Realtime closed captioning provided by u. S. Captioning company. The city of San Francisco sfgtv meeting of the plans and Programs Commission occurring oct 11, 2016, will begin shortly. The city of San Francisco sfgtv meeting of the plans and Programs Commission occurring oct 11, 2016, will begin shortly. The city of San Francisco sfgtv meeting of the plans and Programs Commission occurring oct 11, 2016, will begin shortly. Good morning, and welcome to our plans and Program Committee meeting of the for tuesday october 11, 2016. Im tang, chairing this committee. And to my left we have commissioner v avalos, and peskin and from sfgovtv, we would like to thank jennifer and mark. Could we call the role . Avalos in frechlt present. Farrell . Absent. Peskin. Present. Tang. Present. We have a quorum. Thank you. Item two . Item two, Citizens Advisory Committee report, this is an information item. Welcome chris, our cac chair. Good morning, commissioners. I am here to report on two items that we discussed at our cse meeting this month. Item number four in your packet, the 12. 7 Million Dollar prop k. We approved this unanimously. And it will just make a comment on when we discussed this. Being accustomed to seeing the high dollar amounts to some items some were taken back by the high cost of the much needed protections at the six facilities. And while the contractor portion of the allocation of the request is broken out really well, and i thank mta for providing that. And something that jumps out at us that was not explained and i hope that they can explain today a little bit further, is the nearly 2 million for the Construction Management and support and engineering and project manages management and it seems high. And the prop aa criteria and we approved this unanimously, and it was changed and removed the languages in the plan, and actually added a safety, criteria for the transit category. That is all that i have. Thank you very much for your presentation. Colleagues, any questions or comments in okay, seeing none, thank you very much, we will go to Public Comment on item two. All right. Seeing none, then Public Comment is closed. And that was an information item. Item three, please . Three, approve the minutes of the september 20th, 2016 meeting this is an action item. Questions and comments . Seeing none, we will open it up to Public Comment on item three. All right, seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Motion to approve by commissioner avalos and seconded by peskin. I know, sorry. A little early there. Okay. Second. Thank you, we could do the roll call vote. Commissioner avalos . Aye. Breed. Absent. Farrell . Absent. Peskin . Aye. Tang. Aye. The minutes are approved. Thank you. Item four please. Recommend allegation of 12,713,969 in prop k funds with conditions for two requests subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules this is an action item. Thank you and we are ready for you, the director of the policy and planning. Thank you, good morning, supervisors or commissioners you have the item before you today to allocate just over, 12. 7 million in prop k funds, there are two requests, and one is from the sfmta and this is for the fall protection project. For the construction phase of work. And as they have been reconfigured over the years to create more space for passengers and more of the transit buses have the power and the fuel and their cooling and their Electrical Systems on the roof rather than inside or in the back of the bottom of the vehicle. And so this would up date the Fall Protection System and there is a picture on the slide that maybe we can put on to the overhead for you on the first slide. Just to give you an idea of what is involved, so it would be upgrading the facilities. There are also a host of electrical and system up grades that would be required in addition to just the osha. They Occupational Safety and Health Administrative compliant Fall Protection System and so there will also be and there are electrical switches that are involved and in terms of the overhead power that is involved and so they will have to deenergize and put on the new lighting sit systems this is for 12 million for the main nens facilities as well as the station to facilitate the building mant nens, and the next request of the second of the two requests this is from the public works, and this is for their annual curb ramp request, and the locations are identified in your packet materials. Happy to point you to the pages, district throughout the city 256789 and ten, and the funding will up date, i am sorry upgrade or renovate, 65 new ramps, and they have identified they being dpw, has identified 56 locations and the locations are selected based on the disabilities americans with disability priority criteria. And members of the public can request kurb ramps online. Or by calling the 311 telephone line. And as well. So, i am available to answer any questions that you have and also there are Agency Public project managers here as well. Thank you for your presentation. Just going back to the worker fall protection installations. I know that the cac chair brought up the issue regarding the high cost at around 12 million, could you just explain why the high cost . I will my best. I dont see the staff in the audience, but these are specialized systems, at very, you know, specialized maintenance facilities and so, you can tend to see higher Construction Management costs when there is a variability in the potential, you know, work that would be done because it is a specialized to those facilities. And it is not just necessarily, and there are seven different facilities as well. And so it is not just, you know, a blanket scope of work that would be applied to each of them. So, but i, i am happy to follow up if a committee wishes. And sorry. And so, i mean. So about 14, actually i think that it was about 14 and not just 12 for the total cost. And what are the mta staff using currently . Is it that you were completely replacing them or that they did not exist or. Yes. Complete overhaul. Yeah. So, it varys by facility. And so for example, at mme, at the east facility there is an existing elevated platform. But there are gaps in the platform, edges and that and so that there is also a lack of support railings for example. And then you can compare that to the work for the cameron beach facility with the historic street car maintenance where there is structural strengthening that needs to be added to the dual systems for the tracks where the other tracks dont even have the two railing, and this is for the street car maintenance and so you also have the trolly coach, and the historics and the lrv and the different kinds of facilities as well. And this is not a one size fits all. And you have the different types of vehicles that these folks are going to be on the roofs of maintaining. So, each facility has a relatively specialized need, but they will be designed in compliance with osha standards. Okay, commissioner avalos . Thank you, along the lines of my questions because they were from the mta to be here to share that. And maybe when this comes to the full ta, that they can be available to answer any questions at that time. Absolutely. This is a large allocation and i understand that it is variability in terms of what each facility will have compared to another. I guess that i am curious as well, what or how often the falls are happening . I think that it is important to protect the workers but also i am not sure if that has been an issue and often are these, what we have for the catchment, and it is available to help someone, or have there been injuries, and the information to have in the background as well. Okay. Thank you, commissioner peskin . Well, first of all, i am not, i dont know what the time frame on this is, but it is kind of interesting that mta is not here to answer the questions. The questions that i was going to raise from on the same issue, the fall protection, matter, is that we just built muni metro east. I mean, how or why are there gaps and why arent there railings . Is there a design defect, was that, that it was not constructed to our interest, i mean, why, i mean that it is a brand new facility. And then, as the cable car barn for half a Million Dollars, i mean that i want the worker safety, but they have been painting the roofs of those cable cars for 150 years. I mean, it is not like there is no new roof mounted equipment on the cable cars. Yeah, that is certainly good questions. And i am happy to address them from what i know of the projects. And you know, i do know that there are compliance, and regulations that do get updated over time. And i can certainly follow up to see if something has changed, particular to mme. Yeah. Mentioned in here, so are these osha mandates, are we out of compliance with osha or just tricking this thing out . No, the project is to install the Fall Protection Systems that are compliant with the osha regulations. So that, then, leads to the thinking that what is there is not osha compliant at this point. But i will confirm. Has osha told us that. Yeah. I mean, is this something that considered to be grandfathers by osha, are we under some kind of osha mandate to do this . Or portions thereof . That i dont know how far and what happens if you are out of compliance. And i mean that i know that this is a worker safety, and it is couched as a worker safety capital project. And so, as far as what happens if you are out of compliance, or how long that we have been out of compliance, or even if we are out of compliance or we are in compliance with the former mandate and now they have changed and now we need to upgrade the systems, we can certainly dig into more of the nuances of the compliance issue. Okay. And this to my colleagues, the cable car barn is in district three, and i go there from timetotime and say hi to those folks and they raise a number of issues that i hear about that i have not heard about this issue but that does not mean that it is not legitimate. And i am wondering through ta staff if there is someone from sfmta who would better speak to this here or could we delay this later if someone could come. If that does okay, with the committee, i have a feeling it has to do with the start time of the meeting. Okay. It might be coming at 10 30. But it is certainly up to the committee. Okay. So i would like to suggest that maybe we delay item four until later. And because my other follow up question was which i asked the ta staff as well, was i know that from the last transportation bond measure that we passed a large chunk was actually going towards renovating our facilities, muni mant nens facilities, and so, you know, when they are rebuilt, or i dont know what the plans are for the time line, but if we are going to be spending about 14 Million Dollars i am just wondering, how that plays into the time line for some of the other facilities that will be either renovated or completely rebuilt. Definitely. Do we have something to add here, or next item . We are going to be joined by commissioner farrell and i think, that again, it seems that there is agreement that we will continue item four until later in this meeting. Okay. Thank you. And then at that time, we will also take Public Comment. So, at this moment, why dont we go to item five . All right. Item five. Recommend approval of the 2017, prop aa Strategic Plan policies and screening criteria. This is an action item. Good morning, prop aa was approved by voters in 2010, and generates revenues from a 10 registration fee, to fund the transportation improvements and includes a plan that governors the program, and compared to prop k that has revenues of is 00 mer year, the program is pretty small closer to 5 million annually, and prop k has 40 categories, the aa plans divides the funds between three, street repair, and transit reliability. And to help this program have a big impact, prop aa, is focused on quick to deliver the projects that brings the projects to the cities city wide. The aa plan requires the Transportation Authority to develop a Strategic Plan including a five year Priority Program of projects for each category before the funds are allocated and we are in the final year of the program developed for the 2012, plan and so it is time to develop a 2017 shths plan with the programming for the fiscal years, 2017, to 18, to 21, 22, we anticipate having, 23. 2 Million Dollars available over the five years. Which is less than was available for the 2012, Strategic Plan due to the additional year of collection. So the prop aa is strategic double a, updates are guided by two key documents, that were recommended for minor visions and that is the action item before you this morning. And the first is the prop aa Strategic Plan that provides guidance on managing the program and including allocation, and expenditure of funds, and the first one is the screening and priority criteria. And for funding within the three categories. And we can consider the proposed revisions to both documents minor, as they are primarily focused on stream lining and clarifying the language and adding references to the initiatives such as vision zero. Once this guidance is in place for the 2017, plan we will release the call for projects to solicit applications from project sponsors. The call for projects amount is based on new revenue, over the next five years. You may recall that we updated the forecast in february, and based on actual revenue, collected since the inception of the program and we are recommending maintaining that same, forecast of about, 4. 8 Million Dollars per year, additionally, two projects have been completed under budget and so we have about a half Million Dollars to add to the pot. Finally, to provide a comfortable buffer, we are recommending setting aside, 260,000 to restore the Program Reserve to 500,000, which is about ten percent of the annual revenue. And we just saw that each program and each aa category has a target percentage of the total funds over the 30 years of the plan. And for the 2012, plan, as some projects have been completed under budget, things have not quite lined up with those targets. And so we are recommending setting the amounts available in each category to bring those categories back in line with the target percentages. You will notice, for example that will result in more being available in the transit category verses the pedestrian category. So after this committee and the board act on this item, we anticipate releasing the call for the projects by november first, we have already been discussing the up coming call with the eligible Public Agency and the private sponsors via the Technical Working Group and plan to host the workshop in november. And we intend to get sponsors until mid january to submit applications and after evaluating, we will be back in march with the recommendations and we will start to see the requests of the first of the new projects at your meeting next june. And finally, while your attention is focused on prop aa, i wanted to give you an up date. As amended it will program, 27 million to 22 projects. And then we are close to the deliveries on track, with 23 million having been allocated and eleven million are opened for use, including the new, transit plans plaza pedestrian connector that just opened at city college on the first, and there is a fact sheet in your packet that has the information on the additional completed projects. And we are anticipating bringing the two final requests for the 2012, plan next spring and they will be for the transit improvements and the pavement on geary. And with that i can take any questions. Thank you, i know that the changes are minor, and just in what you explained as the guidelines and the other one which was related to how you evaluate the projects, could you explain like what the changes will be materialally, in terms of your work . It would be great, thanks. In terms of our we have rolled that into the phase, which is how we typically handle requests. And i think that we have eliminated a couple of places where there were literally redundant language edited for the clarity. And we have done a couple of things that, like if you have unspent funds at the end of a phase, the prop aa funded, we had previously said, you know, that the language is a little bit ambiguous, it says that you could return the funds to the project, even if the next phase was funded by another source, or Something Like that. Now we are saying, that, if it is does not have a future prop aa funded phase, that needs to return to the prop aa pot, and so examples of that, and so in terms of reading, yeah, in terms of the screening criteria, we have as for consistency with the plans, and we have tried to make that a little bit more flexible in terms of not being city wide adopted plans but the agency adopted plans just to show that these projects or priorities as to the agencies. And in terms of we used to lump kind of a need and a relative need in terms of time in these relative need of safety and we have broken that out, so that we are focusing in the general priority on the time sensitivity, and then we will try to address, safety concerns within the Program Specific priority criteria. And is that. Yeah, i as a layperson, i didnt quite understand the language so. Yeah, sorry. So these criteria, feed directly into how we score the applications once we receive them, and so it is important for them to be a little bit wonky in terms of their position. Thank you. All right, thank you very much. Colleagues any other questions or comments on item five. We will go to Public Comment. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. This is action item we will do a roll call vote. Avalos . Aye. Breed. Absent. Farrell . Aye. Peskin. Aye. Tang. Aye. The item is approved. Thank you. Item six, please . Item six, recommend approval of San Francisco input on the plan bay areas 2040, draft preferred scenario, this is an action item. Thank you, we have amber kros. Excellent, thank you. Amber crab and i am with the Transportation Authority. And so today, i think that you have seen this every month, plan bay area, but we will be nearing this finish line and we are going to review and come up with a recommendation for our input into the draft preferred scenario that mta and abag released last month. And so as a reminder, planned bay area is basically the transportation, and the strategies for the bay area, through, 2040, and this is administered and approved by the metropolitan Transportation Commission and the association of the bay area governments and the time line wise, we have been looking at this since you approved the goals and the objectives last september. And since then, mt, and we have issued a call for projects and mtc has annized the projects and the over all scenarios for how they stack up against performance measures, last month, they released the draft transportation strategies and in the land use scenarios for the plan bay area. The next month they will be adopting those and the final plan will be adopted in or between july, and september of next year. With respect to the over all plan, and the investment strategy, this, this shows that the plan has about 309 billion dollars in it. 74 billion of which is a discretionary dollars that mtc has to give out to projects. And you can see, by the pie chart, the vast majority of it is for transit state of good repair and local streets and roads state of the good repair with some of the minor chunk of the pie less than ten percent for the actual expansion projects. With respect to the so this is where we will start again into the input that was in your provide, which was attachment three of the excuse me of the memo, and basically, with respect to the transportation, thumbs up and we are happy, they are meeting all of our goals and objectives by increasing the investment in the state of good repair, and in the core capacity, and then with respect to the new starts and the small starts and the core funds in particular, which is the big transit expansion funds, and the extension and the cal transare included in the list of priorities but we are getting an increase in the bart core capacity, investment proposed and then geary and bus rapid, transit and better Market Street are the San Francisco projects that are added to the regional priorities. The housing story is much less than good as you may expect. Between, 2011, and 2015, in the urban core, we built one house, for every seven jobs created leading as you can expect to significant increases in costs of housing. This is just a snapshot of the very aggressive assumptions that mtc and abag are making with respect to how much we have to produce, in order to meet what they project the need to be. Through 204 on and this is just through the housing and the jobs projection is actually more aggressive and San Francisco in particular, both jobs and housing are very aggressive targets more so than plan bay areas as shown here. We have been working with the Planning Department and they have looked at the numbers and think that they are very aggressive but probably achievable in the realm of possibility but that has to happen the only way that can happen, is significant investment and up front investment of real money in infrastructure that we need to support the growth as one of the key areas that the region is proposing to build both job housing and jobs. Probably one of the biggest issues that has come up with proposed preferred scenario, is the equity components of the targets that analyze and the tloo he that actually moved in the wrong direction, or not even not achieving your goal, but actually making it worse was housing and transportation affordability, and increasing the risk of displacement and missing access to jobs. And i think in San Francisco, in particular, the affordability and the displacement issues are pretty huge. And mtc and abag are aware of this. They have heard from their commissioners and from the public that it is a huge concern. They are going to do what they can getting to the draft preferred scenario approval, in next month. But they have committed to between now and july, and september, when they are going to be adopting the final plan, to bring back some more potentially research, and potential policy measures that could be implemented in the final plan. With respect to the transportation, transportation, is the tiny, tiny portion of when you look at the affordability for transportation and land use. We could do things to help increasing in investment and things like late night transportation. And mean spaced programs and vision zero. And we could make these kind of equity based transportation improvements up front, and then also do some way of prioritizing this regional funding for jurisdictions that are doing the right thing. But as i said, transportation is just a small part of the over all problems. So with respect to land use, clearly, the solution is build, build, build, and build affordable and make sure that it is happening in a way that protects existing communities. And it is impossible, and there is no easy solution in this. And i think that we are all struggling to identify a solution. And the ones that in brain storming with the Planning Department and other jurisdictions across the region, there is also a need to more money. But the money that we have is just going to be a drop in the bucket and so we need to aggressively seek out the funding of the state and federal level, but also, consider, at the regional level, maybe a job housing linkage fee and Something Like a parcel tax across the region, to really demonstrate, the financial commitment to affordable housing. And financing, is also really important, in moving these projects forward, which could be done kind of creatively. And then, providing what little support we have for kind of creative pkree a pilot programs Like Community empowerment and other programs that could potentially be replicated throughout the region. As far as what is next, as i said, we will be, we have asked you to provide input that we can send to mtc and abag, this month for approval next month, and we will be working over the next year or so as the mtc builds the draft scenario into the final scenario for adoption. And some time between july and september next year. So, i know that is a lot. Moving quickly now, but it would be happy to hear any input that you have. Thank you very much. For your presentation. Commissioner avalos . Thank you for your presentation and i spent, two and a half or three years on the abag and so i got to see a lot of the presentations over and over again for the first grant program. Yes. It was actually really informative for me. Especially looking at how to be able to work towards funds for Transit Oriented Development in my district. And funding is a big issue. And so, part of my work to get funds for tod and the District Eleven was to do the housing bond. And at the mayor done last year and getting the housing bond up to 310 million and enabled the projects in my district to get funded and this has also been you know, the effort for one bay area grant, the money has been strong for District Eleven to be able to get mansel to be built and so we were able to couple together, the grant money as well as the other mtc money, and park money for that to happen. And it is really critical. Except there is no, these are just guidelines, in terms of what we are adopting, or what we want to put forward today. We have an issue, and you know, we are on our border that came up last year, or last week, about this land, that is going to be built on supposedly, all solely for the office space and it under scores the challenge about doing Regional Planning when you have the cities and municipalities that are seeking only to look at their bottom line and not the regional needs that we have that we are all connected and so that has been super important and San Francisco has been a leader because we are to make sure that we are actually hitting all of our goals around the sustain Able Community strategy. And looking at transportation, and housing has been huge, in terms of the investments that we have been making as a city and i think that we will continue to do that and it is important that we adopt from our point of view, the strongest you know, priorities that we can in this process. So that will help to lead other municipalities to follow suit. So if you are able that what we have here are really strong guidelines that support our effort i will like to hear that i think that the transportation is strong, and the land use and the job site is an incredible challenge, without the Additional Resources i think that it will be very difficult. And you are right, that we are leading the collaring both respect to policies and creation and housing and it is a big list, and i think that the region is thinking about what it can do. But there are limitations without the significant additional investment in housing and a new fund source for it. In the process we are calling for more funds for housing and we are calling for the greater equity in terms of housing, and around, transportation, and serving communities that are left out of strong connections between the two . Yes. So i think if that is what we are putting forward, i want to. Okay, great, yes, that is what we are saying. Okay, great, thanks for those communities and the commissioners any other questions or comments on this . Okay. Well, seeing none, then why dont we open up item 6 to Public Comment. Any members of the public that wish to speak . Okay, seeing none, Public Comment is closed and if he can get a motion on item six please . Motion to approve . All right. Avalos and seconded by farrell and we are joined by commissioner breed and we will do a roll call vote. Avgs. Aye. Breed. Aye. Farrell. Aye. Peskin. Aye. Tang. Aye. The item is approved. Thank you. Item seven, please . Up date on the rail yard alternative and i280 boulevard Feasibility Study and this is an information item. All right, thank you and we have susan, and i apologize that i cant pronounce. Ngeegee. Well my name is susan and i am the Program Manager for what is called the rail yard alternative on the boulevard. And the Feasibility Study, also known just shortly as the rab. Rad looks at the big moves in the structure, they are coming to the San Francisco including the cal train. And the high speed rail. And the Transbay Transit Center, while they are informed by each other, each of these big items are planned to construction and constructed independent of one another. Next slide . The rad study is begun to understand, how the projects and others, layer on each other to fully understand the impacts to the city as a whole, and in addition, the study will provide, Vital Information to the public and the Decision Makers to make informed decisions for the area and the city not just project by project. This slide provides a kick look at the schedule for the study, the next meeting is anticipated around the beginning of this year and we will be including the full alternatives and the estimate and benefits and impacts. And in addition, to the Community Engagement that is being or that happens throughout the project. And will continue through the rest of the study, the Community Working group has been established. And the cwg is a diverse body made up of 22 representatives covering a broad interest of the community, surrounding cal train and all sides of mission bay, the members represent the area residents, and cac and the large employers and developers and advocacy groups and allow for a thorough assessment of the needs of the area, as a study evaluates the community and interest and impacts. How are the 22 seats selected for this working group . We actually put out, a request for interest. And received more than the 22 seats that we had. We had listed out what we thought were the 22, what we thought were the seats available, and we had the people identify and selfidentify as well as reaching out to the entire area of the city ch San Francisco and we put it up on the website, and we specifically targeted cacs in the area and we contacted both district six and district ten supervisors. And to let them know that we were putting together the city wide, or this Community Working group. And that is, and then, we went through the applications and selected the individuals who are currently sitting on the cwg. Okay, and so, when you say or who, who ended up being the people selecting the 22 members . Okay, so we have individuals so, david bryant david shau, represents in the district six, and ron, represents the district ten, and represents the bay view, cac, and daniel represents the eastern neighborhood, cac. And woods represents the mission bay cac. And james haws represents the sfcta, and bruce represents the tjpac. And jackson the south east, mission bay area, and brian skully hill and we actually have multiple people so rick hall, and jr epler and all kind of sit in the area. And sophie max well, represents the south east, and represents spur and generjennifer represene college of the arts, and david represents the business community. And in the area, and alice represents the Housing Advocacy group, and nathan represents the bicycle and pedestrian, and howard, represents environmental and transportation. And ted olsen, represents the junior and disability, community and leven represents the transportation, and business related enterprises. All right. Thank you very much. Sorry, you will have to excuse me, i am kind of getting over something. There are five components to the study, each component makes up a package of big moves to improve the access and quality of life to the east side of the city, while the pieces are related they all have independent value for the city, most immediate and what i am going to focus on today is component number one because it needs to be fully understood. In addition the study also looks at potential loops for to add to the capacity of the transit center, third, whether the second rail yard in the south is possible to be operation needs of the high speed rail and cal train, and fourth the roll of the i280 freeway, and the northern most miles is most valuable to that community as an elevated freeway, allowing the trips to fly over the neighborhood or if there is a reasons to consider the potential to change the northern section into the surface boulevard. Please note that there has been some misunderstandings related to the study. Most importantly, none of the options under considerations require any changes to i280. And something to note, not everything not all of the components are likely on the same time lines, but we are studying them together for the full picture. So, sorry. The first component includes the downtown rail extension or how to get the cal train surface tracks into the center. Tjpa is constructing the center as you know, in the yellow on the graphic. And it is slated for opening in december of 2017, for levels three, four and five. And face two, includes levels one and two, and that is the, that will hold the train box and the concourse. And it will connect the current train surface tracks from the rail yard and, it will include an underground station, and all of the tracks in the center, all of the rail components including the trakz and the concourse, and everything is etc. Are included in face two. The current budget is 4 billion and from tjpa is stated that it can begin construction no earlier than 2019, and completed no earlier than 2026, the funding for the dtx has not been secured, and some of the funding from the city through the district, was used to pay for the building currently being constructed. But the dtx is not the whole story. How we get from the current, sorry, it is in the whole story, and to the transbit center. And it will grade separate, and till have to grade separate, the drive and those are the only two connections currently between the east side and the west side of the freeway in this area due to the amount of gate down time at each intersection, or the time that the gates come down, and the vehicles cant go across that intersection. This graphic shows the last plan provided with these intersections as well as on the bottom lefthand corner, a representative example of who 16th street could look like. So with that in mind, the first option under consideration for the first component as shown in green is not only just the dtx but what happens to the city if we build the dtx as currently designed and cleared. This option includes the downtown rail extension as cleared and existing alignment and under the existing construction methods and cal train electrified and the city trenches the streets at 16th and mission bay and there are no additional connection points in the study, to move across the city in the east west direction. The other two alignments, shown in orange and the mission ba i alignment shown in blue, sorry. Include additional separation, or moving the rail towards under growth. And which then opens up the grid to allow more connection points between east and west side of the city and through mission bay in both cases the additional tunnelling for the trains will be completed using the machines similar to what is being constructed for the central subway. Each of these three alignments have the only opportunities which the study is now investigating. If these opportunities remain feasible, then they will be the type of policy choices that they will bring to the board as laid out previously, before that time, we will also be flushing out to better understand the trade off between the benefits and costs and schedules to aid in that future decision making. Before you ask, to answer the questions about cost, we are currently in the process of premaring estimates of probable cost as well as schedule implications and anticipate taking both of those items to the public towards the end of this year. I have more information in you want to know more about the other four components. But i thought that i would stop there, i know that you wanted to know mostly about the alignments. Thank you. Commissioner peskin . So, through the chair the four billion dollar number that you gave us for the current alignment, does that include the neo brutal grade separations or does not include them . It does not include the grade separations that would occur at both 16th and mission bay druf. So do you have an approximate number of what it will be worth . So we are going through the process of vetting all of those numbers and we will have them towards the end of year as full alternatives. That 16th street, rendering that you showed us looks like a massive undertaking and i dont do those kind of projects but is a half a billion dollars in the ballpark for Something Like that. It is likely more than that. There are utilities that have to be dealt with, at that location as well. And that is a pretty deep and the rernales are not great in that location, and the strengths of what would be called the trenching or depressing, so that it gets under the street, would be pretty significant. But we will end also und culdesacking the intersecting roads or depressing those to meet the new grade. Yeah that looks like some 950s, style stuff. And in terms of invier mental clearances i mean that you have made it clear that of the four billion or as you have now just said, relative to the grade separations close to passed four and a half up to 5 billion dollars. The much of that money is not yet accounted for, as a matter of fact some of the money even though the money was used for phase one, the transbay terminal, but, in terms of environmental clearances in so far as it is my understanding that the downtown extension alignment, that we are looking at is an environmentally cleared, correct . Correct. They are currently completing an impact statement and report, and it came out for comment in december of 2015, and they are hoping, i think that the schedule is to issue early in 2017. And the port or the two alignments that we are looking at, pennsylvania alignment, and so the portion of the side of the dtx will have to be cleared. And it will be a separate endeavor, and the mission day alignment will have to be cleared. But, funnel boring environmental clearance is slightly easier, than the mining that are the construction melth odds of the downtown rail extension. I guess that the big question is that i am help follow with the information in so far as it looks like you appear to be wrapping up your work come this coming june. The question is at that point, and i have an opinion on this, and i dont think that any of us have the information on it yet, but we have to embark on a new document and in so far as the backdrop to this is that the full Commission Voted to withhold the 6 million, which in the grand scheme of the project is nothing. But if we are going to proceed with some level of design, the question is and we delay that, some number of months, are we really having an out year delay that is much longer because of Environmental Review for another alignment . Yeah. I cant answer that, because we are going through the schedule implications and analysis right now. I will have more information at the Public Meeting associated with all of the alignments and the elements associated with the study. And so you will be able to fully understand all of the benefitses, costs, and all of the schedule and implications, how these things fit together, that being said, the goal of everybody would be to make sure that high speed rail and cal train can make it to the Transbay Transit Center, if not before, absolutely by when the high speed rail goes from la to San Francisco, which is by, 2029 and that was originally when it was supposed to open, and i dont know if you, remember that. But, the dtx was always, slated to start in 2022, 2023, Something Like that. But to open by, 202 , when the high speed rail was going from la to San Francisco, at that time, what the high speed rail did in february of this year. They switched instead of going from the Central Valley to la first, they came to the Central Valley to San Francisco first and they are planning to come in the thinking until the downtown rail extension or until you get from the current alignment to the ttc. Is built. And then relative to one of the things that i was asking about at our last plans and programs Committee Meeting which was the widening of the throat going in to the transbay terminal. Is there any new information that might indicate that we dont have to widen it as far . As much . So, most of the planning and engineering of the downtown rail extension has been completed by the transbay joint powers authority, and that is their legislative directive to move the, to move the, and to provide the access from the cal transcurrent end of the line at basically, at fourth and king, into the transbay, transit center. And so, i am, not specifically the right person, there are some things that i think that we could look at. And but i am not sure as to what we could do. There is always value engineering and we can take a look. Has there been recent talk by the high speed rail of having the shorter trains and not double . Yeah, so the high speed rail, maybe two or three weeks ago. Originally they were planning on having almost 1400 foot, long train lengths. And two or three weeks ago, they issued a letter to their engineers that stated that they were going to be moving to an 800 foot, and so basically the half of a train, or it, or half of a train set. Essentially. And so, instead of being 1400 feet, which required the downtown train box to be extenlded another block, in the graphic that had the dtx in on it, it is the extension of the green behind the orange box i think on slide three. And our, it is on slide five, i think. And seven. Originally, the Transbay Transit Center that is being constructed is not and was not going to be long enough to hold the high speed rail train and so in phase two with the downtown rail extension they were going to bump out the east side by another block and extend that. With high speed rail going to 800 foot, train lengths, is unknown to me as to whether or not they will still need to extend. It or the train box is now big enough for 800 foot, but the high speed rail have not and tjpa have not stated whether or not the extension will be part of the downtown rail extension construction. And then, the funding plan for the four billion. How it that supposed to work . So there is a funding strategy associated. And the tjpa in june of 2016 at their board meeting, laid out the Funding Sources that they anticipated going after, which included, a new sales tax measure, and there are people from tjpa if they would like to scott would you like to identify. I would rather not speak for tjpa. Good morning, supervisor peskin restate the question . What is the funding strategy for the downtown extension is . It included, 650 million, that is expected to increase. And 350 in 500 or seven million from the high speed rail, and 300 million. You got us to less than half of the four billion. Okay. We have 7 million and inaudible and 275 billion and million in inaudible and that is the amount remaining from what we used for phase one. We also have the increment between 200 million, to 240 million available for ti, after we funded the phase one. And we will have it from the black four. And once we opened the new terminal, and on the land. And the passing of facilities charged that we have put together inaudible noly meeting pass, and to get to the financial district, and inaudible because inaudible a month, divided by h44 trips, and the dollar 60 to 2026, and it becomes two dollars. So, what we are advocating is for inaudible if i may, the one quick question, the million and the billion dollars that you are anticipating to generate, is that assuming that only San Francisco is implementing this charge . Yeah, it is between, 65 million to 1. 9 billion. No this is for cal train, board and high speed rail and have to agree to it. It is the actions will be done by the cal train boards and the high speed rail boards. And it will be passengers using cal trans. And high speed rail. A few things on that, one is the what is the rider ship that goes right now to fourth and king . I dont have the exact numbers. What we did is we took on the cal train. We have that number. About 30,000. No actually in 2016, the average daily rider ship at the fourth and king rail yard which is just shy of 15,000 passengers per day on cal train. In 2030, rider ship if it goes all the way to the center is supposed to be around 30,000. And then in high speed rail they dont have 2030, numbers they have 2040, numbers and that is an additional 32. So it is 60 to 70,000 people once the Transbay Center is up and running for many, many years. So i am just doing the rough math on that because you dont have that kind of rider ship on the weekends and so if you net out the weekends and you end up with, i mean that is like 15 million a year, i dont know how that gets you into the hundreds of millions. We can share that information, and are supervisor peskin, to take the numbers that we have from the high speed and run the numbers and give them to us. But again as part of the path that we have is to do the study and we need to confirm the numbers and we are doing with what we have and the information with the numbers that we have, obviously we have to get the numbers out and to do that we need to do the study to find out, not who comes to cal tran, we know how many people come. We count them. The question is how many of them come to the financial district . How many of them get on muni . And ride their bikes and that is the number that we need to zero in on and do a robust rider ship study to do that and the same thing for the high speed rail, with he need to get the high speed rail numbers to find out what they are, and are they optimistic and figure out how many of them are going to come to San Francisco verses the stop before. That is a work in progress. Two things on the high speed rail numbers. Issue number one, is the elephant in the room is their wildly optimistic, those numbers were backed into to come up with the funding strategy to high speed rail and they are dubious at best. But the other issue is that, high speed rail is predicated on a San Francisco to la trip being no more expensive than an airplane trip. And so that ultimately is a constraint. And to the extent that San Francisco starts putting passenger facility fees on, and san jose starts to put the passenger fees on, we will exceed that constraint and dome the high speed rail, and it just seems like a house of cards. If i can address that. You know the question is, with the passage of the facilities that were advocating for. It is whether you build the action obrien n dtx or not. They come on fourth and king and get to uber or taxi and they have to get there somewhere and they have their lusage and we are telling them dont pay the uber stay on the train and give us that ten dollars. Cal train riders will have the choice. Park and king will be available and can get off and walk or stay on the train and come to the transit center. So it is really a choice. If we dont build it, on fourth and king do what they are doing right now. If we built it, we will give them that option. And i am not saying that the fupding plan that i presented to you has no holes in it, it is a starting point for us to be able to fully fund the project. What i am saying is that we have the significant amount of funding available, and this is a work in progress, and again as i mentioned before, this is a regeneral project it has to have the support of the region, support to be able to be delivered, if there is a support in the region, it is not going to be delivered. Question . So we state that this is a four billion dollar estimated project. But as someone had answered commissioner peskin question earlier, it does not include the potential grade separation that would need to be done at 16th potentially. And so how come we are not including that cost in there, and it seems like it would be quite high. Yeah. And our document, and and that is why we are not making improvements in that area. Kwha susan presented is the two optio options it is not part of the scope. I get that it is not, i guess, it is not part of the scope, however, i mean that it is kind of part of the project and i we have to find the money for that work and so i am just wondering what are some of the ideas around funding for that portion. That is the project will be puggy backing on what susan provided and if we go with the alignment that she has and that will further underground, the dtx into the 20 second, for cal train and it separates all of the streets in between. For all of the projects what we did to accommodate that, is we built a tunnel and about 100 Million Dollars. Hi, commissioners. Megan murphy, i am the phase two manager, and and i just want to let you know that actually the great separations are not part of our scope because they are not actually being environmentally cleared by the high speed rail authority. And because they are not required by the cpc at this time, with the anticipated level of service. I understand that, but i am just trying to get a better grasp of the sort of birds eye view down the road. And what are our general thoughts around funding. And the great separation to occur, and the indrement to the cost, and it is not just a San Francisco issue and this is a regional investment and a state wide facility as well, and we need to bring in the partners and the local, traditional sources in addition nontraditional sources or the other sources that have brought to bear on the project and this could be another, facility and district and it could also be potential tax increment and those approaches of what we call value capture, because certainly, of whatever, investments that we make will confer the value to the area and i believe that the Planning Department is also looking at that opportunity there is also, tolz and revenue and the other sources that we can add to the funding mix and i know that you mentioned that just being out in the alignment is first and foremost, the most important and so, the five components have options and i have shown you the first three, and there is options for each of the five con poentmentes and for the options and for the alternative and that is what we are costing and the schedule impacts but if it is acting in late this year or early next year, and we will be coming back to you as well, as the board of supervisors. And with that information, and then we are hoping to take back in june with the conversation as to how should the city really look in the city. Where do we want to go with the big moves that are coming, and if we dont, if we dont plan and execute them, with the full understanding, these are 100 year decisions and so, we are not going to get another bite at the apple. For 100 plus years and so we need to understand that we are doing and make the best decisions for the south east and the city as a whole. Okay. So, maybe when you have the information and the various options and the last thing that i wanted to go back to address, is regarding the kind of representation and in terms of the community or the advisory body. I believe that there was, mention that there was someone who represented the sfpta and but i dont believe that is the case and i know that our cac chair is here. And just wanting to make sure that we have that comprehensive representation on there. So, i dont know if that is something that we can work out. And maybe we can address that with the cta, but it seems like i believe that it was commissioner who is not really on their or not representative of the cta. In addition, the immediatings are open to the public and anyone can attend the next meeting is october 18th and if you go to stdash planning. Org slab rab. There is a link and you can find out where it is and what it is and you can get the presentations from the previous meetings and we will be updating those as we go through the process. Right now we are meeting monthly, and so we have two meetings and this will be the third. And we provided a walking tour of the area. And it is, and it is really kind of fascinating to see how this group is kind of really delving into the specifics and understanding how these things truly do, it is a spider web, like you touch one of them and it ripples through the entire process. And so it is i always say that i have been with the project for two plus years and i still get the headaches, five days a week and these are big moves and we want to make them right. If i could ask you to connect with the cac chair to make sure that there was someone from the ta that will be great. Commissioner peskin . I just for the edification of this panel, if you could just give us your history, and this type of work. Okay, so i am both i have a masters in planning and engineering, and Civil Engineering from the university of washington, and i have a pe and i have planned and designed and constructed and operated and maintained all modes of transportation, including rail and bikes and pedestrians and transit agencies. And so i mean to work for the conducting over for the public work for not how many years, but it has a two in front of a zero, plus. We will open up item seven for Public Comment any members of the public that wish to speak. I did want the authority, and the committee chair. Thank you commissioner tang for asking i believe that this should be part of the scope of this. And one billion dollars will have to be spent one way or the other. Whether that gets the 16th street gets the greatly realigned, or you get pennsylvania that that money is going to have to be found in z in order to keep that hostile running. I work at mission bay, and i walk this area every day. The as you commissioner peskin pointed out. The neo brutalists approach. Off of the 1950s. Of the great separation of 16th street, is not going to work. I would be very disappointed. There you new homes in that area, and it is becoming a vibrant neighborhood, and to greatly separate 16th street, would destroy that. It weighs heavily on this decision, and finally, let me ask, it is just a point of how things are presented, and often times the images that we get and it is a complicated project and to just have to rearrange all of our thinking on looking at these images. And how you see them, and to have them all the same time, that is all, thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker please . In the housing and next to the terminal and we are in the final stages. And we should be out of this in a year or two, and i am also a member of the public fairs and i bring that aspect to the thing and the rab, 22 people are a distinguished group and it is chaired now by ron, who you all know. And i think that you, and we have the difficulty finding a more experienced group of people. There is always room for more. But, i think that you can rest assured that it is a very substantial group, and the project was misnamed because it has i280 in the title and because earlier in the year there was a lot of higher ventilating going on over the whole project was designed to tear it down. And miss geegee, in her slides forgot to mention that that is a vague option in the future. And the heart of what we are doing is dealing with how to bring the train downtown. And i can assure you in from our first two meetings that that is where everybody attention is. That there is nobody there talking about tearing down, and there is in fact, probably a group of people who will be highly opposed to that. I dont know. And the last thing that i want to say is that as i mentioned to you a month ago, the transbay extension that has been before you, was graded almost, 15 years ago, before mission bay came to life. Those trenches, supervisor peskin mentioned are 20 lthth century and they are toeltally out of the question for today,thy met with ucf and they could not live with that. The California College of the arts is planning the campus next door and they are opposed. So we need to rethink this, thank you. Any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item seven . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed that was an information item. So at this time i believe that we have someone here for is he still on the way . Ei am sorry . Okay, item eight first . Okay, item eight, then. Item eight, up date on the freeway Corridor Management study this is an information item. Thank you, is this andrew hidel . Yes, good morning, senior planner with the transportation authori authority. So as mention the item is updated for the current status for the ongoing, freeway corridor, got it and, yeah, first i would like to start with the quick refresher on the freeway corridor study, it was a study on the task from the 2013, counsel wide plan which recommended exploring way to better manage our existing freeway as settassets in San Francisco. It focuses on the u. S. 101, and the i280 corridors for the travel to and from downtown San Francisco and the eastern neighborhoods and points south, this is excluding the bay bridge and the i80, between the freeway, and we anticipate to be able to cover those in the future phases of the project. There is a need to explore in this area, it is an pis tated that 100 new person trips per day will travel through the corridor, which will be enough to fill one bus per minute, and it is important to mention that this is to it, and only, the high speed rail and other project will help to relieve some but not all of this demand, muni has released equity straltgy, and a number of bus routes, such as the 14 x, and the 8 bx and to note that they serve the local and travel needs, we include the partners and the cal trans and the county to the south. In this study and process. It divided into two phases in march of 2015, identified six major goal areas to frame the evaluation of alternatives in this phase two. And many of the goals are focused around a few principals and number one, there is no appetite for the significant freeway construction or freeway expansion in San Francisco and that is the objectives should be focused on managing the assets that we have today while insuring. Whats call a toll of caprice lane they travel for free and express lanes have the advantage to be used for the full capacity awhile having travel saving for those that carpool allowing the amount of vehicles that fill the lane but not causes it to slow down the lanes have commissioner caen implemented in california and the bay area and only recently for those types of plans systems are operating at alameda and santa clara and Vicki Hennessey e contracosta alameda scheduled to open soon id like to introduce and here to express their plans for operating in alameda is our executive director for the Transportation Commission as well as a Senior Engineer for the county. Welcome and supervisor avalos did you have a question. Ill wait until the end. Thank you good morning, commissioners im is e listing the Operation Manager and wanted to talk about alameda as an operating express lane this presentation will give you a little bit of the history of the why we permit the express lanes and how and the what now of our express lane program in the late 19 noticing or 19 noticing thousand of jobs were in i call it silly hall. This caused a shift in the way that commuters got around the commute pattern at a point the low grade was identified as a congested corridor in 1998 the coalition as formed it was