San Francisco County Transportation Authority - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the June 9, 2026 regular meeting of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority Board. I am Commissioner Myrna Melgar, chair of this board. Our vice chair is Danny Sautter. The clerk today is Amy Sayoung. And I would also like to thank James Kawana at SFGUP TV for staffing us during this meeting. Madam Clerk, please call the roll and then make your announcements.

Commissioner Chan. Chan absent. Commissioner Chin. Chin present. Commissioner Dorsey. Dorsey absent. Commissioner Fielder. Fielder absent. Commissioner Mahmood. Mahmood present. Commissioner Mandelman. Mandelman absent. Chair Malgar.

Present.

Malgar present. Vice Chair Sauter. Sauter present. Commissioner Sherrill. Sherrill present. Commissioner Walton. Walton absent. Commissioner Wong. Wong, present. Chair, we have quorum. Also, the Transportation Authority welcomes your attendance here in person at the legislative chamber room to 52nd floor of City Hall. When you can't be here, the proceedings are streaming live at sfgovtv.org or airing on SF local cable channels 26, 70, 71, 78, or 99, depending on your provider. Written public comment may be submitted by sending an email to clerk at sfcta.org or by mailing comments via U.S. Postal Service to SFCTA 1455 Market Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94103. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. I would like to take this time to excuse Commissioners Dorsey, Fielder, and Walton from this meeting, and Commissioners Chan and Mandelman are expected to be late this morning. Before calling the next item, as chair, I'd like to invoke rule 3.26 from the rules of order to limit the public comment per item to 30 minutes for today's meeting. Each speaker will have two minutes to speak on a given item.

Madam Clerk, please call item number two. Item two, approve the minutes of the May 19, 2026 meeting. This is an action item.

OK, I don't see anyone on the roster with questions or comments. So let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item two, the minutes? There is not. OK, public comment is closed.

Colleagues, may I have a motion, a second? OK, moved by Chen, seconded by Cheryl. Let's take a roll on that item, please, Madam Clerk.

On the motion to approve, item two, Commissioner Chan. Chan, absent. Commissioner Chin. Aye. Chen, aye. Commissioner Mahmood. Mahmood, aye. Commissioner Mandelman? Aye. Mandelman, aye. Chair Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. Vice Chair Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Commissioner Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. Commissioner Wong? Aye. Wong, aye. There are Seven ayes, the minutes are approved. Thank you. Madam Clerk, please call item number three. Item three, community advisory committee report. This is an information item. Okay, we are joined by Kat Siegel remotely.

Welcome, Ms. Siegel. Thank you for being here. Yes, good morning.

Chair Melgar, Vice Chair Sautter and Commissioners, the CAC had a long May meeting with a few especially noteworthy discussions. First, we had a long discussion about the Inner Sunset Transportation Study final reports. with members generally supporting the recommendations but wanting to see them implemented faster and wanting to see more concrete near-term changes to improve the NJUDA reliability and pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and particularly wanting to solve the issue of double parked cars and trucks blocking the train. Several members asked about implementing shared use loading zones and whether the corridor can be considered for earlier implementation of loading and curb management strategies, similar to those recommended by the TA's recent eco-friendly downtown delivery study. We ultimately voted unanimously to approve the study recommendations. However, on the later Prop L allocation item, which included the Inner Sunset Bike Connection Project, which is a near-term recommendation from the study, the CAC deliberated further on the inclusion of the Class 2 painted bike lanes on 7th Avenue as a recommendation. The CAC was supportive of the alternative bicycle connections feasibility study, but split on the Seventh Avenue bike lane, mostly over concerns about whether the design is safe enough given the high speeds of car travel on that road. We ultimately severed the Inner Sunset Bike Connection project from the grouped allocations and amended the recommendation to only include the feasibility assessment in the scope of the funding by a split boat. we approved the remaining nine Prop L allocations. The other lengthy discussions were about the Central Subway North Beach Extension Study and the Geary 19th Avenue Subway, both of which clearly remain of high interest to the CAC and the public. Both studies were adopted by the CAC with a split vote with members generally supportive of both projects while highlighting concerns about the current budget situation for transit and the near-term threat of lost service and jobs, and the ability of these projects to secure funding. Some members also noted the need for increased service and better reliability on transit lines we have today on these corridors, such as the T3rd. On the Central Subway, there was also a desire from both CAC members and public commenters for an analysis of the Central Subway's past cost overruns and strategies for preventing similar cost increases in any future work. Thank you, and I can answer any questions.

Thank you so much, Ms. Siegel. I understand it was a very robust discussion on the two items that you called out. Thank you for negotiating that. I don't see anyone on the roster among my colleagues to have any comments or questions. I do have comments, particularly on the interstate study, but I will reserve those for when it is presented. So with that, let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item three, the CAC report? There's not.

Okay, public comment is now closed.

Let's go to our next item, please, Madam Clerk. Item four, adopt the Inner Sunset Transportation Study Final Report. This is an action item. Also, we have received public comment on this item and it has been posted to our website.

Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. Andrew Heidel, Principal Planner at the Transportation Authority, to present this item. And SFGov TV, I'm sharing my slides. So the Inner Sunset Transportation Study was requested by Board Chair and District 7 Supervisor Myrna Melgar with the objective of describing and addressing the transportation safety and circulation issues in the Inner Sunset Commercial Core. Our study area for this work was fairly small, encompassing the area from Judah Street on the south to Lincoln Way on the north, Fifth Avenue on the east, out to 12th Avenue on the west. The study was focused on leveraging existing transportation data combined with field observations and input from community residents, visitors, and business owners to identify the key issues and to understand proposed solutions in three broad time frames. Near-term in the next one to two years, mid-term or implementable in the next two to five years, though likely requiring additional design and outreach and long-term recommendations that may require additional study. The team for this work included the integrated staff from the Transportation Authority and SFMTA with the support of technical consultants and is funded by the Transportation Authority's Neighborhood Transportation Program. After review of the existing conditions data and preliminary identification of key issues in the study area, the study team proposed a set of four goals for this work. These goals were presented as draft to community stakeholders during the first round of outreach and received strong support. Each study recommendation, which I will describe shortly, advances one or more of these goals, which include prioritizing safety for vulnerable road users, improving transit reliability, enhancing access to key destinations, and supporting economic vitality in the neighborhood. The study included two rounds of community outreach to hear feedback from members of the public and understand the issues that people face, which was the topic of our first round of outreach, as well as their support for the draft concepts proposed, which was the focus of the second round. In each round of outreach, the study team sought to ensure that online materials closely matched those presented in person so that those who couldn't attend to receive the same information and have the same opportunity to provide input. Our town hall events were well attended, with about 100 attendees at each, and the online surveys were also effective in round one, receiving over 1,800 replies. I do want to recognize a recent crash in the study area, which unfortunately occurred at the same time that the study team was preparing documentation of our final report. On March 6, 2026, the person riding a bicycle westbound on Irving Street, just west of Seventh Avenue, was struck by a large truck while navigating around a delivery vehicle. While the exact causes and events of the crash remain under investigation, the study team conducted a thorough review of the draft concepts based on our initial understanding and either refined or advanced the timeline of recommendations pertaining to parking and curb management, opportunities to create more public space, and bicycle safety in the study area. So in the interest of time, I'll cover the recommendations very briefly in this presentation, but I'm happy to answer questions. The study had four near-term recommendations, one of which was move forwards from a medium-term recommendation in response to the crash in March. So those are making it easier for drivers to see people walking through implementing painted safety zones, continental crosswalks, and advanced limit lines at intersections throughout the study area. Second is updated driving directions and map apps. Partner with online mapping companies to indicate preferred routes for drivers that can reduce congestion and safety conflicts, particularly towards nearby tourist destinations in Golden Gate Park. Consolidating transit stops for more reliable service, as well as consolidating stops on Judah between Fifth and Seventh Avenues to reduce travel time variability on the six Hays-Parnassus and 43 Masonic bus routes. and then an upgraded Seventh Avenue bike lane on Seventh Avenue between Judah and Lincoln Way or Golden Gate Park. This is to implement a Class II painted bike lane on these two blocks. These two blocks of Seventh Avenue are identified in the SFMTA's biking and rolling plan as part of the North Star Network. The implementation of this concept is the subject of a separate funding request on the same agenda, which Chair Siegel spoke to the CAC's discussion in her report. The study has three mid-term recommendations, again, one of which has moved forward from a long-term recommendation. The more reliable NJUDA and the more reliable 7-8-NORIEGA involve improving signals, providing transit priority, and will be forwarded to SFMTA studies on each of those corridors. And finally, closing the gap in bicycle facilities from 7th Avenue and Lawton to Golden Gate Park was moved forward. And this is to conduct a study of the best route for a low-stress, low-conflict bicycle route through this gap in bicycle facilities. We'll examine options on 5th, 6th, and 7th Avenues to make this connection. This study will include additional data collection, community engagement, and outreach, and identify both quick build and long-term improvements. This was the second item discussed by CAC Chair Siegel. Last, the study has two long-term recommendations, one of which was expanded in scope in response to public feedback and the crash in March. It's conducting a follow-up study to improve parking access and manage parking demand to better match the use of the curb with user needs and conduct a follow-on study to identify opportunities for more public space on Irving between 5th and 9th Avenues. Touching briefly on next steps for these recommendations before I conclude, as I mentioned earlier, two of the recommendations are the subject of a funding request in the next item. Two additional concepts, those traffic directions and stop consolidation are low or no cost and can be handled as part of regular business or route adjustments by SFMTA. And the remaining recommendations do require additional funding, potentially from a variety of sources, many of which are competitive, as described in the final report. That concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much for the presentation. And I don't see anyone else on the roster. This is a study that I requested. And as you know, I had hoped for something a little more courageous from us. And there are two specific areas where I wish we could have done a little bit bolder recommendations. One is around the bike lane. I understand the feelings of my District 7 representative to the CAC about Class 2 bicycle lanes. Nevertheless, I don't think that we should let the perfect get in the way of the better. So I do support having the painted lanes on those two blocks. We had a community member who lost her leg just a few weeks ago in that very, very dangerous and overcrowded area. And so, yes, it was unfortunately that that it happened while we were doing the study, but not surprising because there's a lot going on in those two blocks on Irving. And so I am eager to present solutions that are actually workable that the community supports. And so we also have this conversation about In addition to the 7th Avenue, having a west side wiggle going up on 6th Avenue to Hugo or perhaps to the multi-use path that goes to the park, that is the way that people from the southwest side, including myself, of San Francisco State, the southwest side of San Francisco, get to Inner Sunset and then to the park and to downtown through the panhandle. So it is a very heavily bike-traveled route. I'm eager to make it safer and more inviting. But the truth is 6th Avenue goes to a different place than 7th Avenue. 7th Avenue is where you get to the corridor, the commercial corridor. 6th Avenue is how you get to the park and then to the panhandle. So I support doing both, improving both. I think it'll be a vast improvement for safety. The other area where I have been really frustrated with our collective inaction is the issue that the CAC brought up about cars being illegally double parked in front of the shared spaces on Irving. That causes the N to slow down Every day, like every day, there is a slowdown. Recently, it was like three weeks ago, it was a 45-minute slowdown because some schmuck was double parked and a big vehicle on the tracks. There is enough space for cars to park and no physical barrier. There is no reason why we couldn't have a physical barrier. I have had these conversations with the MTA. I've never gotten a good enough answer. We put in these flimsy plastic barriers just right at the corner, and that deters people from parking at the corner, but it's the entire block that's a problem. So I will continue to work with the MTA and try to find funding. I wish we had included it in our study, But I understand the limitations of our funding. I do understand why it was such a heated debate at the CAC, because this is a very, very well used corridor. It's one of the most successful commercial corridors in the city. And lots of families, lots of young people. It's right next to UCSF, Parnassus. And so I do want to do better. in terms of the improvements to safety and to public transit riders. One, the N, which is two trains, stops because people are double parked. It stops cars. It stops pedestrians. It stops bus riders. So it is like everybody because of the design of that intersection. And the parkless, while they've added to the commercial, vitality of the corridor have made the transportation a lot worse. Again, thank you for your work. I just want to acknowledge that the conversation that the CAC had in the public comment that we received is valid because there are some real problems in this little corridor and we will continue to do better. Thank you. With that, let's go to public comment on this item.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item four, the Inner Sunset Transportation Study? There is not.

Yep, there is. Oh, there is. Sorry.

And your two minutes begins now.

Good morning, Chair Melgar and commissioners. My name is Rachel Clyde with the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. I'm here today in support of the bicycle safety improvements in the Inner Sunset Transportation Study and to urge the board to approve these recommendations and advance further study of a protected bike lane on 7th Avenue. In the outreach process for this study, we heard from the biking community that some people prefer to ride on 7th Avenue, while others prefer to take the 5th to Hugo to 6th West Side Wiggle option. Our biking community is not a monolith. Everyone has different factors that they take into consideration when choosing their route. The most important and common factor that people consider is safety. In the near term, the study recommends adding a painted bike lane on 7th Avenue between Golden Gate Park and Judah, where currently people on bikes share the lane with drivers. Installing a painted bike lane on these two blocks will make the infrastructure consistent along the entirety of 7th Avenue, improving safety by adding predictability for both drivers and bikers. While a fully protected bike lane would require more study and outreach, data shows this is the most effective way to keep people safe on bikes, and we urge the SFCTA to study and implement a protected bike lane option as soon as possible. We're also supportive of safety improvements to the fifth, sixth wiggle option. Multiple routes through the inner sunset are popular, and we should be expanding people's access to safe bicycle infrastructure, not limiting them by forcing them to choose one or the other. People biking and rolling should have multiple safe routes. Thank you to the SFCTA staff who worked on this project and spent a lot of time talking to the biking community. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. There is no additional public comment.

Okay, public comment on this item is now closed. Again, thank you so much for the study. It took us a while and it was a robust outreach to multiple stakeholders and lots of people waited, so I really appreciate the time you took in doing that. Colleagues, may I have a motion and a second, please? Moved by Cheryl, seconded by Chen. I'm sorry. Yes.

On the motion to approve item four, Commissioner Chan, Chan absent. Commissioner Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Commissioner Mahmood? Aye. Mahmood, aye. Commissioner Mandelman? Mandelman, absent. Commissioner, Chair Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. Vice Chair Sauter? Aye. Sauter, aye. Commissioner Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. Commissioner Wong? Wong, aye. There are six ayes. The motion is approved.

Thank you so much. Madam Clerk, please call item number five.

Item five, allocate $22,651,000 in Prop L funds and allocate $1,860,572 in Prop AA funds with conditions for 10 requests. This is an action item. Welcome.

Hi. Good morning, Chair Mulgar and Commissioners. My name is Rachel Seberg, Transportation Planner, SFGov. I am sharing my slides. The first two requests are part of a larger multi-agency Mission SOMA improvements project. This first request for Mission Street SOMA transit improvements is from SFMTA for $700,000 to install transit priority and safety improvements noted on the slide between Beale and South Van Ness. This project is intended to reduce delays on Muni Routes 14 and 14R and on Golden Gate Transit and Sam Trans routes that operate on Mission. Public Works will administer the construction contract for the larger Mission Soma improvements project, which will incorporate the transit and safety improvement scope in this request. And here is the public works request for $1.4 million for repaving work that will accompany the transit work on the prior slide. This pavement renovation scope covers 17 blocks and also includes retrofit of 35 curb ramps, new sidewalk construction, et cetera, within the project's limits on Mission Street between 4th and 11th and 4th Street from Mission to Howard. The next request is for $3.5 million for design of an upgrade to the 12 kilovolt electrical system at SFMTA's Cable Car Barn. The Cable Car Barn was built in 1888 and last rehabilitated in 1984. Rehabilitation and upgrades are needed to improve working conditions and cable car operations at the facility. In November 2025, the board allocated $2 million for the environmental phase of the overall project. In the meantime, while environmental work is ongoing, SFMTA is requesting this funding to complete the design of the electrical system upgrade, which is the highest priority of the rehabilitation project. Most of the electrical equipment was installed in 1984 and is now operating past the end of its useful life. Upgrading the electrical system first will safeguard the cable car barn and flee against system failure and enable subsequent elements of the rehabilitation to move forward in the future. Next we have SFMTA's Paratransit Program. SFMTA provides paratransit services to persons with disabilities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. We provide Prop L funds to support paratransit operations annually and requested funds will be used for the paratransit broker contract in fiscal year 27 for services including taxi, pre-scheduled van, inter-county trips, group van trips to senior centers, the shop around and van go shuttle programs, the wheelchair accessible ramp taxi incentive program, and essential trip card program. These programs are critically important to persons with disabilities and the elderly who are unable to fully utilize other forms of public transportation. Last month the board approved 2.8 million dollars in state transit assistant block grant funds for the paratransit budget Those funds plus the subject prop L funds would result in the Transportation Authority providing 55% of the fiscal year 27 paratransit operations budget Which is similar to last year Next up is a $150,000 Prop L request from SFMTA to advance two of the recommendations in the Inner Sunset Transportation Study as described under the prior agenda item. The study recommends implementation of a painted bike lane on 7th Avenue between Lincoln Way and Judah Street with two design alternatives at the Irving and Judah intersections. This project includes outreach to understand the public's interests and circulation needs and final design of a bike facility. Prop L funds would cover design and SFMTA will use Prop B general funds to construct them. This request will also fund a bicycle connection feasibility assessment within a study area bounded by Fifth Avenue, Kirkham Street, Seventh Avenue, and Lincoln Way to document the feasibility of bike connections within this area, identify opportunities and tradeoffs for alternatives, and a conceptual plan for the preferred option, along with including recommendations for implementation next steps. Up next is a request from SFMTA for $243,000 to provide the local match to the federal One Bay Area Grant for the Safe Routes to School Non-Infrastructure Program. SFMTA staff presented on this program in March of 2026. The program delivers educational, encouragement, and experiential activities aimed at decreasing commuting in single-family vehicles to San Francisco schools. Specific tasks for this scope include in-school education related to transportation safety and choices, neighborhood skill building and outreach, including weekend bike classes, walking school buses and bike trains, and annual walk and roll to school events. providing technical assistance and education on personal safety in school communities where environmental hazards are barriers to families walking, biking, or taking transit to school, coordinating between SFUSD and SFMTA to streamline responses to traffic and safety needs on and around school sites, and evaluating program impacts on safety and mode shift of children traveling to and from school. Next, we have a $449,000 request from SFMTA for District 1 neighborhood program funds for Fulton Street safety improvements. This request would fund the planning, design, and construction of pedestrian safety improvements at three intersections along Fulton Street to start implementing some of the District 1 multimodal transportation study recommendations adopted in November 2024 based on currently available funding. Improvements are anticipated to include side islands, which are a quick-build form of a pedestrian bulb-out that prevents parking in a daylit area of the curb, crosswalk upgrades, flashing beacons, and other elements to improve pedestrian visibility. This request will provide funding for planning, including site evaluations and public outreach, to confirm the feasibility of implementing the proposed scope on Fulton at 40th and 20th Avenues and 12th Avenue and Funston Street, followed by design and construction of the final recommended measures. And on this next slide and in the allocation request form in the agenda and closure, we have a map of the project area with specific improvements by location. Okay, only three more to go. This project will support planning for startup and evaluation of a new on-demand shuttle as recommended in the Transportation Authority's Treasure Island Supplemental Transportation Study. The shuttle will serve trips on Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island, including service to areas not covered by existing muni service and providing first and last mile connections to the ferry terminal and muni bus stops. Phase one tasks include service design, outreach, an evaluation plan, and a draft request for proposals to release to potential shuttle operators. Developer funds will cover initial operating expenses with long-term operations to be funded by TIMMA's congestion pricing program. And the final two requests are public works paving projects. This request is for $1.8 million in Prop L funds to support the paving scope of the Geary Boulevard improvements phase two project. The project area is Geary Boulevard from Stanion to 32nd Avenue in districts one and two. This project is being coordinated with a SFPUC project to replace aging sewer and water infrastructure and SFMTA's transit reliability and traffic safety improvements, such as signals and bulb outs, which will be implemented through the same construction contract as the paving scope. And finally, our last request is from Public Works for $1.8 million in Prop AA vehicle registration fees. The requested funds will be used to construct the Front Street and Sansom Street pavement renovation, which includes demolition and pavement renovation of 21 blocks, construction and retrofit of 34 curb ramps, and other sidewalk and traffic control work that goes along with it. And there's a map in the meeting material showing the project limits. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions. We have project managers available remotely and in person. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Seberg. I don't see anyone on the roster with questions or comments about this funding allocation. Let's go to public comment on this item, please, Madam Clerk.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item five, the Prop L and AA grouped allocations? There is. Yes. Your two minutes begins now.

Hi, again. Rachel from San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. Just reiterating support for the Inner Sunset Bike Connections and also for the Safe Routes to School programming. Thanks.

Thank you for your comment. There is no additional public comment.

OK, public comment is now closed. Madam Clerk, let's, oh, can I have a, I think we do have to take roll for this one because Commissioner Mandelman joined us. May I have a motion, please, and a second for approval? Moved by Cheryl, seconded by Sautter. Let's take a roll on this, please.

On the motion to approve, item five, Commissioner Chan. Chan, absent. Commissioner Chen. Chen, aye. Commissioner Mahmood. Mahmood, aye. Commissioner Mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye. Chair Malgar. Aye. Malgar, aye. Vice Chair Sautter. Aye. Sautter, aye. Commissioner Sherrill. Commissioner Sherrill. Aye. Sherrill, aye. Commissioner Wong. Aye. Wong, aye. There are Seven ayes, the motion is approved. Thank you. Let's go to item number six, please. Item six, amend the Prop K Standard Grant Agreement for the District 2 Safety Study and Implementation and TIP Planning and Capital Project to update the project scope, schedule costs, and funding plan, and release $430,000 on reserve to implement District 2 Safety Study near-term recommendations. This is an action item. Hi again, Ms. Seberg. Hello, I'm back.

All right, I'm going to get right into it. In 2023, the, oh, sorry, SFGov, I am sharing my slides. In 2023, the Transportation Authority Board allocated $270,000 in neighborhood program funds for SFMTA and Transportation Authority staff to conduct the District 2 safety study, which the board approved in March 2026. The same action also placed $430,000 on reserve for SFMTA to implement recommendations from the study. Now that the study has been adopted, SFMTA has requested release of the implementation funds and amendment of the Prop K grant agreement to reflect the scope, schedule, cost, and budget for the study recommendations to be constructed. This study was requested by former Commissioner Stefani, and we conducted the study in partnership with SFMTA to improve safety and access to places in District 2 that attract vulnerable road users such as parks, schools, and healthcare facilities. We focused our work in five locations across the district that have a high concentration of these types of places. The study recommended both near-term quick build and longer-term improvements that are specific to each of the study areas. The focus on today's action is funding design and implementation of the recommended quick build improvements, which are summarized on this next slide. So this is a summary showing the location of the final near-term recommendations. And the requested funds are to design and construct improvements at 10 locations in the study area throughout the district. Recommended improvements are intended to address safety and access challenges using quick build treatments to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety, visibility, and comfort, and to reduce vehicular speeds. The scope includes painted safety zones, traffic signal upgrades and modifications, new traffic signs and bicycle wayfinding, traffic island and median reconfiguration, and vertical deflection traffic calming devices, which includes speed humps, cushions, and tables. And here we have another map with final recommended improvements, a list of locations with a description of the recommendations at each location is included in your packet materials. So to recap the item before you today is to amend the Prop K standard grant agreement for the District 2 safety study and implementation and to planning and capital to update the scope, schedule, cost, and funding plan and to release $430,000 on reserve to implement the District 2 safety study near-term recommendations. And with that, happy to take any questions. We also have the project manager from SFMTA available. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Ms. Seberg. Any, no? Thank you, Commissioner Sherrill. Let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item six, the District 2 safety study implementation? There's not. Okay.

Public comment is now closed. Commissioner Sherrill, would you like to make a motion to approve? May I have a second, please? Seconded by Mandelman, I think we can take the same house safe call. That motion is approved. Thank you. Let's go to item number seven.

Item seven, adopt the proposed fiscal year 2026-27 budget and work program. This is an action item.

Welcome, Ms. Yu.

Good morning chair Melgar and commissioners Lily you finance manager SF of TV. I'm presenting my slides Today I'm here to present our proposed annual budget and work program for fiscal year 2026 2027 today's meeting will also serve as the official public hearing prior to final consideration at the June 23rd board meeting Last month, Director Chang and I presented the preliminary fiscal year 2026-27 budget and work program as an information item. And since then, we've made two changes to the proposed budget to reflect additional revenues we have secured and corresponding expenditures for the respective projects. First, under the Congestion Management Agency programs, we've secured an additional $2.4 million in regional program revenues from the Bay Area Toll Authority in May 2026 for the Bimla-Reinhart-Vista Point parking lot reconstruction project on Yerba Buena Island. The additional funding will allow soil mediation and removal of contaminated soils from previous naval operations on the site. The proposed budget also reflects a corresponding increase in $2.4 million in capital project costs, and there is a construction contract amendment that will be presented as a concurrent item on today's agenda. Under the Treasure Island Mobility Management Agency, we've secured an additional $167,174 in regional program revenues from the Treasure Island Community Development Operating Subsidy to expand communication efforts for various TEMA projects. TIMAA will develop a communications and engagement strategy and work with the Treasure Island Development Authority to foster strong connections with the community. The TIMAA budget and work program will be presented as a separate item to the TIMAA committee on June 16th and agendized for adoption at the June 23rd TIMAA board meeting. As a result of these changes, we are anticipating total revenues of $194.5 million for fiscal year 26-27, which is a 1.5% increase from fiscal year 25-26 budget. Total expenditures are anticipated to be $251.6 million, or about 4% increase from the fiscal year 25-26 budget. And because total expenditures exceed total revenues, we anticipate the need to borrow $60 million from our revolving credit agreement with U.S. Bank. And anytime we do borrow funds, we'll come back to the board and seek approval on how we plan to use those funds. Public agencies are also now required to present the status of vacancies, recruitment, and retention efforts at a public hearing at least once a fiscal year. For fiscal year 26-27, we have four vacant positions, a principal transportation planner in the planning division, a senior engineer, a transportation modeler, and a human resources specialist. These vacancies will be filled upon securing sufficient funding and will be included in future year budgets or budget amendments as needed. In terms of retention efforts, back in March 2026, the board adopted new job classifications, a revised organization chart, and a revised salary structure. We plan to implement the approved reorganization over the next several years as our work program warrants. The approved revised salary structure will keep labor rates competitive to implement the agency's five-year initiatives, including investment in staff, succession pathways, and organizational development. This concludes the update to the proposed budget. I'm happy to take any questions or go through the full presentation.

I don't see anyone on the roster with questions or comments. Thank you for the presentation. Madam Clerk, let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item 7, the fiscal year 2026-27 budget and work program? There is not.

Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. Colleagues, may I have a motion to approve this item in a second? Moved by Chen, seconded by Mandelman. And I think we can take the same house, same call. That motion is approved.

Let's go to item number eight, please. Item 8 allocate a hundred and eighty thousand eight hundred dollars in prop L funds with conditions to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and appropriate forty nine thousand nine hundred dollars in prop L funds with conditions for the central subway North Beach Extension study. This is an action item. Also, we have received public comment on this item and it has been posted on our website Thank you so much. Welcome back. Mr. Heidel.

I

Thank you. Good morning again, Chair and Commissioners. Andrew Heidel, Principal Planner at the Transportation Authority, to present this item. SFGov TV, I am sharing my slides. To start with a bit of background on this request, in December 2016, the Transportation Authority allocated funds towards the T3 Phase III Feasibility Study to study the feasibility of an extension of light rail transit service from its current terminus in Chinatown through North Beach to the Fisherman's Wharf area in San Francisco. After starting work on this larger extension study, the project team determined that the public would be better served by a more focused study on a North Beach extension because the central subway tunnels actually continue past the existing terminus at Chinatown to North Beach, the potential that a shorter extension might be more cost-effective, and a need to better understand the benefits and trade-offs of building a station in North Beach in the current tunnel alignment. For context, here's a map of the study area, including the unfurnished tunnel. For those not familiar, these tunnels were constructed to reach a safe place to remove the tunnel boring machines that were used to construct the existing central subway, but they are labeled here as unfurnished since these are just the tunnels. There's no track signaling or power infrastructure beyond the Chinatown station at this time. The Central Subway North Beach Extension Study Scope has two main components. SFMTA's scope is to study the benefits, tradeoffs, and considerations of pursuing a North Beach-only extension versus a longer extension of the Central Subway. To do so, the scope includes conceptual engineering, design, and cost estimations for a North Beach-only extension phase, along with comparative analysis of a North Beach-only extension versus a longer extension. The Transportation Authority's scope is to support SFMTA with the study by preparing preliminary ridership forecasts and to aid the evaluation of options for the study and to help prepare for subsequent long-range planning efforts, including the next major update to the citywide San Francisco Transportation Plan. To fund the revised scope of work, SFMTA has requested an amendment to that existing December 2016 Prop K grant to use about $370,000 in remaining funds for the North Beach Extension study and a concurrent allocation of $180,800 in Prop L funds to fully fund the study. We are also requesting an appropriation of $49,900 in Prop L funds to fund the SFCTA support for ridership forecasting, planning and oversight. SFMTA is anticipated to complete this work with a final report in May 2028 and will subsequently present to the CAC and board as an informational item. That concludes my presentation. Done sharing slides. Happy to answer any questions and representatives from SFMTA are here this morning as well.

Thank you so much, Mr. Heidel. Commissioner Sautter.

thank you chair and thank you for the presentation and the work on this I'll be supporting this with a lot of enthusiasm you know this is you know a really important project for my corner of the city and I think for the vision of connecting the entire eastern side of San Francisco with the t-line in the central subway there were certainly many mistakes made in the last phase in terms of the delays and overruns, but I see this as a chance to learn from that. This is quietly a line that is performing really, really well. It's the second busiest Muni underground in the entire city. 20% year-over-year ridership growth, and just imagine what it could be if we get it to North Beach, perhaps to Fisherman's Wharf as well. So this study will allow us to do that, and again, we'll be supporting it. I do share some of the concerns flagged by the CAC in terms of the timing here. I think we can do this more quickly. I've asked for this to be delivered by the end of 2027 rather than mid-2028, and I hope that we can get there. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Sautter. I will also, oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Mendelman.

Yeah. I guess, I mean, I think a lot of San Franciscans wonder why and how, you know, The boring materials were removed where they were removed. The extension didn't happen to the full length of the boring that was done. How far along the path to something does this... I mean, I am currently... and have for my entire time on the Board of Supervisors been, or close to my entire time on the Board of Supervisors, been part of the effort to get an $8 billion tunnel into downtown. So these are long. Unfortunately, maybe we'll figure out how to speed things up. But historically, these have been kind of generational. You move things forward a little bit. It takes too long. Then you wait another decade. Then you wait for the right administration. Then money comes. Can you, I mean, do you have, I suppose, what do we get out of this, this particular piece of this? At the end of this, what does it tell us and what decisions, what are the next steps over the next far too long a period of time to actually get some more tunnel and some more, you know, service?

Um, so the scope of this study is at its core of a phasing study. So recognizing that a Fisherman's Wharf extension does come with a significant price tag, uh, understanding if there are smaller bits of this leveraging, as you mentioned, uh, commissioner, the existing infrastructure, it is in place to deliver benefit earlier, maybe perhaps at a smaller scale, but with a lower, uh, total cost. So, um, I think that's, I think that's a really good point. Those steps you mentioned all, of course, need to happen still. STARS aligning with respect to funding locally, regionally, statewide. These are big generational projects. But being able to understand the benefits of splitting the project up into smaller segments is one of the lessons learned about potential deliverability expedience.

But we don't have the answer to what the full out to fisherman's wharf would look like in terms of cost. Or has that work been done by someone? I'll invite Liz Bryson from SFMTA.

Good morning, commissioners. So the work that has been done to date was a concept study that put very, very high level cost estimates out for a variety of different alignments and station locations for an extension to Fisherman's Wharf. The work that we're taking on now is really focused on putting a price tag on what if we just did North Beach extension. The vision has always been that it would go beyond that, but I think when we heard the feedback at the hearing back in January, there was a large course of feedback of like, yes, but you have this tunnel under North Beach right now. Can't we do that as an incremental step? And so that was something that hadn't been considered in the earlier planning work. So we're really trying to put a price tag on that, outline benefits and costs at a high level so the next time we update our major transit expansion priorities that we have, we're armed with that information.

And presumably it'll be, I mean, what are the sort of? What's the scale of the all the way?

I mean, it will be less expensive. It's hundreds of millions of dollars instead of over a billion dollars.

Over, like, multiple billions of dollars, probably. And it would be hundreds of millions. Oh, well, that's exciting. Excellent. All right. Well, of course, I'm glad Supervisor Sautter has taken this on, and I hope things move more quickly in his time on the Board of Supervisors than they have on mine.

Thank you so much. I was just going to chime in to say thank you, Commissioner Sautter, for making this a thing. I am excited to support you. Yes, it is billions of dollars. And I also think it's really... We can't aspire to be a world-class city welcoming visitors from all over the world without a public transportation system that takes our visitors to one of the most visited sites in our city. There has been a public comment. complaining about the cost of the Central Subway and the amount of time that it took, and that is absolutely warranted. It should not take us as long or have so many cost overruns. I am hoping that this incremental approach will get us there a little faster and a little cheaper. I don't know. I don't know if comparing doing it all at once and having the mobilization of crews will actually make it cheaper than, you know, or having just, you know, parts make it cheaper than doing it all at once. But I am eager to make some progress. I think that, you know, like, we need this. I'm also eager to have this very... robustly used line to Chinatown run at a faster frequency. We have sort of punted that because, you know, the pandemic, but every time I'm on that thing, it is super crowded. I mean, there's definitely... uh especially on um game days you know that are very very uh crowded so um thank you commissioner sotter and uh you of course have my support in this um so with that let's take public comment on this item please madam clerk is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item eight the central subway north beach extension study allocation there's not Okay, public comment on this item is now closed. Commissioner Sautter, did you want to make a motion?

I'd like to make a motion to approve item number eight.

May I have a second, please? Seconded by Mandelman. And I think we can take the same house, same call. Okay, that motion's approved. Thank you. Let's go to item number nine, please.

Item 9, adopt the Gary 19th Avenue subway and regional connection study final report. This is an action item.

Good morning, once again, Chair and Commissioners, Andrew Heidel, Principal Planner at the Transportation Authority, to present the Geary 19th Avenue subway and regional connection study final report. Before starting the presentation, I would like to recognize and thank Chair Melgar for her leadership in requesting and supporting the advancement of this phase of work, and also recognize our partners at SFMTA and SF Planning who were integral in completing this study for a project of city, regional, and potentially statewide significance, as I'll discuss more shortly. But first, a bit of background. The concept of a subway under Geary Boulevard has been discussed for well over 70 years, dating back to at least the original planning studies for BART. Since then, a number of studies and plans have consistently identified the need for a better connection between the West Side and downtown San Francisco. Throughout these studies, the needs of riders have been consistent. Faster trips, less crowding, better connections, and maintaining a state of good repair. But these years of work have also evolved our understanding of solutions. In this case, aligning a Geary subway with a new Transbay rail crossing in the east and along 19th Avenue towards a connection in San Mateo County in the south allows the full project to act as a broader part of the regional East Bay to Peninsula connection, while also serving parts of San Francisco that today are not well connected to the regional network. This current phase of work has picked up where the 2021 transit strategy and 2022 San Francisco transportation plan left off and has worked to refine the case for moving the Geary 19th Avenue subway forward while also developing a roadmap for next steps. Planning for these kind of projects, as we just discussed, are generational investments and they're a multi-year, multi-step process. To identify a preferred alternative, that is the actual routing of the subway, where station locations might go, and what kinds of trains would actually run, much more technical work and community conversations will happen than we were able to complete here. But that's why we've started now with our current initial phase, where we've reconfirmed the case for the project and are laying out the roadmap through future phases and steps. Our goal at the conclusion of each of these phases is to know enough to feel comfortable committing the resources needed to advance to the subsequent phase. And to be clear, we're not looking to draw those lines on a map or make decisions about that preferred alternative now in this phase, nor have we done the technical work or outreach to allow us to do this. This will come in the following alternatives analysis and investment prioritization phases, which I'll talk about more in a bit. Before we go any further, a critical issue I do want to recognize we are facing today is the transit fiscal cliff. As you well know, San Francisco and the region are weighing how to bolster transit funding to address operating shortfalls later this year. In November, San Francisco voters are anticipated to consider two ballot initiatives, including a five-county regional measure and a local measure that would provide operating funds if approved. But as we just discussed, the planning, design, and funding of large projects like a new subway take time, and we see advancing this work now as important to lay the groundwork for confirming our capital priorities and securing local, state, regional, and federal funding that will be required in the future to deliver this and other projects. Doing this work now is a long-term commitment to San Francisco's transit-first future. In this phase of work, the study team developed a high-level framework for thinking about the benefits of building a Geary 19th Avenue subway. That framework was built around three key perspectives. First, how does the experience improve for travelers? Will this investment help make transit easier, faster, and more attractive for more trips? Second, understanding the growth that is planned for San Francisco, how can the project help serve both current needs and those that could arise from that growth? Can we ensure that the benefits to existing residents, including those who have been historically disadvantaged or excluded, are shared equitably? And third, can the project make contributions to larger local, regional, and statewide goals that may be beyond the scope of any one action but require everything we do to move in the right direction? With that framework in mind, we set out to identify what the key decisions the planners, engineers, community members, and elected leaders would likely need to make as the project advances. And importantly, what doors might be opened or closed by making those decisions. Again, as a reminder, these are not decisions that will or can be made in this phase. What we're doing here is identifying an initial set of areas where there are clear options and asking for agreement that these are indeed those key decisions. Those decisions and tradeoffs focused around key questions around regional connectivity. Should trains through run to other parts of the region or have a passenger connection at one or both ends? In San Francisco, what areas are directly served by the subway? How do we transition from that east-west Geary Boulevard segment to the north-south 19th Avenue segment? And what does a tie-in or connection at or around Daly City look like? And also, what technologies are on the table for this investment? And what are the implications for some of those questions above, thinking about project phasing, cost, and provision for a maintenance facility? In the interest of time, I'll move fairly quickly through the study findings, which are explored in more detail in the report. First, to orient us, though, to understand the subway's potential benefits, we tested the key questions I just mentioned while identifying and exploring other considerations and factors to understand what the project's range of benefits might be. We're happy to see improvements across all three of those goal areas I just discussed. We've also identified what we recommend as other critical building blocks to advance either as part of or in parallel to additional project planning, important things like funding, land use, and what other supportive policies can help maximize the benefits we see and perhaps even help pay for the project. So first, the overall case for the project is and remains promising and has the potential to be an integral part of the regional and statewide rail system. San Francisco should continue to lead and advance planning for the project to prepare for the future with the knowledge that maximizing project benefits also creates the opportunity to create value and time savings for travelers, accessibility and value of land, and economic activity and productivity that capturing and leveraging that value will be critical to underpinning the funding for the project. We also note that there are trade-offs. It's important to deliver benefits to existing residents and businesses while mitigating potential effects such as displacement. Next, we've confirmed that regional connectivity broadens the size and geographic scope of benefits to travelers and communities. The project does perform well as a San Francisco-only subway, but better when it is integrated with the region's rail network. We've got about 160 to 180,000 riders per day on a San Francisco-only project, but up to 310,000 trips per day within San Francisco on a regionally connected project. These benefits increase not only for San Franciscans, but for travelers across the region. That same analysis showed that multiple design options can deliver benefits, so as the project advances, clear input from community members will be important to balance with technical considerations to select routes and station locations. Project design decisions also have the potential to drive ultimate costs of the project. We currently estimate the full cost of the project to be between $20 and $30 billion. In future phases, we'll also need to consider what project phasing might be, similar to the discussion we just had on the prior item. For example, is there an initial segment that can deliver some benefits at smaller cost while still preparing for the full build-out of the project? Speaking to our passenger experience, regional and statewide climate, and equity goals, we found the project moved the needle in the right direction on each of these versus a future where a project isn't built. And the good news is also that our analysis shows that the people who benefit the most are those who live in communities that have been historically disadvantaged or excluded from this kind of work. For example, access to jobs within 45 minutes on transit for the average resident of an equity priority community would increase 60% more than the average of all San Francisco residents. Since existing sources are not enough to fund a project of this size, we'll also need to think creatively about new places to look for funding. I talked earlier about the project delivering value in terms of travel time, land value, and economic activity. So are there ways to recoup a meaningful portion of that value to contribute to the project? Drawing that connection or nexus between the land value the subway would deliver and potential sources of, sorry, all types of value the project could deliver will be important. San Francisco and the Bay Area and the state of California have a history of developing innovative funding approaches in order to make generational investments in our transportation system. Some examples of those potential methods are on the screen here. For example, are there ways to create a win-win by reducing vehicle congestion and funding transit improvements through a road user charge, as has shown success in New York or recently in Chicago. Can we explore methods like a benefit district or joint development to bring some of the expected increase in land value back to the project? None of these ideas are certain at this point, but it's important to further develop these options as the project develops and to understand where certain techniques can play a role. And finally, moving the project forward will require a mix of robust community input alongside technical development, planning, and engineering to inform project choices. Continued engagement and support from community stakeholders, and importantly, active outreach to other people who may not be able to attend events like these or are open houses will be critical. The study team recommends a set of next steps to continue to advance the project development and planning for the subway. As I mentioned earlier, the Geary 19th Avenue subway is one of five major rail and transit enhancements identified in the Connect SF Transit Strategy and the 2050 SFTP. Each of those projects will require substantial funding to advance from concept to final construction and delivery. But at this point in project development, responsible agencies have the capacity to advance initial planning for multiple efforts in parallel. For example, in parallel to the proposed next steps on Geary 19th Avenue, the exploration of the phasing options for Central Subway was part of the previous item. While ConnectSF Transit Strategy and the San Francisco Transportation Plan laid out the initial concept for each of those projects, these plans did not prioritize the order in which major transit expansion projects should advance or be implemented. Project prioritization is planned to be considered through the next major update to the SFTP, SFTP 2060, which we anticipate kicking off next year. This plan will produce updated information about each project's performance, as well as other effectiveness and readiness criteria, including public and policy support, along with local and regional financial commitments to make recommendations regarding how San Francisco's full vision for long-range transit and rail expansion should advance. So as I mentioned earlier, this study is the initial step of a multi-year process by which major capital transit investment is planned, environmentally cleared, designed, constructed, and eventually opened for passenger service. Because major transit capital projects are complex undertakings involving many stakeholders, varied interests, multiple approvals, it typically takes at least 15 to 20 years to progress from project initiation to revenue service. Progressing to each stage of project development also requires the availability and commitment of funding to undertake the next stage of work, along with strong community and political support. The next broad phase of project development here is the alternatives analysis stage, in which conceptual alignments, situations, and technologies are defined. The completion of a full alternatives analysis for the Geary 19th Avenue subway is estimated to require approximately $10 to $15 million, depending on the number of alternatives to be explored. To advance the project and to provide input to the project prioritization ahead, the study team has identified an initial set of tasks as part of that larger alternatives analysis study that could be advanced with near-term funding in the range of approximately $1.5 million or up to $3 million if the project is successful in securing competitive regional funding in the near term. Scoping process for this next phase of work is still underway, including with agencies' partners. And appropriation of additional funds to continue project development is subject to future board action, as is approval to pursue the One Bay Area Grant shown here on the screen. That concludes my presentation. Happy once again to answer questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Heidel. I don't see anyone on the roster, so I will perhaps go ahead. Since I requested this study, I'm very excited about it. I'm excited for the robust public engagement that you have done. I attended a couple of the sessions and was really pleased by the robust conversation and feedback that we got from our residents on the west side. For those of us who live there, we know 19th Avenue is one of the most congested corridors in our city. It is the thoroughfare between the peninsula and Marin. And it is also not designed to support the population that we have now, let alone what happens if we add density on the west side like we are planning to. So I am excited about the possibility of a connection to the regional network that is understandably important. connected to some of the decisions that are being done by the state about what kind of gauge we're going to support and fund and all of these things. But nevertheless, we know that we are adding thousands of units at Stonestown. We want to support the health of institutions like San Francisco State University and the institutions at Golden Gate Park. So having a connected public transportation network would be super helpful for all our hopes and dreams of tomorrow, including making a difference in our climate action goals. So I'm really excited about this. Thank you so much for keeping the ball moving forward. I know that Commissioner Sautter will probably get to see this. first in terms of an extension of the central subway before we ever break ground on anything like this. But it is a good step towards our hopes in tomorrow and making a future that is more connected and accessible for our kids. So with that, Madam Clerk, let's go to public comment.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item 9, the Geary 19th Avenue subway study final report? There's not.

OK. Public comment is now closed. Colleagues, may I have a motion and a second? And we do have to take roll on this since we've been joined by Commissioner Chan. Okay, moved by Chan, seconded by Sherrill.

Let's take a roll on this, please, Madam Clerk. On the motion to approve, item nine, Commissioner Chan. Aye. Chan, aye. Commissioner Chin. Aye. Chin, aye. Commissioner Mahmood. Aye. Mahmood, aye. Commissioner Mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye. Chair Melgar. Aye. Melgar, aye. Vice Chair Sautter. Aye. Sautter, aye. Commissioner Sherrill. Aye. Sherrill, aye. Commissioner Wong. Aye. Wong, aye. There are eight ayes. The motion is approved. Okay. Thank you so much.

The motion passes. Madam Clerk, would you please call items 10 and 11 together? Okay.

Item 10, authorize an additional construction allotment of $2 million for a revised additional construction allotment not to exceed $3,896,564. and approve a contract amendment with GHD Inc. in the amount of $324,000 for the Bimla-Reinhardt-Fiesta Point Pier parking lot project. This is an action item and item 11. award a construction contract to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder gordon and ball inc in an amount not to exceed twelve million three hundred and fifty one thousand three hundred and thirty nine dollars authorized an additional construction allotment of six million fifty one thousand two hundred and sixty eight dollars for a total construction Allotment not to exceed $18,402,607. Approve a contract amendment with WMH Corporation in the amount of $750,000 to provide design support during construction and authorize the executive director to execute all other related supporting and supplemental agreements for Treasure Island Road Improvement, Yerba Buena Island Multi-Use Pathway Segment 4. This is an action item. Thank you. Welcome, Ms. Waldman.

Good morning, Chair Melgar and Commissioners, Yonah Waldman, Capital Projects, SFGov. I am sharing my slides. We are here to present the contract amendment for the Bimla-Reinhart Vista Point parking lot project. The Bimla-Reinhart Vista Point parking lot project formerly referred to as the Pier E2 and the Torpedo Building are part of the suite of transportation improvement projects on Yerba Buena Island. The projects help fulfill the obligations of the Bay Bridge East Span. They improve bike and pedestrian access to the Vista Point Park and also provide restroom amenities. The Torpedo Building portion was completed in May of 2026. Our project partners, Caltrans and the Bay Area Toll Authority, have asked the TA to perform additional work to mitigate preexisting soil contamination at the site left over from prior military use and construction. The scope consists of removing and capping the contaminated materials. project was constructed on behalf of Caltrans and BATA, and the additional work is also fully funded through a $2.4 million funding amendment for the project approved in May of 2026 this year. Our requested actions are shown on this slide. We recommend to increase the additional construction allotment for Thompson Builders Corporation by $2 million and increase the associated construction and management contract with GHD by $324,000. Thank you. That concludes my presentation. I am happy to take questions.

Okay. I do believe we have Mr. Holmes remotely to present on the item number 11.

Yes. Good morning, Chair Milgar, Vice Chair Sautter, Commissioners, Carl Holmes, Deputy Director of Capital Projects. Sorry, I'm not there in person, but just had leg surgery last week, so recovering. But I'm so pleased to bring good news to the board and to request board approval to award a construction contract and design support in construction. SFGov TV, sharing my slides. So next slide. You've seen this map before, even as recent as probably 30 seconds ago. The focus is on the far left where we have improvements to Treasure Island Road that will include a 16-foot wide Class 1 bicycle and pedestrian pathway as well as a transit-only lane that would connect from the ferry terminal towards the entrance to the west end of the Bay Bridge. Next slide. This slide shows the existing conditions of the area and the hillside that would need to be excavated in order to accommodate this. Next slide. This shows the cross section of the two vehicle lanes that will need to be improved to city standards. The 12 foot wide transit only lane that I just mentioned, as well as the 16 foot wide class one multi-use path. Next slide. This is to give accommodations to all the stakeholders, federal, state, regional, and local. Next slide. The procurement of this project, we have an engineer's estimate of over $26 million. We invited bids. That was released April 8th. We opened bids on May 19th. And we had a protest period that ended June 1st without any protest. Next slide, showing the results. We had multiple bids ranging from 12 million, which is the low bid, Gordon and Ball, up to Golden State Bridge, which is over 16 million. Next slide. The cost of this is 25 million, over 25 million, and that includes the base construction contract costs that you just saw in the low bid of 12.3 million. Then we of course add the additional construction allotment, which includes contingency, and then also construction support, which is our staff and consultant support, bringing it down to 25.7 million. Next slide. This slide shows the multitude of funding sources that we have. If you've noticed, the amount needed is much lower than what we have here. However, there are other scopes that might need to be achieved with this project as the project evolves. So we'll come back to the board if needed, if we need to do anything different. Either way, it's still a great news story. Next slide. So schedule, we plan to start construction, of course, pending board approval. So we hope to achieve board approval today, but that would allow for us to start construction this summer and with a substantial completion in November of 2027. Next slide. This is the construction support with design resources. We have WMH that completed the design, and we need to extend their contract for them to support us during construction in the amount of $750,000, and that would extend their contract through June 30th of 2028. Next slide. So to conclude, there are four different actions. One is to award a construction contract to Gordon and Ball in the amount not to exceed $12.3 million. The second action is authorize additional construction allotment of $6 million. Then the contract amendment with WMH an amount of $750,000, and then to authorize the executive director authority to execute all other supporting and supplemental agreements. And with that, I turn it back to you, Chair Margar. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Holmes. Let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item 10, the $2 million Bimla-Reinhart-Vista Point Pier parking lot construction contract amendment, or on item 11, the Treasure Island Road Improvement Project Construction Award? There is not.

Okay, public comment is now closed. Colleagues, may I have a motion to approve items 10 and 11, please? Cheryl and seconded by Mandelman. And I think we can take this one, same house, same call. That motion is approved.

Let's go to item number 12, please. Item 12, introduction of new items. This is an information item. I don't see anyone with items to introduce. Let's go to item number 13, please. Public comment. Item 13, public comment. Is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to speak on item 13? There's not. Okay.

Public comment is now closed. Please call item number 14.

Item 14, adjournment. We are adjourned. Thank you.

SFGov TV. San Francisco Government Television.