tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 9, 2018 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
is a better alternative to parking and an existing r.p.p. area? and rescind the r.p.p. area as an agency? >> well, i think it's also important to remember that embedded within the transportation code has always been this provision that says the mta can institute new policies on its own initiative. so we've always had that power. we don't exercise edge. we have always worked with the neighbourhood and got petition signatures in order to know whether this is something that is going to work in the neighbourhood. the only example of an r.p.p. area that was rescinded was through a petition. folks that were in the old area gathered up signatures and said this isn't working for us and said they didn't want to be part of an r.p.p. area. we rescinded the area. that was almost certainly how it would work in the future. the idea is not to sort of -- again that his the power that
the m.t.a. already has. it is not something we would use lately. >> right. ok. i think that's a concern. that this is incremental. again, i'm not saying its valid, this is the concern that i am picking up. this is incrementalism, that existing r.p.p. zones which people bought their homes, ordered their lives upon, are going to be sacrificed, i won't say the altar, but at the very good, you know, policy of overall transportation. we've seen this debate happen everywhere. in a red zone, removing -- it's every time. if there is a local community against the greater transportation good. but it's a little bit different when you are taking away something which people built as a community and rolled in and then ordered their lives on. so i heard you just say, it almost certainly won't be the case that we will resend an r.p.p. zone or significantly
modify an r.p.p. zone without neighborhood involvement and support. that just won't happen. we remain committed to the programs neighborhood that exist. and nothing will be modified or rescinded without approval neighborhood. >> even if staff, we, or the future r.p.p. implementers decided that getting rid of an r.p.p. area was a good idea, we have to bring that to the board and i imagine you would hear from the folks who live there saying we did not hear about this and they did not tell us about this. this is not a good idea. that will not have the power to implement that without the board approval. >> i appreciate that and i'm glad this board is here. again, i don't want to get too deep into this, there is a palpable concern from people in
the neighborhood and across the city about this. it is incrementalism. it is that this big program, and kudos to you for excellent outreach. i mean i read the memo. you guys were everywhere. this was well-publicized and you did will what you were supposed to do. this program gets adopted with a sort of, you know, rather generic ways in which changes can be made, and then one by one r.p.p. is get ticked off and it becomes harder for people to object. i am comforted by your response. i want you to understand what i'm trying to channel, which is people are wary this is a divide and conquer, and the next time there is some ground transportation idea that will come of the cost of their r.p.p. program. but the assurance i've received, which will leave me to vote for this in general, subject to one other issue, i want to talk about, is there are no plans, and that is indeed the intent of this legislation.
especially given the other criteria besides the one we are adding, that especially with respect to modification and rescission, we will not go against the wishes of the neighborhood. >> that's right. there are no plans to change anything about current r.p.p. areas. >> then, the second, and that was sort of a follow-up question. are there any plans to change r.p.p. areas, and you said no. that is comforting as well. ok. the pay plus permit. [laughter] you have to make it exciting, right? good for you. what into be fun otherwise. i think the concern here is -- was really well articulated by its the members of our neighborhood groups. that, you know, when you were talking about how do we go beyond accommodating just a school and accommodate a nonprofit group, or this, or that, there are so many worthwhile things out there and u have to draw the line, otherwise there is no parking
and the program falls apart. so, but doesn't that same logic applied to the pay plus permit? that if you put in a residential permit program to make sure the residents have a decent chance to park, if you go ahead and build on a layer where people can pay to park there, especially for a significant amount of time, doesn't that undermine the whole purpose of the program in the first place? >> it is a good question. obviously it is a question that members of the public have had and kathy has responded to dozens and dozens of e-mails trying to sort of explain where we are going with this. i think and the idea is dose it is to address two issues that came up over and over during the hour. there are visitors that we want to accommodate. visitors are always welcome in r.p.p. areas and they just have to move their cars after two hours and there are visitors who we are trying to exclude. people who are commuting in.
typically what the program was created to do was discourage people from coming in and parking on neighborhood streets. and so what we have, and what we've seen in some areas, whether they be current r.p.p. areas or not, there are people who are willing to do the two hours shuffle. they will take the necessary coffee breaks, come out, move their car, it may have parking on campus next to the school to where they work or the hospital, but they move their car to get free parking. we talk to neighbours who live in those places and they say they see it all the time. there are people who come to us and say i have a legitimate visitor. i have a plumber, a grandmother who is coming for lunch, and these people don't have the ability to run out every two hours and move their car. they want to stay for three or four hours. what this does is it provides flexibility to hopefully accommodate dose to discourage people who are looking for free parking from using it and encourage people who are legitimate visitors want to stay longer than that time limit to
use it. and one more point on that is we did try, with the s.f. park program way back in 2011, we removed time limits at a lot of metres around the city, especially on fillmore street at the mission bay and the soma area. we found that people didn't actually say that much longer. you know, we wanted them to stay longer because again we got word from merchants saying people tell me that the one hour or the twaddle our limit is too short. dosage dose dose. the price encourages them to move along. >> i apologize if i missed it, but if we essentially adopt this, we would provide the authority for the paid plus permit to be grafted into a new program or an existing program. it would go through the same process whereby it would have to be board approval. is that all correct? >> that's all correct.
>> i did not see anything that suggested a limit. so it could be a pate situation where it could be for eight hours or something like that. i mean it could be a long period of time, correct? >> yes the idea was to remove the time limit. >> my concern, to get back to it, and as always, your answers are thorough and direct and most appreciated, as you have talked about the people who come out and do the two hours shuffle, which includes, unfortunately, a lot of teachers in the city. thank you for addressing the school there. i appreciate that personally. second, you know, grandma and the plumber where the examples you used. we will call the good visitor, but i think you left out a third group of people. which is people who aren't willing to do the twaddle our shuffle but would be willing to pay to take what is otherwise in r.p.p. spot. the concern we are hearing from some of the neighbourhood groups is if you allow people to essentially by their r.p.p. permit, there is fewer parking
spots available for the people with the r.p.p. permit. >> that is another great point. i have a couple of responses. that is exactly what we heard when we removed time limits in s.f. park areas. everyone will just come and, you know, dose people will come in with money and park all day and take all of the spaces and they'll be know where to park. that is not what we saw. people came in and did what they needed to do and they moved along. the pricing is what gave them that all along. second, that being said, we are not content to take that data and run with it. we would certainly test this out and find out whether this is actually true. i think we will have a good test of that with the dogpatch, again it is a low price all day metre. we will see how people respond to that in terms of how long they stay. anywhere that we would proposed that permit we would be testing it out. i mentioned there is an idea to
try this out on one block which is right next to some existing twaddle our.p.p we can test from one block to the next, how do they work differently? which one works better and which one provides more availability. you know, i am sceptical. >> that led me to a very specific question and i'm sorry i'm taking so long but it is important. i believe it was said during the staff report that there is no pay plus parking things in the pipeline, and then at the very next presentation, it was there were some ideas where this could work. i'm gathering that there are some ideas where this could work. >> yeah. apologies if that came off wrong. there is a proposal for a few blocks northeast of the story places where area that includes pay plus permit on one block, i think. we have an open house tonight about that with businesses in
the area to see if this is good. it is not something new to that group. ain,it is an example of something we would do if we d neighbourhood support people said no then we wouldn't do it. >> okay. that would be considered a modification that have to go through the same sort of process that we are talking about. there is a lots of procedural control. and my final question, you will be thrilled to know, when you say that neighborhood support for the pay plus parking, excuse me, you pay plus permit approach, how do you define the neighborhood? as of the people who would actually use this? are they included? is that the businesses there? or is it only the residents who are a member of the r.p.p. program in effect? >> it is a great question. it is when we struggle with a
lot. i think again, the dogpatch example is illuminating in that that the neighborhood is the people who live on the blocks who are voting on whether to have r.p.p. on their blocks or not. in the dogpatch we had a much broader definition of the neighbourhood. we are trying to do the same thing. >> same thing by taking a broader view? >> taking a broader view and saying we understand it is not just residents who park here. it is not just residents to use the streets. so we need to talk to everybody who does and make sure that it works for them. defining exactly what the neighborhood it means its always a challenge. it will depend on how many people speak up and say that they supported. how many express their support and neighbourhood meetings and come to these kind of meetings. >> in this particular case, it is just one building. and hoa on the corner of seventh and barrie. that is the one we are talking about, right? they already have r.p.p. there.
they have asked for additional r.p.p. we extended the conversation to the nearby businesses including reecology and some others, and partners of the industrial development and commercial development that is filling and down the street. we wanted to reach out before doing this. it is not a real proposal. it is being discussed. like hank said, there is a meeting tonight to discuss it. >> okay. thank you very much. you have answered my questions. i appreciate it. >> director hsu? spee what i just want to chime in because i remember back to the original -- original date -- days of s.f. park and your point that it works. it may seem like pricing and sort of a blunt tool, but any price changes the behaviour of the drivers who are going to go and park there. whether it is 25 cents an hour, whether it seven dollars an
hour, which i'm not even sure we have anything that tie except maybe civic centre. it does. it changes the nature of the use of the parking. again, through s.f. park, i remember those original surveys that it was availability of parking that was the number 1 concern. ease of payment was a second concern, and place was the third concern. when you were going somewhere and you want to do something, you just want to park the car and you want to get your task down or get your visit done or you want to have your dinner or your lunch and then you move onto the next thing you will do. i'm not as sceptical as vice chair heinicke. i think this permit plus paid is a tool that could work quite well in areas like that. it takes me to this whole thing. the r.p.p. is a blunt tool. and what we are talking about more in the neighbourhoods is parking management which is a fine tool. and set up saying it is all about you, residents and we will try and solve imperfectly, for
your problem, now we will be able to take a finer tool to it and solve for the entire neighborhood and their parking demands. thank you so much for the work. i do know, and we are aware of it that every time we bring up the words parking and bring up the idea paid parking versus free parking and we bring up r.p.p., it opens up a bigger discussion. it is a really difficult challenge for people in this city. to your point, people build their lives around the way the parking is in the area that they live or work. when a change is looming, it can be really scary for people. i do have confidence that we will continue to work through all of these changes that look really scary and they will actually end up being really helpful for people and allowing people to go where they want to go and park and help merchants by having turnover. if nobody has any other questions,. >> i don't have a question but i think you summarize the issue very well, which is -- and what
is at the core of what people is concerned about, is we -- is are we prioritizing the neighborhood or the residents or are we prioritizing the broader community and sort of analyst -- balancing views? either way, it is noble. it is what perspective you are looking at it from. to me, i am going to vote for this because you have given me assurance that rescissions, modifications, including paid to plus parking, are going to be considered of that residents there and that is still going to be the foremost goal of this. and i, you know, fortunately for you won't be here that long, but if that -- i want to say for the record, if that changes and it becomes a process where these things are being proposed over the wishes of the residents, that's not in the spirit of what we are voting for here today. >> chairman brinkman: unduly noted. thank you for thinking -- for calling that out. i want to thank all the people
who came down for letting us know what your frustrations are around parking and your frustrations in your situation. i hope that staff will continue to work through this. some of them sound not solvable with some of the tools wehave right now and some of them sound like there are solutions that we can work towards. thank you everyone who came do to talk to us. thank you for the outreach you did and do i have a motion to approve? >> vice-chairman heinicke: you do. >> chairman brinkman: and all in favour? and he opposed? hearing none. approved. thank you for the work. >> item 12. presentation of discussion regarding the planning department rail alignment and benefit study. >> chairman brinkman: and i see we have a presentation., sss
returning shortly. we talking at the rail alignment and benefit study. >> good afternoon. doug johnson from the planning department. i just wanted to give you a quick overview on the rail alignment and benefit study. it is wrapping up after a lengthy process, which we will talk a little bit more about as we go on. as the state and region modernize and improve the heavy rail system serving san francisco, san francisco is a strong supporter that seeks to improve the current plans to maximize the benefits for visitors, workers and residents.
as we look forward in california, we are aware of the fact that there are very large growth projections coming for the city, and for interstate trips. essentially, we find there are two ways, three ways we can curb those trips. one is by increasing capacity up to 115 gates combined with thousands of additional lane miles into and out of the l.a. region on the bay area or region and connecting in between. clearly we don't see those as goals that are consistent with the state's planning goals nor the bay area's planning goals. within the region, we are aware there are very consistent growth projections. again, just over one% per year, but obviously, pushing long-term growth projections up to 10 million for the region. with a goal of, again,
maximizing the opportunity to travel in the corridor on rail asposed to trying to find ways to expand 101, 280 and other freeways. perhaps, though, as we did get a closer to san francisco, we know that we want to really look at and leverage the opportunity that is being created downtown in san francisco with the trans- based centre, the planning and zoning work that has occurred there already, the soon to be adopted central soma plan as well. and really look at the way that we are going to serve san francisco going forward. at the same time, we see a very acute impact in a very high growth part of the city. as we really think about what
the rail alignment does in san francisco, one of the things the rail lines have done throughout the decades is divide cities. at this rail line is no different. however,, this is a very high growth part of san francisco. which would mean 1,000 new households, 35,000 jobs. hundreds of acres of parks and open spaces that are planned in this part of the city over the next 20 years. the good news is, there is a very big opportunity. there are at least three major infrastructure projects that are currently in development. first up is the electrification of the caltrain fleet. next up, is the ongoing development of the caltrain -- of that high speed system, and last up is the new transit
centre, and the current plans to reach it via the downtown extension. so the red is set forward on the process to look at these three huge individually -- individually huge and their collective impact on san francisco. to ensure san francisco is a well queued up to, i think, identify the shortcomings and maximize the benefits of these projects within the city and county of san francisco, serving the region, and the state. these processes are occurring at different levels in a different agencies. we were concerned on the potential impacts. one of the ones we have zeroed in on is the possibility that,
under the current plan for the extensions, and service improvements in the downtown of seefrancisco, we d 16th street need to be placed into, likely need to be placed, into a very deep trench. sixteenth street is one of only two or three streets that provide direct access into mission bay at this point in time. obviously, 16th street is both an ambulance a route, future bart route as well, and provides a critical link between the different sides of the city. it also perhaps highlights the option for a higher opportunity. instead of just maintaining a couple of streets across the tracks, the opportunity perhaps is there for us to consider establishing half a dozen or more new connections between the east and west side of the city along the tracks.
as you can imagine, like with any planning process, there are many trade-offs to consider. cost is certainly a very important one that we've been faced with, but we also are looking at trying to make sure that the fundings do not interrupt any of the existing construction schedules. it creates new opportunities and maintains capacity for residents and local circulation. potentially also creates new opportunities for transit connections within the city serving these new stations, with that, i will handed over to susan who will walk you through some of the highlights of the key components of the study. >> thank you. my name is susan. on the project manager for the project. it is comprised of five major
transportation questions that have to be answered independently sometime between now and 15 years that will affect san francisco for the next hundred. understanding how they interact with each other, and understanding, as we go forward with any of the decisions, how we are affecting the future of san francisco and in respect to these five major pieces, is really important. the five components are the rail alignment to the salesforce transit centre, the railyard reconfiguration and/or relocation, the urban form and land use considerations, transit centre extension and/or loop, adds the fifth isabel of those boulevard i-280. the most important is the component number 1. we looked at a bunch of alignments, and specifically around the idea of what do we do
-- the alignment itself does a self does it self effect so much more than other the alignment. understanding how it reacts to the rest of the city is important. when we started to lay her on the projects by the other agencies that were running projects in san francisco, it became apparently clear, very early on that we would end up either trenching the streets that cross the existing tracks, as you saw in the previous graphic, we would move the trains underground. the three alignments we looked at, the one in green, we call the future with surface rail. it includes building the downtown rail extension in an environmentally cleared area. and trenching our two streets. we cannot cut mission bay off from the rest of the city for more than 20 minutes during every peak hour. the two great crossings at 16th and mission bay drive would be trenched. the fourth and king railyard would remain as it is today.
for passenger operations and storage and maintenance. and we would get the trains into the salesforce transit centre. the other two options are moving the trains underground instead of moving the streets and the vehicles. the orange alignment is considered avenue alignment. it is the d.t.x. extended tunnel. that means that we build to the d.t.x. at the same time, we can environmentally clear and defined the pennsylvania avenue extension portion and we move the trains underground. somewhere between 22nd and cesar chavez. when we move the trains underground, we remove the surface tracks. now you get not only the 16th and mission drayton ocean mission bay drive, but we connect a lot more streets between mission bay and the rest of the city. because we've moved the tracks underground, wheat because
remove the trains underground, remove the tracks of the surface. the railyard which is currently used for operations, storage, maintenance and staging, the operations will move underground in the two be built forth and townsend station. the box in the green. in the downtown rail extension. the storage and maintenance, moves south and we'll talk about that in a moment. the staging is combined -- staging is like after a giants game where they load and around three trains so that you can move people out of very very quickly. that would be an operations conversation. and the fourth and king railyard will be repurposed. push that off for a second. the third alignment is the blue alignment. we call it the mission bay alignment. the d.t.x. is not built. we move the trains underground
from the current alignment. we veer off to the right, and we go under the third street alignment. under the tee third line. it is incredibly deep. he would get a new station in mission bay somewhere. you have to be below the mission creek waterway. this puts us incredibly deep and it includes the largest or in the united states, currently. there is a lot... as you are coming over mission creek, you are climbing pretty significantly. in fact more than recommended by the standards of high city rail. in any case, we access the salesforce transit centre as it was built in the southwest corner, and in the orange and the blue alignment, we get all of the trains from caltrain and the salesforce transit centre. the second component that we looked at is the railyard
reconfiguration and/or relocation. in any of the options, we can reconfigure and/or relocate portions of what happens at fourth and king. in the orange and the blue line, and the pennsylvania avenue extension and the mission bay alignment, we actually get the entire railyard. it is 20 plus acres. we can reconnect some of the north-south connections. but, you caltrain and a height the rail are going through does caltrain is going through the business line and heisey rail and caltrain are going through the blended service operation so they can understand where the trains are at all times. we will be able to understand the needs of the fourth and king railyard. what we did is we looked at criteria provided by caltrain. we looked at a bunch of options. there are two at that make sense to further analyse. one is in the city. one is not in the city.
the city does not own all of the land in either of the respects. until we understand, from the limits of this operation and the business plan from caltrain and the high-speed rail, we can't move forward on that piece. but we do have good options. the third component is the urban form and land-use consideration. looking at the railyard in and of itself, we can fix the streets. fifth is interesting because we have a bicycle pedestrian bridge over mission creek that is planned. being able to connect that to that bridge, reconnects not only the bicycle pedestrian network within the city, but also provides for much more access to that area. we can eliminate the rail hazards, and then we can add housing open space and retail. the fourth and fifth components are long term items. the salesforce transit centre
will open this year, august 12th, i am promised. and we will get trains in at the lake dose at a later date. at some point, we will want more trains than the salesforce transit centre can currently accommodate. because it is terminal station, that means that trains come in and they take a certain amount of time at the platforms. the only way to decrease that time is to move the terminal activities someplace else. so if we bust out of the east aside and go to the east bay or return to the south, we get more capacity out of the transit centre. by identifying potential locations at this point in the study, or at this point in time, we make sure that as we move forward, we are thoughtfully thinking about these. so case in point, we have the seawall conversation coming up. if we ever want to extend to the east bay, understanding where we might need a punch out panel, so
that as long as you access the coordinates in the seawall at that punch out panel, then you've already designed to the seawall to accommodate a future connection to the east bay. the fifth component is what gets all the attention and not the love. originally we thought about getting the last 1.2 miles of i.-280 and whether or not it should be brought down. early on in the process, we realized that -- unlike our other two we have removed, it is a usable freeway. the other two have been damaged by the earthquake. we had to put in a lot of money to fix them or money to take them down. that is not the case in this car a door. and understanding that any conversation about taking down that one .2 miles is a much longer conversation with caltrain and a lot more study to
be completed. what we have done in the study is we have identified that what is moving forward does not require the continued use or the removal of i-280 at any time. and then what everybody loves is the cost. again, looking at the three it rail alignments in particular, and including all construction costs, if that includes a southern railyard, that's included as well. it also includes any value capture such as a district on the fourth and king railyard. you have a cost of around $5.1 billion for the future of surface rail. 6,000,000,004 pennsylvania avenue and mission bay at 9.3 billion. that is because of the unknowns because of the depth and the large bore. you can also see the expected completion date. i want to note the future of
service rail is 2026. pennsylvania avenue is at 2027. that doesn't mean we get trains into the train box at 2026. oh, i will go to this one first. sorry, a little out of order. this kind of shows you a schedule of how we would complete the projects. under the pennsylvania avenue, which is the city staff and the safety department's preliminary preferred alignment. you can build the d.t.x. as currently designed, while you are completing the environmental clearance. and at some point, you catch up. the way which the d.t.x. is designed, allows for what is called the tunnel stub box and we would connect up off line of operations. over the course of a couple of weekends, we can connect up to the d.t.x. and move the trains underground. even if the d.t.x. is in operations. what isn't shown in these costs are any monetization of the
social impacts such as connectivity. i like to point those out or some of them. the ability to face the pennsylvania avenue extension. that it reconnects over a mile of the city. not only in the east-west connections but in the north and south. it creates new land-use opportunities. the tunnels can be designed for better resiliency. one thing i didn't denote, the trenches. they are in sea level inundation zones. we would be trenching our streets, but we would have to figure out a way to dewater them from day one and 24 hours a day. and then the access to the salesforce transit centre where we get all the trains and the salesforce centre under pennsylvania avenue. we have shown that in the next steps. this is a quick timeline. we had our public meeting on may 29th. we are in the process of going
to different boards and groups and civic associations for the next couple of months. and then we believe we will be coming with a joint resolution for the mayor and the board of supervisors. asking for getting behind the pennsylvania alignment as the preliminary alignment and asking our partner agencies to work with us to solve the technical issues that still are outsourcing and ending. we believe there are solutions to all of the technical solutions but we haven't, you know, been able to get them all behind us. as we move forward, this graphic shows how much work, and how inner agency and in our directive it really is. on the left-hand side you have caltrain and the city and other regional agencies and you have
individual projects. each one of these projects needs to understand how they are interacting within each other and influencing other projects. as we move forward, there are a few things that we are looking at. they're doing the transit corridor study. san francisco would dose -- they would take on the preliminary conversation about the 22n 22nd street station and better connections to that station. as well as what should the fourth and king railyard look like if we were to look relocate and/or reconfigure that railya railyard. i want to point out we have had a 22 members citizens group for 18 months now. i want to thank those members who have given up hours of their time to not only understand the technical issues, but also the interconnections and the
trade-off and help us so that these types of conversations with the community can continue. that concludes my presentation. >> chairman brinkman: thank you so much. that was a great presentation. i think, for me, and i do sit on the joint powers board for caltrain, it is exciting to see this moving forward. what is invisible for a lot of people in san francisco who do not regularly use caltrain, the electrification work has started and is ongoing. and the blue bit in here on the caltrain business plan, that is what is it will does is what will make sure that caltrain is the newest caltrain that will carry a lot more people and run a lot more service in conjunction with high-speed rail. it is really exciting to see this all started to come together. i just want to say i am so excited by the idea of this all coming together behind this proposed pennsylvania avenue alignment. i want to open up questions to my fellow directors.
anyone? >> director hsu: thank you. i have a quick question. i don't see a huge case for the mission bay alignment based on the cost on the fact that there are these other issues with it. is that something that's, at this point, thought of as being, well we have to consider it, but it's not really that much in the mix? >> i will tell you, i am an engineer and i was a rail engineer for five years. when i look at the mission bay alignment, that is the one that got me interested. it is a straighter shot, it connects to an area that is not well served by transit, but once we got into the analysis, it didn't pan out. i'm sorry to say it didn't. there was a few reasons. one, the unknowns drive the cost up significantly for two because it is a totally different alignment, we don't get trains into the salesforce transit centre for many years after we possibly could. three, the ridership of the new alignment, if you draw a capture area around that new station,
and i've got it up on the presentation, if you were to draw a half mile around the fourth and townsend station at the one around the mission bay alignment, a good portion of the writer capture area is in the bay. i'm sure there is a -- is ere a fourth? >> i know there is always to be, but i know there are other reasons. >> director hsu: you said the unknowns, but one of the known sort of unknowns is the grade of the train coming out of the alignment, right? >> correct. oh, yeah. we have issues with being under that navigate double portion creek. and then the third street brid bridge. there is a lot of pieces that would make me ponder as an engineer and a rail engineer. >> director hsu: so, the fun part of it, to follow up on this question. have you made your preferred
course orange and you're not prepared course of blue on purpose? [laughter] >> actually, no. it never even occurred to me. no. the green it was green for a specific reason, but the orange and blue were just colours we picked a long time ago. that's funny. >> chairman brinkman: and on the orange, if i'm doing my math right, on the orange approach, from what i've heard makes the most sense to me, we would be crossing the tee line while it is still above ground? >> vice-chairman heinicke: you are will we have tunnels stacked? >> in the orange line, if you go back to the graphic, the orange line is a pennsylvania avenue extension. the line would be -- in that central subway, you are at surface, and then you will be within the d.t.x. underneath. >> vice-chairman heinicke: that is a plus. >> chairman brinkman: any other questions?
spee seat george. >> director rubke: more construction. that will be so awesome. i'm very excited. no i am. this is all great and the report was really helpful. i look forward to the future. >> chairman brinkman: thank you so much for the work on this. we have a lot of work ahead of us but it is very exciting. and the idea of being able to reconnect streets in the city and return that area to a usef useful, a lively neighbourhood is fantastic. >> vice-chairman heinicke: to director rubke's point, there is a valuable point there. we have just run a very sophisticated live program on how to tunnel the subway and work well with the community and not disrupt the businesses and so forth and so on. i would hope that we would draw from what we've learned in union square and surrounding areas for this project as it goes forward. >> director hsu: independent of the rab study, the tjpa has been looking at the impact that
would be felt by the neighborhood of the d.t.x. whether we at the pennsylvania alignment or not, and to the original plans would have been very, very disruptive. they have been engaging the folks to figure out how to minimize, iculay the cut and cover of construction which is the most disruptive part of it. they've made some progress in identifying ways to minimize that both on townsend and on second and it is something that they have heard from the tjpa board, which i said they have heard from the board of supervisors. i think there are lessons learned from our project, and from the barton project way back, that we have taken into account. construction disruption is a big part of what we are looking at here. >> chairman brinkman: nt why. thank you so much. i want to go to public comment if we have any. >> james patrick followed by roll into lib room.
>> chairman brinkman: great. >> thank you board directors. i have been in business for 145 years in the office supply business. i wanted to talk about the fourth street station location. it was third and townsend, you may remember that, and we moved it to fourth and townsend. and the outreach of that fourth and townsend station is not near as good as seventh street, a little further down. i would like you to visualize seventh street. the location of seventh street. it serves more people. we have heard the analysis of this station and what might be by the warriors a ballpark. it is less expensive to construct as well. the fourth street station has construction issues. it would only get 24 inches below the surface, which demands cut and cover. number 3, which i really like, is i think we should integrate
that into a paris style left bank, right bank. by that i mean, the isthmus flows right up to that station. i visualize walking down to the a tnt station, enjoying the water side on the left and the right as the neighbours are around it and a lot of retail going down there. it is a whole new area of san francisco that no one has talked about. so i am a supporter of pennsylvania avenue process, but i think the fourth and townsend street station is in the wrong position. it really should be a seventh, mission, whatever you want to call it. but maybe it's the promenade station. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. next speaker, please. spee want nice to see you.
>> thank you. could we go back to the slide? the same slide? with the blue and the orange. >> chairman brinkman: i don't think we can go back. but we have it in front of us. >> okay. great. let me start with a big thank you do our friends in the planning department for resolving a fatal flaw in the existing d.t.x. alignment. it made it impossible to upgrade caltrain and the high-speed ra rail. it just wasn't working. our work, as daily dose has begun. we need to combine both tunnel proposals into a single cohesive project. once we do this, and i will speak on to what mr patrick said, we will have an opportunity to eliminate all impacts on townsend street by merging the 22nd and fourth and king stations into a seventh and king hub with caltrain
sandwiched between union platforms and a connection to alameda in the basement. i have a little bit of time. with regards to storage. if you start thinking -- 22n 22nd street is gone. it is moved to seventh. we now have the opportunity to cross over. we can connect the new track to the old track and use the old tunnels as storage for up to ten trains. between mariposa and cesar chavez. last but not least, we need to revisit the alignment between townsend and the successful transit centre. i hope that you will consider leveraging the central subway tunnel expertise and give up a solution that eliminates surface impacts on second street between townsend. >> chairman brinkman: next speaker, please.
>> thank you. so, i am in support of having to study this. it seems to me that the green line is the most reasonable. we have to build a connectivity into downtown. when i come from the east bay, whether it be to the temporary trans bay terminal or two-part station, i have to go through another one or two moves to get to caltrain station. i support us in bringing the trains into the transit centre, and two underground. this conversation is long overdue. because it has been over 100 years that in a new york city, two great rail stations were built completely underground, including grand central terminal, which is the worlds largest railroad station, which has about 65 tracks for boarding
and deporting, and 48 acres. so we have some examples to go by. this is only going to grow. at penn station in new york, i believe, is moving over 600,000 people per day. we have our chance downtown by moving the green line in. i'm still digesting this whole report. i'm not real enthused about the blue line. the deeper you go, the more expensive it gets, and if you have steep grades, it can cause problems for trains that stall, from having to restart them on the grade. and avoiding wheelspin, which was a challenge that the channel tunnel planners had to keep in mind, in order that they can deal with a failure under the
channel there. it's important we get started on this so we can do this sooner, rather than later. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> president brinkman, commissioners, i with my pleasure and privilege, it is to chair the working group that helped produce this report, starting in 2016. our members represented a large segment of the city, both geographically, and by their involvement in all areas of transit. local and regional. and they had a full understanding of the complexities of this project. their decision was absolutely unanimous. there was no one who was not for the pennsylvania street alignment. we understood why it would be
good. at the public meeting last week, i asked everyone there to think of the futures. we have tagged this the hundred year decision. believe it or not, i'm old enough to have been around and worked on the beginnings of barth. i ask you, what would happen to this bay area if we didn't have it? and yet, we had counties in the bay area that turned it down at that point. this is something that has to go ahead. it has to be for, not to me, i'm not going to ride on it. but my kids, grandkids, great grandkids are in this city. it is going to be, in part, your decision to push it forward. the comments you made, just a few minutes ago, really rang in my ears. i appreciate the general support you gave it. i know speakers have mentioned
certain technicalities. that is also in the future. we will work those out. as long as we are concerned with the project moving forward, as quickly as possible, we will get where we are going. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. do i have any more public comments? no? fifty non, public comment is closed. i want to thank you again for the presentation you did and we look forward to having this continue to move forward in the city. thank you. all right. can we please call the next two items together? thirteen and 14? >> yes. it approves amendment number 6 retroactively to a contract for the professional architectural and engineering services with h. ntv b.c., joint venture for the final construction zone of central subway project track weight, and control systems for a total amount not to exceed at $1.2 million for a total.
not to exceed $34 million i will get my numbers right. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. and then item 14, it approves contract amendment one retroactively and amendment fo four. on six by 3 million for the additional work necessary to provide engineering services through completion of projects construction for total contract amount not to exceed $47,900,606. we have no speaker cards for either of these items.
>> good afternoon. my name is albert ho. i am the acting program director for central subway. today i am here to apologize for these two amendments year. part of the reason that we retroactively, it is under my watch, we discovered that both these amendments, that was presented here was overlooked as part of our board authority. again, both these contracts was brought to this board in 2011 for approval. subsequently, they were moved to the of supervisors for a board of supervisor approval. under the normal circumstances, we've been issuing contract mods associated with that. when we are working on the last mod, model number foxtrap. we were advised that under the charter amendment, any contract
mod over half a million dollars, that has gone to the board of supervisors, needs go back to the board of supervisors for their approval. because of those reasons, i am here to retroactively seek approval for two of these mods and subsequently, the third mod which is currently active, just in general, the first mod is for additional services for each ntv joint service. there are two parts. one is a design analysis for the lowering of the tunnel and the rail profile. this occurred four or five years ago when we are looking at the rail profile under market street railway. the second is related to this contract that dealt with central subway projects but also jobs related to the main part of the metro. a lot of the tmc related design efforts, and other efforts as part of the main work. this contract, the majority of
the cost associated with this was for those activities. all these works have been done already, as i mentioned, a couple years old. that is part of amendment six. the amendment 14 the element is actually to lower the chinatown station. part of the reason why we need to lower the station is to get into better soil so we can, when we deal into the tunnel, that we have a better condition so we will reduce the settlement around the area. that is the purpose. the fifth amendment we are here for a, which is currently active, is basically, as you know, the chinatown station is mine complete which is a very exciting for central subway. part of the reason why we were able to finish it, even though it delayed our jobs but we did it safely, and in a way that it is minimizing the settlement of the surrounding area. we were able to get some services from experts that basically was at the interface
as we did the mining. that is very important. part of the reason why we needed to do that as we wanted to ensure the safety of the mining activity. i think that is money well spent, given the different circumstances. as we look forward to moving forward, in the program, the mining is behind us. all we can do is accelerate to finish the work at hand. that is what we are trying to do. part of the 6 million that is here is actually to retroactively help pay for some of those activities. the other thing is, dealing with the current contract, we have had a lot of open questions and rfi submittals. the original aspect does estimate was about 1200 rfi that we thought we would get and about 2,000 submittal. subsequently, the amount of rfi has gone up double. in essence, what we plan, the cost has gone up twice and the
submittal has gone up 50%. all that's required additional support services. beyond that, the program is one year later than what we originally determined. all those factors add up to us trying to extend the contract for the main designer and construction support service for the station element of the job. that is really what i am here for. >> chairman brinkman: thank you so much. i am sorry that you feel you are here to apologize. i am pleased you are here. i totally intend to support these and have the opportunity to tour the chinatown station not too long ago and it is a marvel what is going on there. it is invisible to the community at large. anybody who sees that station, will be impressed with what we accomplished and what has been done down there. if i have any questions, the staff reports were very well written. do i have a motion to approve?
and do i ha good evening and welcome to the june 6th, 2018 meeting of the board of appeals. commissioner bobby wilson is absent tonight. to my left is deputy city attorney brad who will provide the board with any needed legal advice this evening. at the controls is the board's legal assistant gary. i'm julie rosenberg. scott sanchez, zoning administrator representing the planning department and planning commission. joseph duffy, senior building inspector representing the department of building