tv [untitled] September 22, 2012 10:00pm-10:30pm PDT
conversations going on with multiple supervisor's offices, mta and caltrains about what a near term possibility s. the authority in partnership with the agencies did planning grant application in past cycle regarding that conceptual work and visioning. unfortunately it was declined in this cycle but putting this together and estimating what that level of effort would be, positions as well for that work and continue to work with partners on that issue. >> all those sound like not really good options. >> it is a challenge. it is a tough nut to crack in terms of the trade-offs and impacts to the different communities. a lot thinking the monterey ramp would have significant im markets but it is not
going northward much. a lot take it southbound but going northbound it doesn't serve as high levels of traffic as you might think. >> that monterey boulevard is not actually monterey. >> you come from eastbound monterey. >> you take a left. >> well, it is almost like a straight. monterey boulevard goes one direction, you go to the right. >> this is the -- when you are coming from the monterey boulevard toward glen park, you face sort of a fork in the road. you take a left, you go diamond to the bart station. if you take a slight right you go onto the ramp that justin is talking about. leads to san jose by russo. where the bike lane starts essentially. the problem is you have cars coming in and wanting
to weave into the stream of traffic with the cars that are coming at much higher speed from the freeway, as well as the cars that are coming from the other side of san jose avenue into the bernal cut so the bike lane is hanging in the balance. a good amount of traffic headed from san jose avenue off-ramp northbound wants to take russo to go into glen park so you have crossings on the bike lane. that is the problem. >> in a more robust planning process where we are able the bring transportation engineers in and designers there could be an opportunity where all three connectivity points could be preserved but might involve more aggressive changes to how that is configured or how
land use trade-offs or circulation trade-off modes so those are questions we want answered in collaboration with the community and partners. >> is there more discussion going back to san he say between randall and all the areas were, this convergence, where the gutter is. actually talking about using the sidewalk area to be both bicycle and pedestrian -- there's very few pedestrians but a lot of bicycles that use that site. i would be great to move out of the gutter to that space. >> sure. if i understand your question, you are talking about the sidewalk which you see -- northbound bernal cut. >> this area, there is maybe an opportunity to use some of this wholly for bicycles. clearly would involve curb construction, which greatly increases cost of designing. certainly for a long-term
vision, medium-term vision that would be possible. there is an additional pedestrian facility up the hill, which is much more pleasant to walk on. some community gardens and what not. very few pedestrians on that segment. >> we look to the possibility of relocating the light poles that are practically on the curb on that northbound sidewalk to top of parapet, that keeps the hillside from coming down. pretty expensive receive things. part of a long-range vision. that would free up the entire sidewalk and maybe, you know, extending that a little bit within the perimeter of the current bike lane. you'd have a facility wide enough to do both. pedestrian and bicycle movement without the hazard of having the light poles
in the way of moving bicycle. again, we are talking about fairly significant amendments of money. >> this is the biggest connector from this part of san francisco towards the northern part of san francisco. yeah, we have to figure out how to make these investments, do it right. stuff like this has to get done. we are seeing more and more cyclists coming from there, which is great. >> go back to the slides. i won't dwell on all the finding, i think i have touched on them throughout the presentation. the real story of octavia boulevard, what it is. as i mentioned before,ly reiterate, it did bring sitting benefits to the community. some traffic diverted else where. as this part of town grows and we seek to provide robust alternatives for folks to get to their
destinations via walking, biking, transit, ride sharing, car sharing, we will be challenged to do so to make sure these high traffic volumes don't impair the neighborhood's ability to grow and we are recognizing that travel patterns are really diverse and that we will have to be creative, supporting employers that want to provide different options for their commuter, whether their locations are in san francisco or else where. i think what we have also learned from octavia boulevard and finding show that as the street is rebalanced d to prioritize non automobiles we need to focus on how this works in tandem. as the conversation provides at the city level how our corridors function in the next 20, 30 years, we need to be looking at those investments to be paired with those changes to the circulation network for automobiles. paired with robust tdm
strategies and policies to manage that demand, whether it is in those that lead into the neighborhood. so if it is looking at how do improvements to san jose get paired with regional services, some of which are using the corridor, if you consider the shuttles going to the south bay a form of transit, they are use that corridor now. are there opportunities to prioritize public or private transit in some of the corridors. finally, continuing to think about complete streets in a san francisco sensitive fashion. we will never have the right-of-way to have a single street, bike lane, brt way, boulevard for pedestrians and four lanes of traffic but a cross group thinking in integrated fashion how we are providing for the network. i will close with some of the next steps we are working on. we are coordinating the improves on franklin and
golf. we are supporting other projects on the planning and design. earlier on the agenda if you can recall two hours ago you made allocations to the ongoing safety programs. these include activities such as reopening closed crosswalks. the mta is working on projects such as the lower polk bike network and advancing planning for upper polk and other projects in the design phase. finally being very supportive of two key transit spines in the neighborhood of market and van ness, which are moving forward in the process or planning space to improve transit on the key corridors which are really the spines that the entire market and octavia neighborhood has plans around. with that it would be happy by to answer any other questions. i thank you for your attention at this late hour. >> mr. olagi. >> i just want to thank you for your presentation and look forward to the
continued conversations on this issue. i worked on the market on octavia and it was pretty exciting as far as how it looked at all the different modes of, you know, transportation, walking, bicycling. we focused a lot on parking requirements at that time. at some point it might be interesting to get a sense of how that has affected or not some of the goals i think, which is to build a more sustainable neighborhood, i think. i just want to see how the parking issue and what we did there has or has not affected the rest. you know, some analysis, i guess, would be interesting to have at this point. one of the buzz issues that i keep hearing about is the whole congestion pricing issue. i know you all have been studying it for a long time. i have gone to a couple public workshops. i don't know of any city in this country that has
implemented it. i know stockholm, london has. where are we in the conversation? >> through the chair, thank you for the questions. they are timely and related. in some respects, the authority and various other agencies are advancing the pressing dialogue in a number of fashions. in 2010 the areawide cordoned pricing feasibility study was approved by the board and board directed us to seek funding to move the analysis of congestion pricing into the phase. we have information from key stakeholders and community and other stakeholders to take a look at how does parking management get to addressing that need as well in terms of reducing that peak period congestion, making surface transit run better and providing funds to invest in mobility improvements. our present activities on
pricing are along two streams. the first is we recently were awarded a grant from the federal highway administration to look at that question of how do our parking management policies sort of beyond simply managing on-street parking to an availability target, the sf park pilot, we are excited about and collect evaluation data on this fall. the next generation of parking or regulatory strategis from a demand management. this will involve a lot of data collection of private supplies of parking and the usage of that parking, what are incentive of folks if they have that subsidized and options available to the city to use parking as a policy tool from a congestion management point of view. the second area of activity is the authority in its pending role as treasure island mobility management agency, actually have state legislation to implement congestion pricing in a
very focused but important location, access to and from treasure island on the bay bridge. which is a really exciting pilot. not only from a congestion management point of view, important for performance but also from institutional and technological point of view in how we deliver and work with forecasts like caltrans who have important jurisdiction over the bridge and interests in the pricing policy and how do we deliver the project on an ongoing basis in terms of all the revenues and how those are distributed in a set of improvements. that is very exciting. the ultimate objective of study is to say is, it is feasible and take an option as another alternative in a subsequent alternative view with congestion pricing that would be fully waived by decision makers and the public. i think this anticipates simply -- sort of lays it out to the public that we
could let traffic grow as already has. it is having significant impacts on the neighborhood. we will be in trouble if we will be relying on the transit system to move people through the neighborhood and having safe n environment for bicyclists and being able to build the pedestrian environment and bicycle network we want. it is a really important dialogue. i think this helps set up that conversation, a citywide conversation about growth versus the strategies we will need from the land use side to manage that growth effectively. >> great. we have a time frame? >> for which piece? >> the parking and the studies. >> sure. we just got our authorization from federal highway. we will be starting outside. about a year-long process. >> great. >> we will be coming back with updates and looking forward to all the commissioner's input. >> thank you. this is a great answer. >> i would say another thing to watch is san francisco transportation
plan, the long-range update, which puts these issues on a countywide and even regional basis. >> i remember when i was look agent the treasure island plan, but not as it currently stands but the one that was approved about a year ago. the environmental impact report i remember having as many as over 30 significant impacts due to this whole traffic piece so it makes sense to me that this congestion pricing would be applied to this. but are we looking at treasure island i guess preproject, right? as it is currently? as it stands currently? >> i will have him address that question. >> probably not the new project, right? interesting. >> deputy for planning. yes, we are working with tita to plan for the eventual day one of the housing perspective in 2016. currently 30 residents to
eventually thousand in 2016 and 8,000 in the eventual build-out. >> if there are no comments or questions, thank you for your presentation. we can go on to public comment. seeing no one come forward we will close public comment. this is an action item so colleagues, we have a motion to move this forward to the full authority. okay. we will take that without objection. very good. we have -- let's see. introduction of new items. >> this is an information item. >> colleagues? >> not today. >> public comment on item 11? we will close public comment. >> 12, public comment. >> again, we will -- public comment. please come forward.
>> good afternoon, commissioners. jacob moody, executive director of bay view hunter's point commission for city improvement. sitting through finance and this committee i find out how complex this is dealing with all these transportation projects and how infan test millie small we are. this has quietly optered bay view shuttle transporting hundreds to their health points in bay view, san francisco general hospital and st. lukes * allowing them to take advantage of life saving health procedures, preventive scare and lifestyle altering activities. in addition it's isn'ted toxic tours sponsored by black coalition on aids and ellis griffin to hunter's view to the housing authority mandated appointments to make sure
they can remain in their housing, plus many other community activities. therefore it is disappointing our project is stuck in its process. staff around sfcta, san francisco department of public health, community health promotion and prevention and the foundation, worked on a plan proposaled to take advantage of funding for two years of operation of the health shuttle. in addition the aforementioned staff developed a plan to support the san francisco department heal zone and fcta facility within bay view with intent of making changes in the shuttle operations agreed upon in the plan. in conversations with commissioner cohen on friday, i said that we could not operator on the budget amount or time frame offered in the proposal. perhaps question can but do so would require more negotiation with partners.
>> good morning. today is wednesday, september 19th, 2012. this is the meeting of the abatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to please turnoff all electronic devises. the first item on the agenda is roll call. president? >> here. >> commissioner lee? >> here. >> commissioner mar? >> here. >> commissioner mccarthy? >> here. >> commissioner walker. >> here. >> commissioner mccray is expected and commissioner mel gar is excused. we have a quorum and the next item is item b, the oath. will all parties giving testimony today please stand
item d, continued appeals, case no. 675 2, 17 43 12th avenue. appellant, 17 43 12th avenue, san francisco, california. action requested by appellant to reverse the order of abatement. for the record, commissioner mccray is present. >> good morning. >> for opponent dubrovsky. i'm reporting that since the last meeting we had a survey done in order to assess the topography that had changed at the next property, at the wong's property. that survey has been done and the plans are being drawn up. the new plans, in order to reflect what the new topography
is on the neighboring property. and we have our engineer here who is ready to answer any questions mr. javier who has drawn up the plans or is in the process of doing is according to the survey that he conducted. so, the schedule is once the plans are done, which is expected to be done within the next week or two, then they will go through the building department and then our judge, the arbitrator in the case, is standing ready to fine tune the last details. however, prior to that, i and opposing counsel have a meeting scheduled for next week, but not specified the date, but we're working on that date. so, pretty much the project is moving forward. so, we are asking for a further continuance to allow us to get the plans done and then the
details worked out either with the attorneys or with the help of our judge arbitrator. so, i'm here to ask for another couple months' continuance so we can do this and hopefully we won't have to come back here. so, that's what i have to do. i would like to have our engineer, mr. [speaker not understood] to report to you, too. counsel for mr. wong is also present. we will just confirm that's what we're working on and i'm prepared to take any questions you have. >> commissioner walker? >> once the plans are approved, what is the estimate of time for executing and getting the project completed? i prefer our engineer to answer that question in terms of how long it would take to
have it executed. i can answer the other part because of the fact that this is -- we're talking about a significant amount of money involved. and because of insurance being also part of it, it may take about couple of three weeks to get that done. but as far as execution from an engineering point of view, i'd rather have him address that question. >> okay. so, really the question is the time to get the permit, assuming there's movement forward, and then executing. >> yes, definitely, good morning, members of the board. javier chavareia. as she discussed we have completed top graphic survey. a few small changes have occurred. when we went to the property to implement the required modifications to the plans, we noticed that the topographic
conditions had changed. so, we recommended to have a survey done so, thus, our plans would reflect exactly what needs to be done. we have completed the survey. we are in the process of preparing the revised grading plan, and our drawings will be completed early next week. permit process should be fairly simple, as all the drawings have been previously approved under the previous schemes and the modifications that we're making are really not substantial from the structural or civil engineering standpoint. so far we don't foresee any problems obtaining the permit. when it comes to the execution of the program, we are approaching the rainy season. the construction of the retaining wall involves a substantial amount of excavation and modification. so, that's something that the two property owners are going to have to discuss because it will create an impact too great in winter.
it will be also important to get the opinion of the geotechnical engineer to see if he advises us to remove that retaining wall during the winter season. the whole process, if done efficiently, can probably be done in a matter of six to eight weeks. nevertheless, depending on the conditions of the weather, depending on the conditions of the season, may not be feasible to implement it immediately. >> thank you. >> you still have some time. i'd be happy to answer any questions you have other than what has been presented to you. >> if you're done, could we hear from the department and see what the department feels?
>> [speaker not understood] for the department. clearly the survey is a new development. i'll just leave it in your hands. we've had a number of continuances so, i'll just leave it with you. >> just what we've got, the structural soundness, do you feel, are we -- i know we kind of focused a lot on that the last time, how you felt, was it safe, you know, was it a hazardous situation out there. has that changed or -- >> well, as was mentioned, the survey has been made and it sounds like now that they'll get a geo tech in there so that should give us further information also. >> i have a question. they mentioned the plans would be ready next week. six to eight weeks after a permit is issued. how long do you think it will take the department to review
their submittals before a permit is issued? it >> it shouldn't take a long amount of time. they are going to be going in front of the arbitrator. i would say the department wouldn't be the one that will be holding this back. i'm sure the process with the arbitrator will take longer. >> commissioner walker? >> we have continued this sort of numerous times. i feel like i personally would look to some sort of permanent time frame. so, i mean, i know we have to hear from the public on this before we really discuss it, so, maybe we should [inaudible]. >> comment?