara Baumgarten (Russian Hill renter)]: 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 three 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 of 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 thirty and forty five, 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. 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 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 comment today and look forward to see this project progress.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Andrew Kilbronson (Nob Hill resident)]: Hi. My name is Andrew Kilbronson. I'm a ten year resident of Nob Hill, where I frequently ride the T, the one, 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 where there is mixed traffic and as mentioned 20 different left turns. We're at the 49 here today which is if you guys haven't it's an amazing improvement. Know, now with this dedicated lanes there's only one left turn at Broadway. You fly down Van Ness and I think that we should have the same treatment on the T for the surface running portion.

[Jaime Veloria (San Francisco Transit Riders; Tenderloin resident)]: Thank you.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Brian Hayes (Fisherman’s Wharf resident/worker)]: Hi, 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 at in the Fisherman's Wharf. They really have a tough time getting there. They really wanna be there, but I will tell you the truth. They it's tough. And so I know there's a lot of needs and there's a lot of always naysayers and I gotta tell you the truth, I've gotta be honest, I'm kinda one of the naysayers on things, 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 it makes the world go round, it makes butterflies fly and 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Brian Adam (D6 resident)]: Afternoon, supervisors. My name is Brian Adam. I'm a resident of District 6. Moved to San Francisco during the pandemic, I took the plunge on the city then. I've lived in a variety of districts, and San Francisco's 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 in a Waymo, but that still left a hole in my heart that, like, 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 if we 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 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker?

[Dakota (District 3 resident)]: 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 track 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've to be pragmatic with the budget. I totally agree. I have an organization that's all about supporting, you know, moderates here in San Francisco. So of course, we're pragmatic with the budget, but, you know, 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Alan Thorpe (North Beach resident)]: Hi. My name is Alan Thorpe. I'm a resident of North Beach. Mister Sotter, 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 received today, I'm I appeal to you to not boil the ocean. Okay? Today, I walked at Avada, 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. It's 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. We walk up there, and it was it was terrifying to her to try to get make it there. We the potential your your predecessor should have made sure North Beach Station opened. K? 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 Fishman's Wharf, I wanna see that we want to connect everything, but let's not lose sight of something that can be budgetarily handled a little easier. Thank you.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[David (Dogpatch resident)]: Hi, my name's David. I live in the dog patch. 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 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 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 fifteen, twenty, thirty 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. Like, 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Noah (operator, The Melody of San Francisco)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. First, I wanna 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 importing and expand 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Unidentified North Beach engineer]: Hi. My name is. I live in North Beach. I'm an engineer. I work in Fiday. 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 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 in cushy single family homes.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Lance Carnes (District 3 resident)]: My name is lance carnes I live in District 3 and I followed the central subway from the beginning maybe about twenty years ago. The thing I wanted to get to today is we have another subway in San Francisco it' called the Market Street subway. Every so often I go down to the port and listen to their discussions of you know they' trying to rebuild the piers in the port and control whatever they' 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 sowder and others have said we have to extend the subway to the north and 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 to if you want to go to the marina you probably have to drill through Russian Hill or something or maybe go around I don' 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Harlan Gonzalez (Outer Richmond resident)]: Good afternoon. My name is Harlan Gonzalez. I live in 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 in their access to transit. Thank you.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[John He (Chinatown TRIP)]: Good afternoon. I'm John He. I represent Chinatown Trip, and we're celebrating our fiftieth year of doing advocacy for transportation and development and research in the D 3 area. Not to correct anyone or anything, but the first concept that I remember of this central subway was about forty years, and we were gonna go all the way to Marina Greens. But as funding kept coming and la di da di da, we ended up in North we ended up at Rosepac Station. It was it was a tremendous dream that we support now that may come to fruition to at least go down to Fishman'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 housing goals 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Unidentified North Beach resident (first-time attendee)]: 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, on transit for those things, more frequent, more fast, more reliable. And if you build it, we will come. Thank you.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Jaime Veloria (San Francisco Transit Riders; Tenderloin resident)]: Good afternoon. My name is Jaime Veloria. I'm a outreach and organizing manager for San Francisco Transit Riders. Appreciate Supervisor Sauter for looking at transit improvement and thinking in the long term. Over a year ago, the 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 Sauter, 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 Asus Creek Bridge is replaced for a two year period. I want to emphasize that this isn't an eitheror challenge, but an end, 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. Let's not forget what we can do now to improve transit with no delay. Thank you.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker please.

[Nima (North Beach resident)]: Good afternoon. My name is Nima. I'm a North Beach resident for nearly two years now. I just want 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Dylan Fabris (San Francisco Transit Riders)]: 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 my the comments my colleague Chyanne made a few speakers ago. And I also want to thank Chair Melgar and committee members and Supervisor Soudar 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 as 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 T 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 Islay Creek Bridge so that the T isn't cut off for an extended period of time. We And also need to stay committed to the other projects that are in the works like the portal, the train 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Vladimir (Hayes Valley resident, D5)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Vladimir, Hayes Valley resident d 5. Actually, I have some renderings that I created as well. Is this okay. So I'm just gonna jump right into it. I do believe the city can do something innovative and complete a station build out at Washington Square Park and bring Mewni Metro service to North Beach before financing for the rest of phase three is in place. We can call this phase three a 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 the Northeast 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 dish 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 of the central subway. The Union Square Station does not have signage. We spent $1,700,000,000, 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 some retail in there. Thank you.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Joseph (T line rider)]: Hi, everyone. I'm Joseph. I take the tee 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. Gary's Subway probably even further, in the past, maybe forty 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 nineteen thirties. And it was supposed to cost $13,600,000. It was considered too too much money. Adjusting for inflation, that would have been about $312,000,000 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. For all those who've been to New York and know about the 2nd Avenue extension, that was much more expensive. $4,500,000,000 to go 1.8 miles, three stations, and they're still expanding because they know how important it is. 2nd Avenue Subway, I think, was supposed to be built in the 1900s. So, the longer we wait, the harder it'll get.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Christine Godenzi (Chief of Staff, SF Travel Association)]: Hi, my name is Christine Godenzi, 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 and 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Unidentified North Beach resident (TBM retrieval site neighbor)]: Well, I would very much like to compliment Supervisor Souder 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 bill 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.

[Brian Adam (D6 resident)]: Thank you.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Alyssa Huntington (District 3 resident)]: 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 wanna say that I grew up in District 3, and I just moved back after ten 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Tallulah (North Beach resident, Oakland commuter)]: My name is Tallulah. I'm a resident of North Beach. I don't own a car. I commute fifty one 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.

[Unidentified meeting staff (hearing facilitator)]: Thank you for your comments. Are there any other individuals who would like

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: to provide public comment on the hearing for item number eight? Seeing none, Madam Vice Chair.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Seeing no other speakers, public comment is now closed.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Thank you.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Supervisor Salter.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Yes, 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, want to thank everyone who joined today, gave public comment, or even if you didn't give public comment, everyone who's here following along. Also recognizing that it is Monday afternoon, there are many, many who are 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 well, there was overwhelming support, but there was a lot of different reasons for that support. And 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. And 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, you know, we should have those answers by now. And it is my intent that 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 those short term improvements with speeds and reliability that I'm excited about, and that 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, would ask, please, yeah.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: 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 challenge that also have been shared today. San Franciscans care deeply about our transit. For so many, it is a lifeline to meet our daily needs, to to live, to work, to play, to pray, and to study. This is especially true in neighborhood 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 these 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 our transit first city. With that, would you like to make a motion?

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Yes, thank you, Acting Chair, Vice Chair. I would ask that we file this hearing. Madam clerk, will you

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: please do a roll call?

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: On that motion to file item number eight, member Sauter

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Aye.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter]: Sauter, aye. Member Mahmood Mahmood, aye. Vice chair Chen Aye. Chen, aye. There are three ayes.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. The motion to file the hearing passes. Madam clerk is there any other business before us today?

[Lisa Samara (Committee Clerk)]: That concludes our business for today

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: thank you the meeting is adjourned.