agency to meet with the board to be fully up-to-speed with the process, and i will ask her and josh to come forward. >> good afternoon, board members, the planning director was hoping to be here and got held up, i will introduce susan. over the past years we have working with the transit bay center and the downtown rail agency. and we have been reporting and commenting of the plans for caltrain and the plan to bring high rail into san francisco. these plans are critical to the future of the city. all of these piece are intertwined and there is considerations for all of these projects, as well as the need to

augment and secure more funding to realize their totality. we adopted the transit plan in 2012 that dealt with the downtown effort. and at the same time that we worked on that plan and received funding and urging from the mayor's office to develop over the rail yards. based on the notion that this large piece of property in the city holds financial value to cap and fund these investments as well as create an ongoing revenue to support caltrain. and the mta has been tasked to provide for the city to fund this regional transit provider. there are several other nonfinancial reasons to build on the railway site, to develop south of market and eastern bay,

and that the railways are better in the neighborhood and provide for amenities in a transit location. we published a memo at the end of 2012, and at the back of the envelope put the value of the site at $200 million. and we have worked with caltrain to consolidate rail issues on the site. and at the same time we grappled with the physical and financial issues of bringing caltrain and high rail into the city. the major realization that we came to, we are at a major turning point of the eastern side of the city. and we need to take a step back to see how to build the best city and is better than the sum of the parts and to broadly transform this part of the city, that is the future of the city. and from tangled infrastructure

and unsightly edges into a seamless neighborhood, and hope to find ways to build the infrastructure as well as tap into new revenue sources to pay for it. and laying of the infrastructure on the area south of downtown, and treating like what the bath water used to be is failure to see the future. with an area creating a mile long moat to impact ee eed spic that everything must be sent through, and mta has highlighted these issues. and this service on caltrain and the implementation of planned growth unless we consider how to untangle this.

and for open minds and transformation, and that transformation that city of san francisco is known for transforming the waterfront and the valley and urban space and mobility. in the area that we don't have an earthquake and damage to repair, but we have equally earth shaking in one location that san francisco hasn't seen in generations. of mission bay and central waterfront is the new center of the city and we need to do it justice. susan giggy will walk you through the project and to confirm additional components like the dtx seen today and to move forward this part of the

city. >> maybe since we have been joined by the planning director, john ram and say a few words. stuck on muni? >> no, i wasn't, and josh did an excellent job of telling you about the projects. i want to give an overview and introduce to staff. kelly joins us from being in portland, oregon and this project will live in his department with josh and management of susan giggy that we will introduce to you in a moment. and i appreciate the time. it's important that we take a new look at this part of the city. it's the next generation of growth in the city. and important that we do it holistically. it's component of looking at land use, proposed and looking

at broader set of infrastructure that this city needs, holistic and long term. there is a tremendous amount of work in this part of the city on caltrain and rail and many others. but we feel like it's time to take a step back and look at it holistically, building on the work and tying it together. and particularly tying the land use and transportation issues together. it's time to do that, we are completing a plan north of this area in the central soma district, and that will reflect potential growth, especially for office for the next decade to 15 years. this area we are looking at now will represent the generation after that. and we are looking forward to that, with partners and mta and other city agencies, and we are looking forward to working with you all and your staff to make it happen.

thank you, and susan will go over the specifics. >> good afternoon, my name is susan giggy, i have a bit of a cold, if i have a coughing fit, i provided water. i am here to provide to you the feasibility study, but before beginning, i want to thank those that laid out the project, and the staff and the agencies involved in the project that includes caltran, and caltrain and mta, and high-speed rail spirit and various departments in the city. myself in the planning department will continue to engage them throughout the project. i am sure that you are intimately aware of the various pieces of the new infrastructuria the -- in the area. we have under construction the

transbay central as well as the central subway. as this existing and planned infrastructure continues to progress, these projects will layer upon themselves and create a spider web. to date understanding the spider-web of effects and layering of benefits and impacts has been minimal. this project will change that. based on the job growth in the area, the city needs to look at the future to provide for housing and employment opportunities. and looking how best to fund the project projects, with that in mind, as josh stated looking at a holistic approach to coordinate the projects. what happened previously you look at one specific project and how they affect the others, and this one you look at

holistically and as a matrix, and how it affects the others and allowing us to make the best decision going forward. additionally some of the existing and future solutions that are being considered now result in physical intrusions that the city would like to minimize. what you see in the left-hand corner is anticipated 16th. and in the right you have the 280 barrier and on the bottom you have the rail yard. i want to point out now that the goal of this project is not to redo any work completed. but rather to understand those decision points and assess their continued validity and determine the projects and other projects. and while moving on to understand to raise the money

needed for this infrastructure. so to step back a little bit, there has been a lot of work completed in the area. this slide elaborates on some of the work, including the california high-speed rail authority and the downtown rail system and all local plans completed not only planning department but mta and gpw and other department in the city. and you can see from the slide that the area is burgioning and to plan and not react after the fact. the specifics of the project is really looking at five components. those five components, and we will go over them individually is assessing the possibility of boulevard and 280. looking at independent dpx

engineering study. looking at the potential of transbay terminal loop track. reconfiguring and/or relocating of a portion of (inaudible) rail yard and with those pieces with land opening. this will allow project by project and further assess the land use last year. and prepare san francisco for high-speed rail. and help us determine what the best approach for san francisco to the area. and it will aid the city in supporting the efforts of our partners in the project caltran/caltrain and high speed and other agencies.

looking at detailed individual components. first the boulevard/i-280. this is a 1.2 mile barrier that separates mission bay from soma. and it only has two crossings. as traffic wants to get from east side of this area to the west side, they are funneled in these two locations and result in a clogging of those areas. as everyone understands boulevard, we have successfully boulevarded previous freeways. on the left is embarcadero and on the ride is octavia and, we would be doing some similar in this location. as stated previously, we are not looking at starting projects

from the beginning, but there is a lot of work done on each of these components. it's understanding them as a holistic approach. this slide shows two options previously studied, using the concept of the boulevard than i-280. can you see how we better knit this part together and improve the vehicle and bicycle access to the bay if the 280 were to come down. and this project will look at the integration of the 16th street plans, specifically in this component. and if we were able to change the interaction of the area with the 280 corridor, other options are open to change for connection and interaction within the area. this specific anticipated scope of work is to look at the -- to

replace the elevated freeway with the boulevard, and to evaluate the impact and impacts of the associate of the boulevard. the second component is the detailed engineering study. again is there a lot of work completed on this issue. this slide shows current alignment and this is a large to ensure that connectivity of this element is essential. with that in mind the anticipated scope of work looks at reviewing the alignment and connecting high-speed rail and caltrain to dtc and to look at

options studies and to be aware of constraints on the project. the third component is relooking the a transbay loop track. as currently designed the transstation is a subbing station meaning that the trains come in and leave from the same track. previous studies have shown a loop track to be beneficial but based on earlier designs of the transbay center. we would look at updating those earlier designs based on the new design of the transit center, which is a longer platform and the study -- yeah. and then the fourth component is looking at the reconfiguration and relocation of the rail yard. the rail yards produce another barrier to the neighborhood limiting access to the area. we will look at three options.

reconfiguring the rail yards for smaller footprint. constructing the deck over the existing rail yards and relocating the rail yards. work was completed by caltran on this last year. two options are shown here. on the left hand is a smaller footprint. the purple is the operations of caltrain. and the pink is potential development and the blue is current alignment of the dpx. the one on left is a smaller footprint but all same operations at fourth and king. and the one on the left is an opportunity to provide some of those current operations. the actual anticipated scope of work is to determine those needs at fourth and king to determine the area required it meet those

needs. to look at alternative locations for additional storage. and understanding the relocation may be done in phases. looking at a phased plan. and then for the fifth component it's really understanding that those four components produce parcels of land that would become available for redevelopment. the rail yards at i-280 comprise about four acres. understanding this is a 1.2 mile barrier with only those two crossings. if we were able to remove that physical barrier, how much interaction and how much development could be produced in that location. i have hit most of these benefits within the presentation. so i won't go into all of them. but i want to highlight a few of them. just improving this area would generate revenue for caltrain

and other transportation improvements. we understand there is a need for additional funding throughout san francisco and the region, capital revenues could be generated. and help meet san francisco's housing needs and targets for the bay area. the specific anticipated scope of work is to understand those parcels of land that become available and produce potential land use development scenarios and looking at the value captured associated with those. public involvement related to the project, it will be ongoing throughout the project. we will have focus meetings.

and going to different stakeholders, and an advisory committee made up of caltran, and caltrain and mta and city departments, high-speed rail authority, pgta, all the major players. and to give you an idea of the schedule, we did issue an rfp in january, and we are in final negotiations with the contractor and anticipate a contract late this month or next month. phase 1 that is an feasibility assessment will take six to nine months, and phase 2 is the alternatives that is 12-15 months. i want to note out of this contract is not a preferred alternative, but one, two or three alternatives that work with those five components for further study. and completion of the contract

is 2015-june, 2016. and going on to that second contract, determining that preferred alternative to the available alternative and the mayor's environmental clearance and implementation. with that is there any questions i can help you with? >> members? >> i don't necessarily have any specific questions, i don't feel i am enough of an expert of developing rail yards to offer advise. but the idea around it and maximizing that space that is used for caltrain but has so much potential. it looks like it's going to be an interesting process to go through and i hope that we can maximize that space and help out caltrain. we talk about how much need for housing and that seems to open up interesting development land,

it's an interesting project, no specific questions and look forward to what happens. >> mr. ramos. >> thank you, chairman, i appreciate an update on this vision. i want to compliment the idea of effectively developing a portion of the 280. i don't think it's taking down the whole 280 just a portion of it. it's nice that we are at a place in our city's development and we can look at this portion of the freeway not necessary to serve the community. and i feel that the community is designed to serve and the freeway is not designed. if we have no use for it, we need to think of how better to allocate the space and respond accordingly. one of the things that vice chair brinkman had said, there is a sore need for housing, and i agree.

and i would emphasize that there is a need for affordable housing. and as public land this is a primary opportunity to help accelerate and move that kind of housing along. i encourage you to think about this from here forward that there should be and there needs to be people thinking about how if we are going to do anything there, we can maximize the leveraging of this publicly owned space to get the below market housing out of this project for the future. and yeah, i think that's about all i have. thank you for the time. >> mr. heinicke. >> thank you for the presentation, it was helpful. who owns the rail yard? >> i can tell you that. >> you guys do? >> i was chairman of it when we bought it from the southern

pacific, and caltrain has rights to the land in perpetuity. >> but if the land was developed into real estate purposes that would get into other questions, who sees that money? >> you want me to? you can. >> to build off of what chairman nolan said, caltrain does have the rights and perpetuity to operate a railroad on the site. the underlying land for the rail yard is called (inaudible) but the successor, mission bay developer. >> developer. >> yeah, owns the land. but we are in a condition where caltrain uses the entirety of the property and has the right to do so to perpetuity. and anything of the property caltrain is to approve. >> caltrain has leverage,

interesting. this is all contingent i take it on caltrain making it downtown. are we studying a revision of the rail yard even if caltrain stops at the rail yard. or is this assuming to be done that caltrain makes it downtown? >> under the current schedule of the six peak hour trains, four will continue to fourth and king and two to ttc. there will still be a stop at fourth and king. and caltrain is currently planning to have dead-head service at fourth and king. >> i think the question was though, if dtx never happens is there independent utility in the other scope elements of what you are looking at? >> one component is dpx and there will be an alternative location. and to understand that the matrix and how it affects

everything else is imperative to the project. >> the final question related to that, is there time lines set on this? or are we just studying it and part is figuring out what the time line is? >> we will look at both costs and time line with each component. but this is the last chance before shovels start to move. it's imperative to look at them from a holistic approach and understand what we are getting into before we get into them. and director, you are correct, the study of 280 and taking it down north of mariposa north of that area and south remain i-280 corridor. >> what i am most concerned about is the notion that the rail yard can be located some

place else. i am curious where that someplace else might be. i know the cities in the peninsula fairly well, and i doubt anyone would be eager to accept our rail yard. they want to develop their land the same way that san francisco wants to develop land here. i think that's going to be a huge issue. and i hope that caltrain and the agency are working very closely together at it and at the highest level possible. i think it needs to be there. and i have talked to the director of the powers board, and he believes there are ways to do it, to realign the downtown station and all that, the terminal. but it needs to be discussed. i think it's at that terminal level, i know that you and director rollins spoke to mr. scandalin, and that's my concern that the train is not considered

an after-thought. it's carrying thousands and it has enormous potential. and i believe and i hope to do everything i can do be sure that it goes downtown, that's where it needs to go, that's the big thing. at any rate they all come together. i applaud the study, but this is not a small issue. there are no small issues in there. planning director probably took care of those, the small issues; right? if no other questions, thank you very much for the presentation, we look forward to working with you going forward, thank you. public comment on that? >> no, mr. chairman, no public comment. apparently there is. >> apparently there is. >> howard (inaudible). thank you, board, i am trying to understand this project and i

have a little understanding now. what you want to speak to, they are talking about so many alternatives and more than the ones you are speaking about. all alternatives should be viable and kept alive so the people and you guys all weigh in and everything get balanced in the open. i don't want to see, and i know you don't want to see alternatives decided behind closed doors, it doesn't get anyone anything. and i want to see money made there and when you do more affordable housing they get less money. there has to be a balance and that has to be discussed. keep this open for planning and you guys. >> anyone else to address the board on this subject? >> i have one question, will this have any impact on traffic

congestion? that's something that i am tossing out. because freeways are just loaded with cars. i dread driving to the east bay. and it's just horrendous. and i wonder if this can alleviate some of the traffic congestion, thank you. >> anyone else to address the board on this? seeing none, thank you, item 12. >> item 12, present and discussion regarding the transportation 2030 program and including $500 million general obligation bond and a local increase to the vehicle license fee of 1.35% to fund street and transportation infrastructure projects. >> good afternoon, mta, i am here today to review with you and i have a presentation, review with you a program that

we are calling 2030, it's an infrastructure investment plan that comes out of the mayor's 2030 task force recommendations. before i talk about the program itself, i want to provide some context what we are addressing here. most people if you ask them how they feel about trying to move around san francisco, will respond that it can be stressful. we have streets full of pot holes. and we find that muni is often crowded and sometimes reliable. and congestion on our streets impacts people no matter how they are choosing to travel. we are in this situation largely because we have suffered from many decades of underinvestment in our infrastructure. and as we look towards the future and know that we expect hundreds of thousands of workers and residents in the city in the