processes in order to be able to help them overcome them in some way or the other. particularly, the difficult situation with this project is that we -- some of the hoops that needed to be jumped through were actually completed. we have worked with the department's to make sure that we still had a timeline that was workable, many months ago. and then, when it became time to actually move beyond the findings of the historic survey and all of the other things is when the department discovered that there was a significant amount of opposition that would not be overcome. in their view, that was going to do the scheduling of the project. at that point, it was really too late.

in a number of locations, we have provided technical and logistical support. moving money around and so on. this really is an extreme case of getting to the final hour. the question of what we can do, the only practical thing that we can try to resolve at this point, as i said to commissioner kim -- i think that at the very least, i need to be bringing you to the meetings of the program committee with this federal money that you administer. a concrete timeline us that the need to be taken for the federal funds to be discarded. assuming that we all have the same goal of making sure that no money is lost, just made more explicit, so that you can see the time that is available and

you can request updates much more often, if necessary. supervisor campos: thank you. -- supervisor avalos: -- supervisor chiu: thank you. i think that for the needs of supervisor kim in her constituency, i think this is a big deal. i wanted to make that point. supervisor campos: thank you. as was noted, we have this action item. i wanted to get this clarity in terms of how we want to act as a body. is it possible for us to delay action for a few days, for a special meeting? is that something that in any way could endanger the funding at issue? >> it would be better, mr. chairman, if you could act today. i was ill-advised, and i want to make it very clear, i want to

advise the department to make the submission that they need to make, making it conditional in an action by the board. i would suggest that you hold a special meeting in the next week or so to make sure that the department is on solid ground, communicating to others that this is an issue that has captured the focus of the board and that action will be taken on it. supervisor campos: commissioner kim, do you have any preference? supervisor chiu: i -- supervisor kim: i still have a lot of questions that i need to be answered. replacing the $4.8 million on second street. supervisor campos: is that a motion to continue to the call of the chair? i would be happy to make sure that we have a special meeting as soon as possible. supervisor kim: yes, thank you.

supervisor campos: colleagues, can we take that motion without objection? without objection. thank you. madam clerk, please call item no. 7. >> item #7. the authority's enabling legislation requires the preparation and adoption of an annual report by january of eac. this is an action item. supervisor campos: -legally, are we required to take action today on this item? i know that time is running short. >> mr. chairman, the statute requires that i bring you an annual report in january. i think it is important that you hear a presentation. however, i am informed by counsel that we have complied with the spirit of the law, by bringing the item to the board and making it available to the

public. i would still like to say that to your pleasure, we can go over this in february. the fact that -- february. supervisor campos: the fact that it is presented is enough to meet requirements? >> yes. i think it is better to delay the action, but consider the item as presented to you and the board. supervisor campos: colleagues, we will take public comment, but unless there is an objection, i would be inclined to bring this item back to us for a future meeting. let's open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public that would like to speak on item number seven? seeing no one, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we have a motion to continue this to the call of the chair? we can take that without

objection. madam clerk, please call item no. 9. >> item #9. update on the implementation of california high-speed rail. this is an information item. supervisor campos: this item was introduced by commissioner wiener. i want to thank him and his staff for this work on this very important project for san francisco and the bay area. we will turn it over to commissioner winner. >> thank you very -- supervisor wiener: thank you very much. i called for this meeting to update the city on the progress for high-speed rail. to discuss how and when we bring high-speed rail to san francisco and declared this as an opportunity, unlike any other, for us to act reasonably and

involved institutional partners. how we bring the high-speed rail to san francisco is a discussion about land use and jobs, as much as it is about transportation. governor brown's recent full support of high-speed rail is very welcome in san francisco, where we are building the first project. i know that a lot of us are very happy to hear the governor reiterate his support and show that despite the noise that has been circulating around in certain quarters, that there is support for high-speed rail and it is critical to the future of transportation in the economy in california. at the same time, we must actively look for ways to move the project forward, reduce costs, collaborate with regional partners, and explore how to bring more funding to the enterprise. as with any transformative

infrastructure transportation project, whether it is the interstate highway system or railways, it is not cheap or easy and it does not happen overnight. the same is true here. i know that we will find a way to make this happen. with that, i would like to turn the discussion over to the mayor's office. then we will invite the director and staff to present. mr. elliott? >> thank you, commissioners. jason elliott, from the mayor's office. thank you for giving us this opportunity to discuss the city's vision for high-speed rail. the mayor is committed to bringing it to san francisco at the earliest possible date. i will not deliver his support to much, but when he was in washington a couple of weeks ago, this was a topic of conversation that he brought

very frequently. his support is strong and unwavering. this is the original northern terminus, as promised to the voters. it is the first statewide i still work -- high-speed rail project. this is actually broken ground and underactive construction. trans day represents a real commitment from the federal government and local partners to make high-speed rail a reality. as you mentioned, we are all grateful for the strong support. this past weekend he made some more reaffirming comments. this is a substantial investment in the future of california. ultimately, the mayor feels that this needs to get built now or in the future. not so much because of detractors in the city, but because this is something that needs to get done and is much

more -- going to be much more expensive in the future. if we can work together to make high-speed rail a reality -- we have already begun thinking creatively about how public and private partnerships could help us to bring this system to fruition. we have seen other types of partnerships like this operate with tremendous success. the mayor believes that this is a strategy that the city should consider as well. specifically, the mayor would like to extend his appreciation to you, supervisor, for all the work that has been done so far. of course, thank you for everything that is about to happen, as this board takes action in this process moves forward. the best credit he suggested so far is this concept of a fast

start program with the caltrans electrification program, eventually finishing at the trans bay transit center. it is of utmost importance to all of those. this, ultimately, when it is all billed out, but be a transformative project for the city in the state. we have milestones coming in the future. the mayor appreciates the work done towards those milestones on developing alternatives. we have an opportunity to strengthen, as we consider alternative partnerships in the region, with cities and communities to the south. also, partnerships between community members. this is a system that serves writers all over the state and region. leveraging those partnerships with the private sector will be the key to success. this is how you capture the energy, resources, and expertise

to make this a joint effort and high-speed rail system. ultimately, there is a bit of work that needs to be done to consider those choices that we have to make. again, thank you for the work that has been done. with that, i think i will hand it over to your executive director. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. elliott. commissioners, we have a presentation that we would like to share with you. talking about a fast start concept. i do not want to take much time at all.

the executive director has been leading the working group, and before he takes it away, i would like to, in a manner of framing the issue, say the following thing. i think everything has been said by the mayor's office and the commissioner. we all need to be reminded that in the next 40 years, california will add 20 million inhabitants to the current 40 million. we are adding a number of people to the state of pennsylvania, on top of the people already living in california. what appears to me to be outlandish is to try to do that without a transformative project like high-speed rail. we are all understanding now, not just in san francisco, but the local communities, a need for alternatives and transportation, saving us from

the consequences of having to drive everywhere. we cannot do that without a major commitment at the state level without investment in infrastructure. lands that are grown from the grass roots up. that is why it is so important that the commissioner has taken the initiative to make sure that san francisco is a leader again in creating a regional movement that supports a high-speed rail the right way, in a way that does not create a situation where the best is the enemy of the better. we can have high-speed rail in sentences go for the next 18 years, without giving away the farm. with that, i will take a second to wrap up the presentation. let me turn this over.

thank you. >> good afternoon, mr. chair. in the deputy director for the capital project authority. i will be presenting the update on the high-speed rail project this afternoon. but a couple of items. first of all, a brief overview of the high-speed rail plan. and a description of the workings of the san francisco high-speed technical working group and its interaction with a high-speed rail authority. some highlights from the 2012 business plan, released by the high speed rail authority and implications for san francisco and a description for the proposal that has wound up as the fast start project, a way that we believe will bring high- speed rail to san francisco more

quickly than currently called for in the business plan, identifying immediate next steps. looking of the overall plan, ultimately the plan is to provide high-speed rail service from san diego to downtown san francisco, as well as connections to sacramento. phase one, often referred to as the basin project, connecting los angeles to the san francisco bay area and, eventually, san francisco. the peninsula segment of the plan is anchored by stations in san jose, with options for intermediate changes between the two. as has been mentioned by others this morning, san francisco has long been a proponent of high- speed rail in california. the city is the only entity

within the nation that has committed personal, direct local funds to the construction of a high-speed rail system. $1.6 million to begin construction of phase one. it is to open in 2017. it is not only a dramatic architectural accomplishment, but it will provide connectivity to the regional and local bus system, with local activity presented to bart. phase two will connect regional and inner-city high-speed rail systems within california. the san francisco high-speed rail working group was established two years ago, primarily to respond to challenges that were identified within the alternative analysis

report that was released by the authority, calling for the construction of various options for high-speed rail within the states, specifically within the peninsula. the city has identified a number of concerns, with alternatives at the time identified specifically as the analysis that included options other than trans bag. the plan, as presented, provided significant impact at mission bay boulevard, with likely impacts to the mission bay redevelopment area. providing reduced assets -- reduced aspects to mission bay itself, further impacting the stations at bay shore, because a

planned maintenance facilities in the area. the high-speed rail working groups also served as a way of bringing multiple agencies within the city together to address issues and develop a coordinated city position, providing a venue for city agencies and departments to come together to develop these positions. membership includes the transfer a joint powers authority, -- trans bay joint power authority, including the office of economic and workforce development, planning, public works, the redevelopment agency, and its successor -- the port of san francisco. of course, planning in the san francisco municipal transit agency. in the time that the working

group has been under way, it has accomplished a number of things. it did establish an ongoing forum for coordination of the city activities regarding high- speed rail. it would dramatically improved high-speed rail authority authorization, so that they would be able to speak with all of the agencies in santa francisco. they were able to reaffirm the high speed rail authority, excepting the transit center as the ultimate terminus for the project. we identified maintenance facilities at the bayshore station and established consensus for an operation to accommodate both cal train and high-speed rail operations on the peninsula. specifically, high-speed rail authority agreed to three

options from the technical working group to agree with the option that 16th street. the three options developed by the working group involved placing high-speed rail and a short tunnels under 16th street. the graphic that you see, number one is short. it is slightly to that -- to the south, near mariposa. option number three includes land use elements. it would involve a portion of the 282 freeway, as it terminates in the city, replacing it with a boulevard. the business plan from the high speed rail authority was replaced in november of 2011. it is -- it is the continuation

of business plans that started in 2008. they are required to be the submitted comments on the business plan representing implant and suggestions from all of the agencies in which earlier this month, there are some highlights from the business plan. they reaffirmed the plan to begin construction on the system, what they referred to as the initial construction section within the central valley. the initial operating section, the one to carry actual passengers, could be in the north or the south. it connects the southern valley

and provided before when he 34. i just for wheat -- group -- completed a review of the business plan and i will look at highlights from the analysts review. we did take note that the new delays for the overall system. additional concerns from the legislative analyst's office included the fact that committed funding had not been identified for the project. that environmental reviews, to meet the schedule laid out by the authority, would have to be completed by 2012, which seems

extremely ambitious. there is really no funding available to complete the initial operating segment, southern or northern. questioning the analysis of prospective benefits and costs to the overall system. san francisco also had some concerns with the plan. notwithstanding the fact that we are supporters of high-speed rail, we did think that there were aspects in which it could be strengthened. both of the options identified for the initial operating segment for connecting low rider ship areas, which we thought was not the optimum way to begin this. but the database that -- the day to basin service would not

provide any connection into san francisco. the service, ultimately, into san francisco in 2034 would only go to a temporary station at fourth in king street. there was no commitment within the plan to ever make a connection to translate. the statements in the business plan, but sums up many of the concerns that we have, is that the schedule that is laid out, even though it would not provide real services to the city until 2034, they can only be achieved if the funding was available at the time the construction was started. the high-speed rail authority has, in essence, declared that it is on schedule and not achievable. some additional concerns that san francisco had with the plan.

we know that the plan calls for spending $25 billion before the first passenger boards by high- speed train. we think that it is likely that the taxpayers may become impatient and wanting to see high-speed rail service before that level of funding is extended. although the fanned put -- the plan replaces blending operations in incorporates caltrans, it does so using essentially it will build out. rather than at lower cost version of the blended operations implemented quickly, the version promoted by high- speed rail would call for the construction of a system on the peninsula. we believe that as it is proposed for the initial operating segment with low rider ship, the plan as some might bid to attract private investment.

the proposal that the tentacle working group has been developed, we think that is a way to initiate near-high-speed rail service virtually now. the elements have either been environmentally cleared or are close to be environmentally cleared. these can be concurrent with construction in the central valley. so, there is no direct threat to this plan and sequencing. it provides an early high-speed rail experience that we think is extremely useful in exposing people to the ideas and advantages of high-speed rail. it provides the best chance for high-speed funding, as there is service in high-density corridors with high riders ship,

there for generating a significant amount of revenue. it presents agreement regarding high-speed rail service. it wouldn't involve two existing projects. the electrification of cal train, something that has been being worked on for awhile, and the tunnel connection between the fourth of king street to the transit center. they would also provide a limited infrastructure to better accommodate high-speed rail. as well as some bank of passing track to accommodate the different speeds.

the main feature attraction power is to support electric trains. the downtown extension project is about a 1.3 you -- 1.3 mile long tunnel that is intended to provide high-speed rail access. it does a number of things that allow for the early delivery of high-speed rail services to san francisco. it provides high rat -- high writer ship to the business plan. we believe it could be a model within california. we think it has the potential of making better use of the funding than the other options might. the comparison of a fast start to the center column