Things can be negotiated into the final package, such as a shuttle, the amount of parking and otherwise. I think the concerns of the neighbors are very real and this will have a big impact. But i think theres a lot of opportunity and i know supervisor yee has been leading this and ive been kind of backing him up in many ways. So, i feel comfortable moving forward with this. I do have a lot of reservations that supervisor cohen brought up. But i think we can finalize that. Chair peskin commissioner yee. Supervisor yee i also want to mention that i have been asking ting this is a ta meeting, one of the things thats really long term and but im willing to push the discussion. Ive pushed it with the mline in terms of potentially moving from whether its from the st. Francis circle or from west portal tunnel to go under ground. And so, with that discussion, i also was broadening the discussion that we study the city study the possibility of keeping the k under ground from the same point. And that would to me if you put the kline under ground all the way to the bart station, that to me would really reduce the Traffic Congestion around that area. Again, its only possibilities. Maybe when they study it, they will find out that my statement was totally ridiculous or not. If we dont study it, we wont know. Chair peskin all right. Is that a motion commissioner yee . Supervisor yee yes. Chair peskin is there a second for that . Seconded by commissioner kim on the item. A roll call please. Commissioner breed. Thank you. I have some questions about outreach specifically because there is information in the resolution that talks about an extensive outreach process as it relates to this particular plan with community input. And i was hoping to get more information on the follow through specifically that was highlighted in the resolution here. Specifically based on public input received after this Advisory Committee meeting. Commissioner yee requested concerns expressed by members of the public and resulting feedback was in the final report. I just want a little more information about that additional outreach and what was incorporated into the report as a result of that outreach. Mr. Shaw. Thank you commissioner breed. At commissioner yees request, we did return to the community a number of times to hear the concerns. I think part of the challenge was how do we stick with whats the written scope of a Transportation Demand management while acknowledging a lot of Community Concerns that maybe a tdm cant address. We changed a lot of the tdm recommendations or refined them to make sure the communitys concerns are addressed. For example, the data challenge thats been mentioned. There was Additional Data collected a second time and then recommendations were added to refine Data Collection in the future when city college or balboa reservoir go for their analysis. And for things that the tdm cant really address, we wanted to make sure that those concerns were included. For example, safety at transit stops at night is a significant concern. That needs to be addressed at transit stops throughout the neighborhood and beyond. And so, it was included in here. But this is not a capital plan. And so, theres limits to what the tdm framework could do. We tried to focus on strategies that could provide a foundation for and acknowledge those that it couldnt. One last comment. Response that the third or fourth edit i think we invited Many Community members to come in to the Planning Department and workshop and talk about ways to get more of Community Concerns into the document and youll see that in the most recent version. And i think part of the concern is because the plan is the plan. It talks somewhat about community input, but it just seems as if theres a plan that was put together with certain recommendations. But it appears that many of the recommendations are based on the Planning Departments recommendation of the community of what could be done and that information is actually whats put into the report. Is that accurate . I think it comes from a variety of sources of input. The recommendations were from the consultant. So, it started with best practices and their knowledge of San Francisco. There was input from city College Staff at the time. There was input from the two cacs and then that last round of edits focused on a lot more details around data and around so things beyond tdm. We acknowledge theres always more outreach that needs to be done and our intent and hope is that the process and the feedback that weve gotten about the process will inform the future planning. So, when we have an implementable plan, a real plan that the developers at city college are obligated to fulfill, that outreach will be done, reflecting all the comments we have heard over the last two years. Can you talk a little more about the outreach to city college specifically . Because i heard in the comments that there was only one presentation at their board meeting. But can you give me clarity in terms of the board meeting, the students, the staff and the people impacted most by this. Sure. So, the document was first initiated and scoped if this late 2015. So, since that point, there were ongoing coordination meetings and vetting with facilitys staff at city college. And we were happy to present at many times i think at the same time part of the challenge was city college was going through their own facilitys master plan effort. So, there were limited opportunities for the city to present. We are happy to return. Another note and opportunity is i think the facilitys master plan is going through a reboot. Theres a new chancellor. Theres a new project manager dedicated just to the reservoir and parking concerns. And we are very excited to work with them. So, i think all those changes represent an opportunity to improve on the outreach process. And i just want for clarity, this is just a guide. This is not written in stone. There could be changes as any project progresses. But this was basically used a road map to have a better understanding of what the challenges are in the area, what some recommendations can be to fix those challenges. But theres still a lengthy process associated with moving anything forward of this magnitude in general. So, i just wanted to make sure that that was clear. That is absolutely correct. If i could just add one more point. I think the framework created the space or the opportunity for really an unprecedented collaboration. I dont think theres has been to this point in my knowledge around the planning or transportation issue, the consistent coordination between staff of both city college and the city. So, i think its a big step forward and again, its not the only step. Were just starting and it has created a foundation for more collaboration. Thank you. Chair peskin commissioner cohen. Supervisor cohen thank you. Mr. Shaw, you said there was a second meeting, an outreach meeting that you reached out to folks in the city college community. When was that . The second city College Meeting . Im not there were a number of city College Staff meetings. Supervisor cohen okay. Maybe i need to clarify. There was the one presentation mentioned to the board of trustees and the additional meetings were primarily for neighbors or folks coming to the reservoir cac meetings. Supervisor cohen and what was the attendance like . The cac meetings are always well attended. The smaller workshops were intended to have neighbor hood representatives and dig into the text and ideas. There were two or three of those meetings if i recall, with five or seven neighborhood representatives. Supervisor cohen maybe perhaps instead of voting no, maybe we could continue this and there could be a little more Due Diligence and outreach given. The reason why i was thinking about this because something you said to commissioners breed question, this would allow city college to fullidy jers the report that you are proposing. I dont know if youre open to that, supervisor yee. Im sorry. What did you say . Trustee. I dont know. Commissioner. Sorry. [laughter] chair peskin used to be a school board member. Never a trustee. Supervisor cohen i know. I was thinking about the new faculty and facility. You could say, hey, trustee cohen commissioner cohen, stop losing your mind over this. The reality this is how things start. This is how change happens. I sat seven years on the land use committee. This is my eighth year. I have seen this before. I know a thing or two. And im certainly not one to prevent growth and development from happening. But its with that wisdom that im asking these questions and i think that its important that one of the things areas that we as City Employees and county employees fall short on is outreach. We dont have a large budget. We have got largely people volunteering their time and theyre coming in and doing this outreach. I just want to make sure we are doing our Due Diligence and pulling in the information so we have a report that has some substance and some thoughtful conclusions. Now mr. Shaw, im in no way saying, commissioner yee, not saying this isnt substantive. There are very few facts in here and there are questions and i would imagine we need more study, which means we need more time. Perhaps we can continue this and give them another month or two to go out and get some feedback . I find it interesting not one person is here speaking in favor of this. Everyone is against this . I would imagine it has to do with outreach. So, colleagues, maybe instead of joining me with a no vote, maybe youll join me with a continuance so that we can get this level of feedback and get it done and get it right. Chair peskin commissioner, is that a motion . Supervisor cohen yes, i would like to make a motion chair peskin im sorry. A motion would take precedence. If shes making a motion and gets a second we would vote on the continuance first and then go to your motion. So, motion by commissioner cohen. Is there a second for that motion . Seconded by commissioner breed on the motion to continue a roll call, please. To what date . Supervisor cohen thank you for asking. Im open to suggestions. Mr. Shaw, do you have any suggestions to what date or commissioner yee how much time do you think . I can go a full week. Chair peskin commissioner cohen. Supervisor cohen perhaps the next meeting . Supervisor yee this item was actually going to be brought to this board more than six months ago. I said lets continue it so we can do further outreach. In many ways ive taken those steps much earlier. So, for me to have continued this long actually, its been more than six months where we asked the staff to go out and do more. And i dont think doing it one more week will change things. As i mentioned, the reason why im okay with this is because i know well i dont know. But according to mr. Shaw, theres going to be other studies being done. And when they do the study, theyre going to take into consideration some of maybe the drawbacks or the issues that have been raised. Which is like, okay, rather than me always saying do more community outreach, they will vote it into their next process. Rather than whats the other thing that he mentioned . Supervisor cohen i mentioned there was no one in support of these. The way the reports works is they work and built off each other. Sounds like when the question was raised what was the outreach, what was the strategy, the answer wufrnt wasnt thorough. It was we had a couple of meetings, maybe five or six. I want to know when was it scheduled, where was it scheduled, signin sheets. Theres ways we capture information. This is how we do it when im doing community meetings. Im able to say heres a document of every single meeting we held. I dont see that. If we could show the screen quickly. Supervisor cohen there it is. Thank you. I think part of the challenge that we discovered part way through the reservoir process and this framework document is that theyre very interrelated prompts, but they are distinct. So, some arguments there are arguments and questions that need to be addressed by the reservoir. We all acknowledge we are not done discussing the reservoir. Absolutely. This framework was not designed to resolve the reservoir challenges. It was meant to be a Strong Foundation so different agencies and particularly city college and the city could begin talking. It was intended to have robust discussion of what tdm is, because it is a pretty technical term. These meetings were at both cacs in the neighborhood. Some focused on the transportation in general. But in some way they all touched on or focused on tdm. And i think well, i acknowledge the comments we have heard today. They are significant and we take them seriously. There are a number of people who support the framework. I dont think it is only opposition in the neighborhood. There were a couple of the cac meetings that are on the slide before you, we went with previous drafts of the document. There were no comments or objections to advancing that document to this body. But at the time, supervisor yee felt like we needed to do more outreach and we agreed and did that. So, i just want to confirm supervisor yees comments that we have done a number of outreach efforts but by no means is it the end and our intent is to focus the outreach on the actionable plans, the things that will have on future Data Collection. The things we can hold folks to through the environmental process. There are plenty of opportunities and our eyes are looking forward to ensuring the outreach and technical requirements for those. Chair peskin thank you, mr. Shaw. Commissioner cohen. Supervisor cohen i would like to withdraw my request to continue this. You want this to go forward. I will support it and vote for it. Chair peskin thank you. That works for the second. Commissioner breed . The motion to continue is withdrawn and on the motion made by commissioner yee, a roll call, please. Clerk on item seven, commissioner breed. Breed aye. Commissioner cohen. Cohen aye. Commissioner fewer. Fewer aye. Commissioner peskin. Chair peskin aye. Clerk commissioner kim. Kim aye. Commissioner ronen. Ronen aye. Safai aye. Commissioner sheehy. Aye. Tang aye. Commissioner yee. Yee aye. We have first approval. Chair peskin all right. Before we read item eight, i want to thank you mr. Hartnet for patience. I have had a request by a commissioner to make ask for a motion to rescind the vote on item number four. Commissioner yee, would you luke to make like to make that motion . Supervisor yee move. Chair peskin seconded by commissioner safai. Mr. Clerk, we will take that without objection and mr. Clerk, if you could please read item four. Clerk item four election of chair and vice chair for 2018. Chair peskin is there a nomination for chair and vice chair . Commissioner cohen again. Supervisor cohen thank you very much. I would like to nominate commissioner aaron peskin for chair and nominate commissioner katy tang for vice chair. Chair peskin is there a second for that motion . Seconded by commissioner breed. Is there any are there any additional nominations . Seeing none. We will close nominations. Seeing no Public Comment on that motion made and seconded. A roll call please. Clerk on the motion in favor of electing commissioner peskin for chair and commissioner tang for voice chair . Breed aye. Commissioner fewer aye. Commissioner kim, kim aye. Commissioner peskin. Chair peskin aye. Clerk commissioner ronen. Ronen aye. Commissioner safai, safai aye. Commissioner tang. Tang aye. Commissioner yee. Yee aye. Motion is approved. Chair peskin all right. Thank you again colleagues and with that, item number eight. Clerk item eight, update on the caltrain pennisula corridor electric electrification project. This is an information item. Chair peskin mr. Hartnet thank you for your patience. And i want to thank ms. Broussard for the meeting we had yesterday in my office. For those who dont know mr. Hartnet, he is the general manager and ceo of the San Mateo County cta as well as the chief officer of caltrain as well as the head of san trans. With that in his capacity as the head of caltrain. He is hear. Welcome and thank you for coming to our chambers here in San Francisco county. Thank you mr. Chair and commissioners. It is a pleasure to be here. We are happy to report on the status of our electrification project. I would like to thank you for the Great Partnership weve had in bringing forward improvements to caltrain. Not just with the electrification project, but since its origination. We preserved rail service and developed a Robust Community rail service on the pennisula. The electrification project would not have happened without the team work and support of chair peskin and the board and the mayors offers. We stayed together and united and with Regional State and federal support, weve been able to move it forward. I would like to acknowledge also San Franciscos own michael burns, who was chief officer of our electrification project and will be up until this end of this month. As of february 1st, another of San Franciscos own, john fungy will become chief officer of the project. And the next time we report to the board, he will be here to join us in reporting. So, i would like to thank you for the Great Partnership and support and i would like to introduce Michelle Broussard who is the chief officer to thank you. So, we have for you a brief presentation in support of the document you have in your agenda. To talk a little about the whys of electrification. Back in the early 90s the caltrain board supported the average weekday riders and in the last fiscal year 2017 we have in excess 62,000, which really demonstrates the exploding demand for rail service on the pennisula that has much to do with the congestion on the parallel highways of 280 and 101. Really, the growing economy all up and down the pennisula. Our Electrification Program really was slated to be completed back in 2014, but took us a little time to get our funding together and our plan together. But really what it does is it puts us in a situation where we have an aging fleet. The