this slide on the screen shows that key differences and there are some differing visions. the developer calls for armhole more growth clustered around the station area -- for more growth cluster around the station area. the community center calls for employment uses only. now i want to talk about the station alternative that the study developed. we develop three alternatives. in the final report, chapter 3 -- >> who are the drivers between the land use plan these are the

concepts that they put forward or is this something different? >> this is happening within the city of brisbane. >> two scenarios were developed. one was a proposal that comes from the landowner. our understanding is that there are some components of the committee that prefer a different plan. this is done through a community process.

currently, there are two scenarios that are under consideration. >> where is the college to line up in terms of this? >> this is a separate proposal. as you talk about this, it is pretty complicated and there are several moving parts. there is a proposal that a separate it from the developer'' proposal and i believe it is separate from the committee proposal. there might be some accountability between what is being proposed. until this point, there is a need for them to come together and for them to be reconciled. that is part of the process that

we're watching unfold. >> ok, thank you. >> at the slide on the screen shows the development cost but there is full detail in chapter 3. i will provide some highlights here. of the three alternatives, they differed in how they locate the station facilities, and where the bus line is. this keeps most of the station facilities closer to san francisco closer to the red circles. this pulls them a little bit further south to better serve the new development. alternative three was envisioned as a compromise between

alternatives one and two and kind of meeting in the middle. the other differences are how they treat rapid transit. alternative one provides that the line has an aerial guard will -- ariel died way -- arial guideway. this pulled the facilities further south. the alternative three is a compromise between the two of them during the course of the study, alternative 3 was not compatible with the land use plan. it might have something to do with some combination of the proposal and the community land use scenario that was developed

we did not land up alternative evaluation, we developed two and -- we developed one and two instead. the evaluation applied six criteria to compare the performance of alternative one relative to this. looking at how many potential transit riders does this place within walking distance of the system? second, the evaluation look at how easy it is to get to the station if you are coming by foot or by bike. we also look at how easy it would be to transfer from the bus to caltrans. is this a long walk to get to the platforms or is it a short walk? how easy or hard is it to

operate bus transit along the design that alternatives create. finally, how easy or hard is it to implement. we will go back into this again, how many potential transit riders does this station alternative put within walking distance at the station? as you can imagine, this completely depends on what happens on the day land. what is true is that if the developer gets approved, then alternative a key, which pulls more of the station facilities closer to the bay land, does capture potential riders. it is the community land use that it's approved, if the station facility is located further north. we really depend on what happened in the bayview.

overall, this calls the evaluation. there are a number here under which alternative one and is better than alternative two. the city's waste provider and the transfer facility is directly adjacent to the station. it does created the challenge of getting it to the station because this has recently announced plans to develop a site and expand its site said that they can accommodate a zero ways the system.

this shows that the site in yellow. alternative one, this provides a connection to the station. they are expected to move forward with the plan and this is to absorb lands south. we have had a preliminary conversation. they would prefer something that would give them more flexibility rather than having a narrow driveway and. they like it all underground. that would add a significant amount of the cost. this study is estimating about

$30 million. this would be detrimental to a bicycle and pedestrian traffic. there are issues there that we will want to continue to monitor. >> the station success is not about the best asian design alternative, there are all transportation and land use issues. for example, this slide shows that there are access routes that are being recommended. the study looked at what are the most likely routes for people to

get to the new station. keep in mind that a lot of the streets do not exist. the idea is that when they get designed, the hope is that they get designed to accommodate the modes we have identified and likely optimally be using. similarly, the study identified what we think are very key pedestrian roups -- routes. these areas we think are critical to the station's success. we want to make sure that the streets have proper pedestrian facilities. finally, the studies looked at and identified land use policies and designs that will be critical for supporting the station's success from and that

is detailed in chapter 6. i want to highlight the need for dance and diverse nearby land uses. this is need it to address the isolation that you feel at this they should. the solution to that isolation is to bring nearby land uses to the station that are dense and diverse and have activity. one way to do that is to provide housing nearby. i want to touch a little bit on high-speed rail. >> will this be enough to draw people into the area? >> maybe, maybe not. i want to touch a bit on high- speed rail. when we presented this item, initially they were curious about the impact that might be had on this area. the original proposal just as a reminder for high-speed rail

which was developed in about 2009 or 2010, was for a fourth- track system. what that meant for the bay shore area was that a wider railed right of way was needed in order to accommodate that system and would have had a pretty big impact on the pedestrian environment in the station area and even where we could place the station. since then, there have been due -- new ents which -- an new events which are available. under that scenario, there is no impact to the bay shore station area. this can remain as it is today. there were already four tracks there. the idea that this study was established as a vision for the

local vision for how land use is to be in this area that will serve as a constraint and it would be respected by future will designs. -- rail designs. the study produce cost estimates that are detailed in chapter 7. the estimate for the station itself, between 50-$60 million. if you start to increase this, the cost rises pretty dramatically. we recognize that this is a high price tag. we think that this is a deliverable set of projects. we are expecting public and private contributions. there is actually a separate study called the by county transportation study that is exploring these funding options. we do expect to bring a report from the steady to the committee later this year and later in the spring. we do think that this area is

very competitive for regional funds. we think the prospects are good. finally, i do want to touch on the recent finding environment. we recognize that the economy has been slow and that has slowed the pace of land development. we have also seen the recent redevelopment which has taken away the major development tool for funding to transportation improvements. we can see that the land to develop a process may take place slowly than originally envisioned. the goal of the study really remains. we want this to be supportive of transit. we want a successful transit station. that does not change. how we get there, we might actually have to change. we think that there are some interest savings that can be done. we don't have to build all of the facilities all at once. we will have to think about other ways to capture the land

base and funding contributions. >> could you give a for instance on what that would look like, other land-based forces? >> we have not done an in-depth look about what those other sources could be. there are some things like infrastructure development that could be put in place that would be a similar mechanism to what we serve in terms of capturing value. there are hurdles that need to be overcome to put those things in place. we will have a more full report when we bring the study through to the committee in the future. in terms of the next steps, we would like to publish a final report on this study again so that it can be used to inform with other processes that are ongoing, especially with the bay

lands. the current status is the environmental review, those two land use in areas are being analyzed environmentally pant of the latest schedule is for some sort of a draft environmental impact report to be completed in some time 2012. also finalizing the circulation plan and define and development plan -- and design and develop a plan. we do plan to come up with some interest projects, especially for the rapid transit line. we are recommending a feasibility study as the next step for giving some more detail to what that would look like. we want to think about what the funds are that we could gather on the public and private side and improve our coordination. that concludes my presentation. this is the file report we are

seeking approval for. >> thank you for your presentation. >> mr. chairman, commissioners. just a quick aside on this. i would like to thank chester for his presentation 10 ten. we received presentation from a member of our citizens advisory committee. she could not be here today. i just distributed a copy to you. it is critical that i provide some comment on that. she has been very devoted to this issue. she has been a member of cac for a long time. she points out a connection for a long time that was pointed to, the need for proactive land use work around this area. she bemoans the demise of the

redevelopment agency and point out that this is one of the areas that did not get carried over because there was not a plant in place. it is unclear on who will take over the very important work, especially the housing work that she points out and we point out in the study. this is key to the viability of this project. we have a big connection with this project because of the third street project and this is an intermodal connectivity issue. this dates back to 1999. there has been some at the discussions about this stuff and it is all about making sure that the southeast corner of the city as it reshapes, this does not end up being a suburb.

we want to make sure that there is really an opportunity for that area to develop as a model. she essentially a urges you in your capacity as members of the board of supervisors to look into how that works at continues. i know that the questions on your mind and i don't have any answers for you. i'm looking to discuss this at the planning department. this would be a funding issue, i don't know that this would be eligible for funding but we would always be interested in cooperating with other city departments, perhaps to procure some kind of a stationary or planning grant or some appropriate grant that could help propel this work full word. i believe is fundamental that we

pay attention to the land side of this which is not usually our specialty but without it, we are making the transportation side and a bang for the buck investment. >> i am also serving as the oracle for a friend but i am trying to engage with you. >> thank you for your presentation and i agree in terms of it needs to be a joint effort around developing the land for housing and for density, also with transit. that will be a key to making it forward. i would say it is inevitable that we would see this part of san francisco and brisbane developed into a station that will actually be workable. right now, it is not. it does not serve a lot people. i am pretty familiar with it. i think that the study is really important about how we can proceed and different options.

i appreciated the effort that was behind it. if there are no other questions, we can go on to public comment. >> good morning, mr. chair and the commissioners. i am with the city county association of governments and i would like to first thank the transportation authority, your staff, especially for leading this station access study project. we fully are in support of of the study's findings and we look forward to continue working and collaborating on future projects that impact both san francisco and san mateo counties. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> good morning.

our staff has been involved with this study since the beginning and i am here today to articulate our support. we feel this is a great opportunity to make sure that we have sufficient in place being proactive in doing that and the efforts have been put forth are very good and we are supportive of those. >> thank you very much. course it is important to have a better connection between the t line and cal train.

the question about the property that you asked and the staff addressed in part, it is important that we not propose something that is going to impact this facility and the malls i have seen suggest a pretty significant structure their, perhaps a large box, if you will. i am not sure the alignments are really going to be workable and i would encourage staff to look carefully at that. this is redevelopment but i appreciate the director raising the correspondents. it remains to be seen how redevelopment will play out in this area. i want to say this in relation to an earlier item, as someone who served on both the 1989, and

2003 advisory committees, i feel that the staff could do more outreach to folks who have served on those prior bodies. there is a lot of specific projects that get done in the studies such as this and and there could be more of that i reached the people who have had a long-term interest in transportation, funding, planning issues. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good morning. we are the primary landowner in the study area. we have been involved in the study process and are supportive of the approval of the steady. given where we are in the overall planning process. we submitted a letter requesting

an alternative and we will submit that letter. the reason we submitted that letter is it reflects our concern that the full range of the bay shore alternatives need to be considered in the future once the specific plans once they have moved past the review process. we expect the final process. it is probable that the design of the station will differed from all of the alternatives but nevertheless the study is useful in identifying some important considerations and benefits of each alternative. in this post redevelopment environment, we look forward to looking to design the most cost- effective station and to identify private and public funds that will be required to

implement this strategy. thank-you. >> thank you very much. any other member of the public that like to comment? seeing none, we will close public comment. colleagues, this item is before us. we have a motion to move forward. >> thank you. we will take that without objection. >> thank you. >> i am getting used to how these meetings are structured. i thought that he would respond. supervisor olague: i wanted to

comment on the letter from fran martin earlier. she pointed out that the oversight board or may oversees the formally developed areas. the other six redevelopment areas, we need dedicated staff for those remaining areas. i know the mentioned that you would be speaking with the planning director, but i agree that a lot of this transportation planning was centered around the housing being considered for that area. particularly the [unintelligible] site that is up in the air. is there a possibility of getting some kind of a report back from the mayor's office on housing to see how they plan on dealing with these projects? it seems to me that the

relevance of some of these transportation plans before us rest on the fact that it was being viewed that there would be new residence in that area. with a very comprehensive plan around housing and transportation and that sort of thing. so,-housing, i am not sure if that changes the paradigm here. >> you are correct. beyond that, not only is there rabbit -- relevance, which we care about, but the opportunity for funding, because the region is looking for transitive development. as far as your request for an update, at the very least, what i can do is make the contacts between the different agencies.

giving you a sense of where it seems to be moving. supervisor olague: it should be reevaluated, in a sense. supervisor avalos: can we get an update when it comes to the full commission? >> we will have contact on that, yes, absolutely. supervisor olague: it is concerning to me. i am sorry i did not comment sooner. supervisor avalos: we have actually approve the item. we can, -- along to the next, item number 7. >> item #7. recommend approval of the western south of market neighborhood transportation plan final report. >> this item begins on page 49 of your packet. the transportation plan final report. we are seeking approval. there is a separate