Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Board adopts resolutions of necessity for multiple Transbay parcels after public hearings
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Dec. 7 adopted a series of resolutions of necessity authorizing the acquisition by eminent domain of parcels and easements needed to build the Phase 1 Transbay Transit Center and related bus ramps after a multi‑hour public hearing.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Dec. 7 adopted a set of resolutions of necessity to acquire multiple parcels and easements by eminent domain for the Transbay Transit Center program, following public hearings in which property owners and their attorneys raised objections and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) staff described project needs.
The board convened as a committee of the whole for a public hearing on 12 separate resolutions covering properties and easement interests associated with the Phase 1 Transbay Transit Center construction and bus ramps. The properties named in the resolutions included multiple addresses on Natoma Street and Howard Street and related parking easements; the staff said the parcels are necessary for bus ramp alignment, foundations and other elements of the intermodal facility.
TJPA staff presented the project purpose: a new intermodal station with an above-grade park, a subsequent rail extension for Caltrain and high-speed rail, and a mixed-use neighborhood. Staff and the project consultant described the project footprint, the ramp geometry and why the identified parcels are required for safe construction and operation. The TJPA noted it has already reached negotiated settlements for 13 other properties required for the project and that these cases represent properties for which negotiation did not produce an agreement within the project schedule.
Property owners and counsel of record appeared to register objections and outline concerns. Owners of 564–568 Howard; of 60 Tehama; and of portions of 85 Natoma and related parking easements addressed the board. Counsel for a Howard Street owner argued that (1) the TJPA had not negotiated in good faith; (2) the project materials provided to owners were inconsistent over time; and (3) an immediate-possession timetable (seeking…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
