requests. the second request is for planning and conceptual design environmental phases of the second street streetscape project. so, this is an $80,000 propped a request for general funds for the environmental review of the second streetscape project. as the board will recall, the original second streetscape project received a $4 million block grant from the authority. recently, in february, there was a special board meeting in which the authority reprogrammed those funds to other projects with community average coordination amongst city agencies, putting the federal funding at risk, we took action to reset the planning process.

on page 40 of your inclosure there is a fairly detailed outline of what the process will entail. citing first that the process has already begun. there were existing funds already over there to start the process. so, there are three meetings scheduled. the first will be in april and will be with key stakeholders. the second one will be in august, where they go over major design alternatives. after that meeting in august, they will go over design alternatives in an overview of the outreach process. in november they will come to the final, complete solution for that court or it. the environmental process, there are a few different ways that that can go. the current street -- streetscape project had those

plans, so there may be an opportunity throughout the existing plans, but that is still in negotiation and depends on the design alternatives. we will update you on the schedule. i believe that that is it for my presentation. do you want to take questions on these? supervisor avalos: commissioner kim? supervisor kim: no questions, i just wanted to thank you so much for responding promptly. our office is excited to work with all agencies. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you for the presentation. >> good morning, commissioners. i am a transportation planner with the authority and i will be quickly going over the quilt-jerrod road.

this is to inform of the object to replace the bridge over quint street. we have briefed mr. cullen on this issue. he is definitely aware of this project. just to give you a little bit of background, the bridge is 100 years old and we're looking to replace the bridge over quint street. they have already programmed $25 million to replace the bridge. the prevailing interest here is that we are currently, as you know, undergoing ongoing planning for the potential transition at oakdale avenue, just south of this bridge. in 2005 there is an ability

study that found the station feasible, with a lot of community support. but there are basic constraints. the platforms expand over clinton street. just to give you an update on that as well, the writer ship study, we are currently completing and expect to bring it forward very soon, potentially in may. caltrans, to deal with the issue of replacing the bridge of maintaining access for the community and facilitating a station, has looked at three bridge options, given the $25 million in funding. replacing the bridge in kind would cost about $25 million.

but it would not allow for transportation platforms. to build stations in the future, you would have to demolish the bridge and then build a wider bridge to accommodate. building a wider bridge with a different structure would accommodate those platforms at about $35 million. typically exceeded by $10 million, the funding available. the last option, option #1, replace the bridge with a berm to accommodate station platforms, reducing global access for the community. fortunately, that option cost about $20 million, leaving about $5 million to do access improvements.

that would essentially provide improvements for local access. it would essentially be a separate project that would be a new, local street connection that would run parallel to the caltrans right of way, providing new connections between gerald avenue and where quint street currently does. you would still be able to get to the tracks by going under the gerald avenue bridge. so, that project would also increase usage for local land. at this level it is not yet designed, but it would be the $5 million to $8 million range,

with a surplus from option #1. so, this appropriation request, for $74,000, is essentially to take a closer look at this concept. during an independent review of the cost of caltrans and design options, making sure that we are not making opportunities for a more ideal option. secondly, to do a very conceptual level of design on the connector road as workable and demonstrate that to the community before going forward potentially the closing the access on clint -- clint --

quint. we have dates for funding to be conducted once we have done the design work. we are hoping to just present this to the community and get feedback on these options before we come back to the board of. that concludes -- board action, we are looking at the cac in may for board policy action. supervisor avalos: thank you. mr. flanagan briefly touched upon this project. there was concern from the public about talking about the deeper? >> this action, this work that we're doing is largely in

response to concerns, one of which we heard being that there is some pressure to go forward with choosing a policy action sooner rather than later, as we do have a bridge that does need to be replaced and we need to learn more, if we go with closing this bridge, we need to be clear that the connector road option would work. one of the concerns that we heard was that we were doing this in the wrong order in when needed to do a luminary work on reviewing these options. so, that is why we are here today. secondly, concerned about how the connector road would fit in with gerald avenue and other street work going on in that area, reconfiguring intersection. we are taking a good look at

coordinating with the produce market and bring it back to the community in response. supervisor avalos: thank you. it could very well be that we have a choice between three options and recommendations. waxed particularly options of one in two, as three is not feasible. supervisor avalos: break. any other questions from the committee? we can go on to public comment. >> good morning, commissioners. i am with the san francisco bicycle coalition. i bring you bicycle route 11. it has been for decades, between multiple -- market street and the dog walked.

so, of course, lets plan quickly for an excellent second street. this allocation will help the mta further, but we are looking forward to a better plan and project. and i should go forward looking -- look back on forward to facilitating public works and other agencies any -- supervisor avalos: thank you very much. any other members of the public? seeing no one, that concludes public comment. colleagues, a motion to move forward? we will take that without

objection. item no. 6. >> item #6. recommend approval of the bayshore intermodal station access study final report. recommend approval of the western south of market neighborhood transportation plan final report. >> we are seeking approval. then there is the final report itself. beginning a brief overview presentation on the study and report, today i will be talking about the background and purpose of the study, discussing the alternative and evaluations that we did on those alternatives. outside we're recommending highlights the reason we're doing this study is that there is a real station of -- are

version the in fact, part of the station actually reside in the city of brisbane. including the visitation of the stage flight, further out chemistry this almost completely surrounds bay shore station. in anticipation of the new development, the local agencies have already proposed for new transportation improvements in the area including a new extension to u.s. 1 01.

also the extension of the rail line from where it ends now into the station. finally, what is relevant is a new rapid transit line that would make transit east west through this area. a number of pieces of land are currently vacant. this is really a blank straight -- slate. this is a chance for us to create a successful station. if you look at the current conditions, it is far from that vision. it is isolated, kind of scary to be at at night because it is a little bit remove from activity that is happening. the focus of the study is how do we transform what we have now to a vibrant station?

and the authority began the study in 2009 and i would like to thank our funders to the steady. we also got more from the board and their counterpart. some of the staff from these agencies are in attendant. the study was timed to coincide with the planning process. and there could be some information exchange that this statement could steady in regressed to finding with the station and that information to be used to inform the decisions that are occurring which are under the jurisdiction and the

city. there was a community outreach effort as part of the steady penn. chapter 4 details the input that we received. we did sheriff that the station location might see changes with the new development but there are allegations between serving new neighborhoods and existing neighborhoods and we should not exist either one when we make station improvements. a bit more about the specific plan because that is such an integral piece of land. we understand there to be two scenarios under consideration for land use approval. 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