please stand by. please stand by. >> welcome to the regular meeting of the plans and programs committee. my name is car men chu. i'm sitting in for the chair of the committee, chair campose, who is, unfortunately, out of town or out of the country at this moment and won't be able to join us in this meeting. we are joined also by

commissioner after lose, commissioner wiener who will be joined shortly by commissioner chiu and perhaps commissioner america reamy. -- mirkarimi. item number two? >> april 19, profl of minutes. commissioner chu: thank you very much. any speaker? seeing none being public comment is closed. we have the motion to approve that item. we can do that without objection. item number three? >> citizens advisory committee report. this is an information item. chu: thank you very much. >> good morning, committee members. i'm brian larkin. i'm here on behalf of the chair and vice chair, neither of whom could make it today. we had four items on our agenda that were also cax items on your

agenda. the ramps recommendation for connection to the bay bridge. staff gave us an elaborate and detailed presentation on the relative benefits which we accepted unanimously with a minimum of discussion. in contrast, on item 5, safe routes to school, we had an inordinate amount of discussion. but ultimately accept the staff's recommendation and with some minor inclusions of future projects and evaluation of walking routes and, again, future projects, future recommendations. we note that the principals of two of the local schools both showed up and spoke in favor of the project, which is all i had to hear. item six was a call for project screening -- pardon me,

screening criteria for the call for local projects in support of sustainable community strategies and regional transit program. we had some discussion on that and were almost unanimous in approving it. it was against the widening of harney way. but other than that, figured that most of the programs -- also, fran would like to have seen more community involvement and selection of the projects that were recommended. the last item was the interchange at candlestick park. the amendment was to request staff to work with bicounty partners to create a mechanism for more community involvement.

chu: thank you for your report. any members of public who wish to comment on item number 3? >> my name is francisco decosta. i do not know if you noticed that when the gentleman was giving the report reportly pointed out that they are dealing with huge projects linked with the southeast sector involving highway 101 south. the widening of the street. the implications are very serious. and one of the ways the san francisco county transportation

authority can address the situation is by having a localized meeting so people can have the best input. we are talking about millions of vehicles that are going to be flying in this area. we are talking about particulates. we are talking about over 10,500 homes plus that are scheduled to be built in this area. so the citizens advisory committee can get some briefings. but what is important is that we get the input from the many qualified constituents who live in the area which is lacking. and oftentimes if you watch this on the television, there's nobody here for public comment because at this time, you know, most people are working.

there are very few advocates. they have stopped coming to these meetings because it goes nowhere. so from time to time i do come because i show my face here, and then i can write about it. and i can write about those representatives who really represent and those who are not doing their job. thank you very much. chu: thank you. next speaker? >> good morning, commissioners. my name is neil, community planner with the san francisco bicycle coalition. i just wanted to speak to the item of bike to work day prop day allocation funding. this was in the advisory committee last month. i just want to reiterate that bike to work day is really one part of an important, long encouragement campaign to meet the city's goals of getting 20% of all trips in san francisco taken by bike. the number has increased. and now we're excited to see that seven in 10 san franciscoians ride a bike,

including many of you who participated last year. for many people, biking becomes a routine activity after starting a bike to work day. in 2010, a gentleman named david slater, an employee of the local start-up, started biking to work. and now he commutes by bike every day. and just this year a woman named elizabeth, the department of labor, rose her bike for the -- rode her bike for the first time and has pledged to regularly become a bike commuter in san francisco. so through san francisco's effective bike to work encouragement campaign and wonderful partnership with the sfmta, hundreds of thousands of people are exposed to messaging through media, marketing, and promotions, and to a wealth of safety information. so thank you. chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to comment on this item, item 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. item 4, please. >> option of alternative 2b as

the locally preferred alternative for the yerba buina island ramps. >> good morning, commissioners. the y.b.i. project manager. i am here to update you on the project progress and then ultimately go ahead and discuss the locally preferred alternative. i'll give you a quick overview where we're at in the process. the two alternative that we've studied over the lasts three years discuss the environmental issues, the preferred alternative cost and funding, next steps and recommendation. as most of you know, the egress to and from is very difficult. right now the diagram shows the existing westbound on ramp is just on the east side of the yerba island one tunnel. it is a very short merge, very difficult to traverse in terms of being able to quickly

accelerate and get on to the main span, westbound. and the existing westbound off ramp is on the left side which frankly from a cal transtandpoint is sub standard. so the purpose of this project is to improve that situation. we have prepared a draft of environmental impact report, environmental statement, in cooperation with caltrans. the transportation authority is the -- [indiscernible] the document was issued for public comment. starting on february 25. and comments were received all the way up until april 11 of this year. let's jump into the two alternatives. the no build, as discussed before, very sub standard. and even as part of the bay bridge project, minimal improvements were proposed as part of the project.

alternative 2about. in the diagram, the reconstruction of the westbound offramp is the off ramp in blue. in essence, as you're heading into san francisco on the east side of the island, the off ramp would be on the right side. you would go ahead and get off the off ramp and be able to go left or right. the project also proposes to reconstruct the westbound on ramp. and that is in the color orange. so in essence of what's called a hook-type on ramp where would you proceed on to the ramp and then merge on to the highway before the tunnel. it's important to recognize that as part of this alternative, we do have impacts to the historic district. mean particular, to what are considered building 267 which would have to be relocated as part of this alternative.

alternative 4 is more costly. and after various considerations, the reconstruction of the westbound off ramp once again would be in the color blue, it would come off on the right side but be a little further to the east. and the reconstruction of the westbound on ramp which would be a much more secure distance, longer ramp, would start on south gate road, traverse under the bridge, and back up to westbound deck level. this alternative is quite a bit more costly, has more impacts as we'll go through the analysis here to show you. by the way, i do want to recognize that i'm showing you two alternatives. but over the last three years we probably studied about 10 of them, going through a process to

make sure we looked at every prudent and feasible alternative. these were two selected through the process to go through full environmental evaluation. what you have is a build alternative comparison between alternative 2b and alternative 4. as i indicated before, for example, on the westbound on-ramp, when you compare the two alternatives, alternative 2b is shorter, much more compact ramp. it does allow for a one-lane h.o.v. lane and one mixed flow lane. alternative 4 does not allow for an h.o.v. lane because of the length of the ramp so that's one of the issues related to alternative 4. the westbound off-ramps are similar in nature, for either alternative. widening on macalla road under either alternative. a little more widening under alternative 2b. quarters 10/building 267, as indicated under alternative 2b would have to be relocated, but it would not under alternative 4. and as you can see, there is a pricetag difference here of

about $55 million between the two. i'm going to go ahead now and show you a few slides as it relates to quite frankly the two major issues that we saw from in terms of environmental concerns that were the major issues on the project. first is visual. this is basically taken from the ground level. and this is a computer simulation of the after condition when the bay bridge is open. if there were no new ramps included as part of the project. frankly, the ramps would be hidden on the right side of the bridge structure there, similar to what they are today. so this is, in essence, a view looking towards what's called -- [indiscernible] then as you have here, you've got a comparative between the alternative 2b on the left as you're standing, call it ground level, looking towards the house. and as you can see, the off-ramp

structure that would, in essence, pull off the bridge and tie into macalla road, which is behind the house there. and then you can see, also, too, the new on-ramp structure there behind that ramp there. alternative 4, as i indicated before, you're basically starting on the south side of the island, call it traversing underneath the bridge, and then coming up and tying in with a new ramp structure on the westbound side. so it's basically double the column. so from a visual standpoint, this is an alternative that has more visual impact. just another view. this time look at the nimitz house. if you're in front of the nimitz house looking to the east, alternative 2b and then alternative 4, alternative 4 does come out a lot farther on to the island and also presents additional visual imimpacts. -- visual impacts. and if this works correctly, if you're in a helicopter and

you're flying over the island, in the after condition, this is alternative 2b, how it would look. as you can see, the off ramp would come to macalla road. there's the nimitz house on the right side. there's the new on-ramp. much more safe acceleration and deceleration distance on the right side. and then what you're seeing on the left is what caltransis proposing for the new eastbound on-ramp, which is part of the bay bridge project. let's hope this works for alternative 4. doesn't look like it's going to work.

yeah. ok. once again, alternative 2b. and we'll give it one last shot here for the next alternative. this is a much improved

condition from what we see today out there, the final product. my apologies it doesn't look like it's going to work. the diagram does have double the number of columns. it starts on the coast guard side of the island, traverses to the east, comes underneath the bridge, and then comes up to meet in the westbound direction. my apologies for not being able to get that to work there. let's move on in terms of the discussion. the cultural resources and historic properties. this is a very important discussion for us to understand. we are right there in the middle of the historic property, senior officers quarters, historic district courters one, 10/267. we've began to great lengths to

look at every prudent and feasible alternative to minimize the impact to the historic district. these are prudent and feasible. we went to great lengths in terms of redesigning -- not redesigning but looking at concepts to try to avoid impacts. but we got to a point where with the recognition, the caltransand highway administration, there will be impacts. we need to mitigate those. we have come up with an agreement with the state historic preservation office. we have an agreement in place that we are executing right now which calls for, in essence, the relocation under alternative 2b of buildings 10 and 267 which are located right there on macalla road. and as part of the project, we will be relocating it to the clipper cove area, down where treasure island and macalla road

meet. and it looks like a much better, quite frankly, setting for the building to be potentially used in the future. as part of the redevelopment. as i indicated brief wh previou. we went through a 45-day comment period. all the letters received were positive. in particular, the u.s. departments of interior who reviewed and approved the 4f document that was part of the draft, eireis. basically wrote a no comment letter which from an environmental planning standpoint is one of the best letters you can ever get from the department of interior. usepa also acknowledged that they had no objection to the project. the navy, the coast guard, in particular, have been involved in the project since day one for the last three years. they're all very supportive. we had a public hearing held in march and took public comment in. not a lot of public controversy here. i think everyone recognizes this is an important safety project

that, quite frankly, needs to be built here. the sooner the better. in april, the project development team made up of transportation authority staff, caltrans, federal highway administration, the coast guard, and the treasure island development authority, we all unanimously selected alternative 2b. this shows an overview of the costs for the project, roughly a total cost of just unde under $100 million, $94 million, $95 million range. we do have funding for this project. happy to report that we have program funding from the highway bridge program, federal funds, as well as the local seismic bridge retrofit account. any and all local match will come through the treasure island development authority as part of the project. the next steps, happy to report, the final eireis and recorded

decision is anticipated this fall, sometimes in the september, october time frame. so we anticipate being back here in front of you with an approval of the final document in that time frame, potentially august or september. we want -- we are on schedule for complete design early this year, early 2012. our intent is to move forward with the preferred alternative here for approval, and then intend moving forward with relocation package for the historic buildings and the spring of 2012. and then begin the ramp construction nearly 2013. i think everyone should recognize that in terms of the construction timing, it's really dependent on making sure that we work and are working with caltransin terms of the timing and making sure we, in no way, interfere with the seismic bridge opening project that they have which is anticipated in the fall of 2013. so we're hoping we can actually start construction in early 2013 and then complete that

approximately within about a year and a half, two-year period, and open up the new ramps about a year and a half after they open up the new bridge. and finally, the recommendation for adoption of alternative 2b as the locally preferred alternative. open to any questions you might have. chairman chu: thank you. a question on the cost component you laid out on slide 19. the capital cost o of $70.5 million which i think responds to your slide nine figures. on p top of that, the right of way cost, and construction. are those three costs the same for alternative 2b versus alternative 4? >> no. they're significantly different for alternative 4. i apologize for not bringing those numbers here. but the total cost is approximately $50 million higher for alternative 4. and the challenge that we have, too, quite frankly, is being able to if we had to -- if that were the alternative chosen is to get the funding for it. but everyone degrees, in

particular caltrans, the bay bridge, in making sure we tie this ramp in so it doesn't impact their new structure on what's called the single anchor suspension. we all agree the location of these ramps, alternative 2b is superior. chairman chu: thank you. why don't we open this item up for public comment at this time. i've got one speaker card, francisco decosta. and if there are other members who wish to speak on item 7, please do line up as well. >> let me address one particular issue when we're evaluating the presentation. i'm going to, because of limited time, i'm going to just focus on the cultural. so the gentleman points out that there are two buildings, maybe landmark, historic, that have to be removed. not a mention of [indiscernible]

brought to my attention by an examiner, reporter, john upton in which i'm following from a position because i represent the first people on this matter it means nothing at all if the department of interior or the national parks service write a letter and say they have nothing to comment. they did the same on the field until we found a shell mound, and then there was plenty to comment. what i'm saying is, we do need the bridge, we do need to address what is relevant through our contemporary civilization and the mess that we have created by creating so many vehicles and polluting the air and so on and so forth. but it's only right to have a

check list. [ tone] and they have to be addressed some of us are not sending in our comments when it comes to the environmental impact studies into the federal system or the environmental impact report. we have to watch. and we have to point out and represent. [tone] we have to be educate sod that -- educated so they can answer relevant questions. thank you very much. chairman chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on item 4? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to send this item forward and to adopt alternative 2b as the preferred alternative. can we do that without objection? ok. thank