Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 9, 2012 6:00am-6:30am PST

6:00 am
>> good morning and welcome to the san francisco transportation authority. to my far right commissioner mark farrell. we'll be joined shortly by commissioner kim. we are joined by jesse larson. >> no announcements today. >> if you could go on to our second item please. >> item two present december 6, 2012 meeting, action item. >> questions on the minutes, up
6:01 am
for public comment and minutes. we'll close public comment. motion from commissioner farrell and seconded by commissioner cohen. item number four. >> committee report, this is an information item. >> item number three. >> good morning. since the advisory committee did not meet in november. any comment or concern sure this meeting will be shared with the board at the december 11th meeting. close public comment and move to our next item. >> item four, this is advisory
6:02 am
committee. this is action item. >> good morning courtney with the authority. this item begins own page 11 of your packet by way of background, authorities have number of advisory committee. the plans and programs committee recommends and authority board appoints advisory committee meeting. on page 14 of your packet, you can see a list of folks submitted applications to be on the citizen's advisory committee. on page 13 you can see list of current members. you must be a san francisco resident and if you at least once before the committee. we currently have three vacancies.
6:03 am
we understand, there are candidates in the audience who are interested in speaking to their interest and qualifications. >> thank you. i know we've had a couple candidates come forward who are looking to be appointed for the district nine seat. i like to allow those folks if they're here to come again. let's go with other candidates who would like to be appointed from other districts first. i believe mr. goldman is here. if if i other members or candidates like to speak if you want to line up on this side before you call the district nine folks. >> thank you. briefly, i applied a few boards
6:04 am
before. my name is aaron goldsmith. i applied for a few things before. this is a board where my position as community member regionally and geographically. my commute patterns will be helpful. i worked well with the city and the oaklands. i first heard about the cta in grad school. i was studying as inner local inner regional body. my interest in transportation, i'm a computer and -- commuter and i like to serve the city. >> do you see yourself having a particular focus of priority as a member of the cse? >> two things, i would like to -- my interest are basically west to east and east to west since i live in the sun set. i'm also curious to see how the
6:05 am
brt come through. >> okay. any comments or questions? thank you mr. goldsmith. any other candidate for district four seat or district six seat? we have any candidates for district nine come forward. if you're interested in making a statement. >> i enjoyed my role on the citizen's advisory committee. being a committee member who held them accountable and
6:06 am
transparent. additionally i say my over ten years of work in the community, working in nonlot ofs and serving on the community board give me a wide perspective of issue that's many communities have. getting around san francisco whether it's by foot, by bus, by car, by light rail and whether it's community of color, youth or elderly. finally i would say that i'm in transparency and accountability. thank you i wasn't planning to speak. >> i appreciate you coming forward and i appreciate you're wanting to serve on the cac as
6:07 am
well. we also have another candidate that's interested. christopher wattling is here? >> okay. we can open this item up for public comment. anyone like to comment on the appointments of cac members? at the request of supervisor campos i like to consider a motion to support mr. davis. >> so moved. >> we can take that second commissioner farrell. we also have a recommendation -- a preference from commissioner
6:08 am
chu for aaron goldsmith to recommend for district four cac. can we have a motion for mr. goldsmith as well? from commissioner cohen and we'll take without objection. then we have a remainder possibly from district ten commissioner wattling we should move? >> second. >> that is done. thank you for your interest in the cac. we are going to forward to the full t.a. board, mr. aaron goldsmith for district four mr. glenn davis for district nine and mr. christopher wattling for district ten. >> item for cal train to proceed with design bridge with berm design allocation -- public
6:09 am
works and environmental connector road. appropriation of 49,000 and appropriate funds for planning and community outreach. this is an action item. >> good morning commissioner. my name is collin i'm the transportation planner with the authority. this item is on page 15 of your packet. it's an update on two projects that we last presented to you in march. one is the quint street bridge replacement project as well as quint-jerrold connector road which is a city project testimony just -- just going to quickly give you an overview.
6:10 am
here we're showing over view map of the project area. we will see here is the circle in the center is the quint street bridge. this is a cal train bridge over quint street which is a local street in the bay view. that bridge over 100 years old and is in need of replacement. cal train has just recently completed the replacement of the jerrold avenue bridge which is one block north. cal train has $25 million of funding lined up to complete in bridge replacement. there are a number of considerations in terms of the nearby land uses and what you can see on this graphic here is that the oakdale avenue station is in the orange. you can see it crosses over the quint street bridge.
6:11 am
the community had been working on as well as the blue, the quint-jerrold connector road that is also -- you can see adjacent land as well as the produce market to the west or upper left there. the southwest community facility in the bottom right. these are a number of stakeholders in the surrounding area. cal train has looked at several options to replace this bridge given all the considerations in the surrounding area. there are a number of clear needs here. some of them are cal train needs and local needs. the first is any option we end up selecting needs to provide
6:12 am
for a safe facility given the funding that's available. another need is to facilitate that oakdale station in the future. we also have a need to maintain local vehicle access. this is something we've heard strongly from the community as a need to maintain circulation across the track and through the area. lastly to be compatible with other adjacent plants. they're undergoing a long term planning process. the produce market has approved plans to expand as well as to reconfigure the streets in that area and the port of san francisco is also working to rebuild the quint street lead track. that facility oh facilitate -- facilitates a lot of their activities. there are a number of different
6:13 am
plans ongoing and this project will need to be compatible with those. give you an update on what we have done since we came to the board for appropriation back in march. that work has included really looking doing some additional due diligence and looking at the design the cal trains developed and coast estimates. to review, we had designs proposed two of which really are the one that's would meet our needs in terms of local access and facilitating that station. one of those is a wider bridge option that would allow existing quint street to continue under the tracks while allowing platforms on top. that bridge exceed significantly in the amount of funding that we have available. the other remaining option is a berm option that would
6:14 am
essentially extend the railing across quint street closing the existing quint street but facilitating a future station. that would cost about $20 million. there is then a city project for a connector road that would provide alternate access across the tracks by extending a road alongside the tracks up to jerrold avenue. you can still get under the tracks that way. that berm project -- the connector project cost estimate is currently at $7.3 million. we'll discuss the funding plan for that in a minute. other work we've done worked with dpw to develop an initial design concept for that connector road to show it's a feasible concept. we've done two rounds of extensive community outreach to share our work as well as
6:15 am
interagency coordination with dpw, mta, cal train as well as other local agency partners. diving a little more into the community outreach we've done, we have worked through two prerobust rounds of outreach. first of those were back in spring. we did an open house and other presentation to present the work we had done in the first few months after we got that appropriation and get the community's feedback. we came back to the community in november to present our draft back recommendation how we incorporated a lot of that community feedback before coming here to the board. each of those rounds included an open house with pretty good solid participation as well as notification for that each round
6:16 am
including multilingual efforts with efforts to everyone within a half a mile. additional fliers and businesses, neighborhoods, churches, community groups to cover wider radius. then we also made presentations to a number of community group that's are highlighted on the slide here but we in particular went back at least a couple times to the southeast community facility commission both meet right there at the facility commission facility. we worked with supervisor cohen's office as we've done that outreach and the interagency coordination to make sure we're hitting the right folks and getting the word out. what we've heard from that community outreach are a number of really important pieces of input that we've incorporated into our recommendation. we'll continue to work to provide as many -- a answer as
6:17 am
many questions as we can. just going to go through kind of what we've heard and how we responded to that. the first major thing that we've heard is that initially that we really needed to take a closer look at the designs and cost estimates and funding options that we were look at it make sure that we have the complete picture what we can do here. given that we brought in independent consultant and worked with cal train and looked a the cost estimates to see if there are savings. we determined what we have is an appropriate cost estimate for each option at this stage of design. but there will be engineering options or opportunitys for both projects moving forward. we also did look at a couple alternative designs one suggested by a community member. another suggested by our consultant and to try to see if those would offer more benefit or lower cost for relative to the options we already had.
6:18 am
after looking at the those, we decided really the options we had, they didn't offer any benefit relative to the options we had. finally, we've worked a little bit on the funding plan. the funding plan for the connector road in particular, that $7.3 million project comes right now. mostly from the remaining funds that from the cal train bridge replacement project particularly with the berm option since there are remaining funds between the funds available. then the current funding plan is for an additional $3.3 million fund in prop k funds to go towards construction of that connector road. we will work with other agency partners including the pc as well as cost saving and looking at if we can reduce that prop k portion of the connector road
6:19 am
funding plan. the next thing we looked at is -- the community said they do support choosing a option that supports a station as well as master planning effort. there's a lot of support for that effort to rebuild the southeast plant. that's something that we have taken into account. we've also heard a lot from the community about making sure we're maintaining access through the area. that's both on a permanent basis as well as a temporary basis during construction. we've started to take a look at that and will continue to look at that in the next phase of design with our funding request today. but essentially, we've looked at all three options, all bridge replacement options would require a temporary short term closure of access through the area for construction staging. what we'll continue to look at and we've looked at a couple
6:20 am
options including the building and connector road first, we'll continue to look at what the different options in terms of how those projects are staged and scheduled. our goal will be to minimize that closure to within the period of the jerrold avenue bridge closure. that was about in the 3 to 6 month range. we'll looking careful in this next phase at exactly how we can reduce that closure as much as possible. also heard from the community feedback on the designs we presented and looking at that connector road as well as the berm. we've gotten dpw and cal train committed to incorporate landscaping to enhance both those projects. lastly, we have heard consistently from the community, the importance of incorporating
6:21 am
a local job opportunities and contracting opportunities and so this funding request includes a request for developing an outreach strategy to go out and engage folks in the community so they can participate in the opportunities that will be available with both of these projects. given the work we've done and the community outreach, we are essentially, i think we kind of presented this conclusion or rather thinking on it initially but further work has essentially found that the option one, the berm option combined with the connector road really are not ideal are the best options we have in terms of maintaining that bridge with the funds we have in terms of facilitating a station and maintaining local
6:22 am
access. and in terms of facilitating other land use activities in the area. those include the pc but go into a little more detail. we also included in this package of improvement and city project for the connector road a vacation of the northeastern portion of quint street. that is in the diagram, the red area. that area actually operates two areas of properties as they work to plan the relocation of those digesters. this package in the connector road project intends to really maximize that compatibility and facilitate that process that we've heard support for.
6:23 am
finally, the purpose of this request is to really iron out some of those final questions and issues that the community has raised that we haven't been able to answer quite yet given the phase of design we're at. there are two pieces of recommendations. the first is to recommend support for cal train to proceed with design of their option one, the berm option for the bridge replacement. that includes allowing them to work with the schedules and coordination with the connector road project to make sure that we're able to minimize that gap enclosure. the second piece of this recommendation is to provide funding for the next phase of connector road design. that includes allocating prop k funds to dpw which will be leading the 30% design effort for the connector road.
6:24 am
that includes environmental review as well as starting right at negotiation. the purpose of that is to get more clarity to the schedule and make sure the connector road can move forward in parallel with the bridge replacement project. really make sure we're minimizing that construction overlap period. lastly to appropriate prop k funds to the authority to continue working on planning and project oversight as well as conducting further rounds of outreach to go into the community with the work that we're going to be doing and providing some answers to the community in the spring before we come back to the board. finally that authority piece does include that local business robust outreach strategy to make sure people are aware of and can participate in those contracting opportunities. we'll come back to the community and back to the
6:25 am
board in the spring with remaining questions in terms of design, schedule and what the strategy is for local business involvement and a little more look at our funding plan. we'll present that the community and board before we recommend any final selection of an option or any further implementing action. we'll come back in the spring with those. with that, i like to take any questions but i also like to note that we have staff here in the audience. we have murphy, tasha bartholomew. thank you. >> thank you for your presentation and all your work. i appreciate the outreach and
6:26 am
community. those go into comments. any member of the public like to comment. we'll do three minutes. >> tony kelly i'm a member. i also went to the committee meeting last month on this subject. i think there's a couple point that's are rather under reported by cta staff. i want to call them to your attention here before you decide to move forward or not. the first is -- the level of opposition to option one, the berm at the last committee meeting was pretty substantial. actually a little bit heated about the closure of quint street and berm option one is the only one that closes quint
6:27 am
street. that got a lot of heat. i think the staff report that to you fully. the reason why i think that's important might be here. you just saw this -- it was just mentioned at the end of the presentation from staff, not only does the pc own this property here, they also own this property here. this portion of quint street, if were not be a street, is more valuable to the pcs to anyone else on the earth it up will fulfill other goals they would have. now, this point wasn't mentioned in this last presentation in september. in fact, i was told by -- we were all told by chris wattling and his blog this proposal of vacating quint street to facilitate pc planning has been in their plan since at least
6:28 am
2009. which predate this whole public outreach process. again, wasn't mentioned at the slack. this is all being done in the transportation planning. it's also there's been no public discussion of value of that street and getting value out of puc for that vacation. need to make a policy decision about the vacation before we bring discussion of value to you. it appears stakeholders are little more important than others. it appears this could be a bit of a gift of the city treat to the p -- street to the poc. it's this authority decision to take one for the team and help
6:29 am
out the city agency on an important project. that's a policy decision for you to make. we should be open about that rather than hiding and claiming that it is simply a transportation planning because it clearly isn't. thank you for listening. >> thank you any other member of the public who would like to comment? seeing none, we will close public comments. cohen you like to come back and perhaps maybe share any response to the comments that were made now about understanding about the land and how that's being used helping come up with option one? >> sure, thanks. i think these are important question and we've been working through the pc you saw there and that vacated piece of property.