without recommendation, i will support that motion. >> okay. any other comments? the motion as amended is to send items 3 through 6 to the full board without recommendation. can we take that without objection or do we need a roll call? >> do that without objection. >> without objection, that will be the order. item number 7. >> item number 7 is a hearing request for an additional presentation from the planning department, mayor's office, and municipal transportation agency on san francisco's participation in the long-awaited electrification of caltrain and the future high-speed rail. >> item number 7 is a hearing that supervisor cohen and i both called to hear about the status of san francisco's participation in the electrification of caltrain and high-speed rail. as we just heard in our last item, we have some very, very significant challenges around transportation, not just in san francisco, but in the bay area as a whole.

and a key part of improving and modernizing our transportation system to meet the future needs of the bay area is a strong caltrain and that includes electrification, it includes high-speed rail and of course it includes extending caltrain and high-speed rail to the transbay terminal. and, so, we're going to hear an update today and we'll, colleagues, if there are no introductory remarks, we'll hear from john ram, director of planning. >> thank you, supervisors. john ram with the planning department. i'm very much pleased to be here today. i think this is a hugely important project for the city, has major long-term implications. and i think frankly it's a sign of our progress that the planning director is making this a planning project not [speaker not understood]. it is a hugely important project how we think about planning these days to link transportation and land use. so, thank you for this opportunity. i just want to start by doing

something that we do a lot lately, which is to talk about why it's important to do this. these are the numbers on this side and i think you have copies of the presentation, yes? did you get copies? >> no, i'm sorry. that's okay, we have it on our screen. >> sorry about that. i always like to start with the growth in the region and in the city. the projections that abag has made for 20 40 is that the bay area will grow by over 2 million people and over 1 million jobs requiring 600,000 housing units. ~ and i -- and they are moving in a good direction in the sense that they are proposing that the vast majority of this growth happened in what are called priority development areas, which are served by transit. the city, the three mainly cities in the region are expected to account for 15% of

that growth. of that growth, san francisco is expected to take about 200,000 jobs and about 100,000 housing units. so, even though we're taking a fairly small percentage of the regional growth, it still requires us to take or they're looking at us taking a significant part of that growth. and the only way to do that in the city and the transit first city is to look really seriously at major transit infrastructure. so, and this part of town, of course, downtown south of market, mission bay, this is where much of the growth is going to happen. the areas in color on this map are the areas where we've done planning work to accept the vast majority of that growth. so, in rough numbers, about 20% of the city will accommodate about 80% of the growth. and again, the only way to do that is a fair robust transit system. this, of course, shows the high-speed train corridor which is actually where caltrain exists today. of course, the focus is in what i like to think of is the intersection between south of market, south beach, downtown and financial district.

so, what i'd like to talk about is kind of the short-term situation that we find ourselves in and the long-term situation where high-speed rail would come into the city at full build out. of course, we all are interested in creating a high-speed rail project that would connect san jose to san francisco as part of the statewide high-speed rail system. it is an important project where i'm very excited that california will become the first state to actually start construction potentially this year on this. so, just to compare ideas here and where we are in this, currently the high-speed rail authority is proposing to electrify caltrain, of course, to build a temporary $250 million station at fourth and king, and with electrification it would not yet go to the transbay terminal. that requires, of course, the dtx or downtown extension. what we have looked in talking to caltrain about is to combine the electrification and

downtown extension. we think it's important we get to it sooner rather than later. [speaker not understood] implemented more quickly, there could be more environmentally friendly project and we think could be delivered as a public private partnership. i always have a hard time getting that out. caltrain, of course, electrification of caltrain is a way of getting high-speed rail to the city sooner than the full blown project that would be the same train all the way to los angeles. by electrifying caltrain we can get to speeds that are nearly as high as high-speed rail in a much shorter time frame. so, as you know, the existing conditions in that area are sometimes less than desirable. the rail yard and the highway itself take up about 37 acres of land. obviously there are environmental impacts. the highway and the train create a barrier between mission bay and the south of market, potrero hill.

and we have -- the only two at grade crossings of the train in the city are in this very area, which is interesting at the higher density parts of the city are where the [speaker not understood] crossings are. this plan shows very diagram atically ~ the red on the map, green showing the potential at grade. underneath townsend street a potential proposed future below grade station. so, just to emphasize one of our concerns as i'll talk about in a minute, in the long run that would be both an at-grade station and a below grade station at fourth and king which we think is very confusing and a little bit awkward and perhaps an expenditure of funds that is not appropriate. and then, of course, the train would turn and go up fourth into the transbay terminal. so, just want to talk briefly about some of the issues, both the opportunities and the concerns we have about

electrification. first, of course, it's a great opportunity. it's faster, more frequent service. at a minimum we think we can get six trains an hour. the trains are higher capacity. obviously they're more environmentally friendly and lessee missions, less noise, and in general we think could serve as a great transit corridor between san jose and san francisco along the peninsula. on the other side of the coin is some of the concerns we've had. and i want to emphasize we have been talking to caltrain about these concerns. they understand where we're coming from and we're working as i'll talk about in a minute as a short-term solution to address some of these concerns, at least in the planning stages of the project. we are concerned that electrification in the short run as proposed would preclude transit oriented development on a 19-acre site in the middle of the city, one of the city's densest neighborhoods. the city managed to study

looking at potential value of that site. the value of that site could be up to $225 million at its maximum build out, given the size of that site and its location. >> [speaker not understood], this is an incredibly important point, and i'm glad that the city and caltrain have been talking and working, trying to work through this issue. but i have been -- i'll be honest, i'm very frustrated that the 4th and king potential rail yard development, that has been so challenging to try to get that into the project being analyzed for the electrification. i think it's a key component. i think it would be really odd to try to separate the two in an environmental review or otherwise and just a huge potential missed opportunity if we do anything that prevents us from this severe under -- from ending the severe under

utilization of this plan. so, i would really encourage the planning department, other city agencies to keep pushing very, very hard to make sure that caltrain takes this into account. >> absolutely. thank you for that [speaker not understood]. >> i have a question as well. >> yes. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. it's actually great to see this number. i think that we are all looking at ways that we can ensure that dtx and high-speed rail can happen. my understanding is that we -- that the air rights for the fourth and king rail yard is already owned by the master developer for mission bay. so, i'm curious as to how the $225 million could then be used to fund dtx-hsr in caltrain. maybe i'm asking the question incorrectly. if you can clarify. i hear multiple perspectives on what value we can actually garner from the site. i know a separate conversation,

of course, is the value that we can garner from the 2 80 sites where the pillars are. ~ but my understanding is the fourth and king rail yard site, while it may be important for the overall dtx line and high-speed rail, wouldn't actually generate revenue that would go towards funding that particular need. >> good afternoon, supervisors. joshua switzky. i manage that [speaker not understood]. you are correct, the land the owner occupies [speaker not understood] successor that owned [speaker not understood] mission bay. however, caltrain owns and operated rail operated easement for the land. and what that has created is essentially a stalemate of equal, equal partners, if you will. caltrain would have to approve [speaker not understood] any future use of the land. that is to their detriment. similarly, there is no value of the land without caltrain

making accommodations to make development possible. so, you're right, this $225 million figure is theoretical and it's subject to a much future discussion, negotiation among the two main parties at stake, caltrain and the underlying landowner who would reap the benefits, the financial benefits. but i think it would be a safe assumption that there would be no benefit to caltrain accommodating future development if there weren't a major financial beneficiary from such an arrangement. so, yes, you are correct that they don't own the land, but they also have full details however of everything that happens on the land. >> right. wouldn't then the value of that dollar amount go towards caltrain potentially for the movement of their storage yards and all the other sorts of things that would need to happen under this type of alignment? i just want to have -- i know it's hard to say because it's a preliminary study, but i just want to be careful when we talk about value going towards something that we all support

if it may not be able to go there. >> it's a fair statement that 100% of that is probably not available, but you're right, it's up to future negotiations and there could be ongoing, you know, revenue that is generated in the future that benefits everyone as well. >> got it, thank you. >> i just want to note one thing. in terms of the phrase benefiting caltrain, i think it's important to keep in mind although caltrain is just -- operated, runs a train system. caltrain in san francisco, san mateo county and santa clara county and the people who reside therein and who will be all dramatically benefited by having electrified caltrain and high-speed rail that goes downtown, i think it's in everyone's interest to do what we can to fund this system and that includes the development of the rail yards. >> thank you. another concern that the city family has is regarding the investment in what will

essentially be two stations in the same location. there will be a surface station in the short run that caltrain is building as part of electrification and the low grade station at fourth and townsend also will be under that green spot on the map on townsend street. so, that could be confusing, could be a duplication of efforts and it's something we would like to try to figure out a way to avoid. i think if i might, that basic concern with this, with electrification and some of the approaches that are being taken is simply not precluding future options. and that that's our biggest concern here. we totally support electiontrivctiontion cakes. we want to make sure it happens as quickly as possible. ~ we don't want to allow it to happen or our concern it happen in such a way to preclude future benefits for the city and that's the biggest concern right now. >> mr. ram, do you see any rationale from a land use or transportation respect of having two stations as opposed

to [speaker not understood]? it seems wasteful and duplicative. >> looking ahead in the long term when they're both there, i don't see a good -- from a land use standpoint, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. i think it's -- one could argue it's a question of what public funds in the long run to do both. i understand why it evolved this way, because of the way the dtx is being proposed and the way the caltrain electrification would not -- would have to be upgrade. we think there are ways to look at this differently that perhaps allow us to only do one. >> are there conversations happening with caltrain? >> they are. one of the issues is really the up front investment they're making at fourth and king and if there is a way to minimize that investment so that true temporary facility can happen there allowing the future high-speed rail train to then come in more beneficially to the city. they are proposing to spend $250 million which is a figure that concerns us to spend that much money and then undo it in 10 years. >> thank you. >> obviously, and this is an

issue that's come up repeatedly over the last several years. we brought it up early on with high-speed rail. the electrification, if carried out -- again, and the way it's currently proposed we're concerned that it might preclude future -- the ability to appropriately create great separation at 16th and seventh and mission bay drive. as you know, high-speed rail has proposed that the rail be upgrade and 16th and seventh go beneath the train which we are concerned creates a serious gap between mission bay and the rest of the city, cuts off those two neighborhoods from each other. and again, it has to do with the investment that's made in the short run, precluding the possibility for future investment that's more beneficial in the long run. and on muni, similarly, there ha always been the long-standing desire, neighborhood plan to extend the 22 line all the way to mission bay. and if electrified caltrain and [speaker not understood] it creates conflict between muni buses examine caltrain station,

trains running through that intersection. so, again, we're really concerned about that grade separation as it's being proposed. and believe that the better solution is to lower high-speed train in the long run and have 16th cross that grade. similarly, concerns about the bayshore station, the ability to put that station in a more transit friendly location, we believe that there are ways to rethink that and create better connections between the t third line and the future geneva brt extension. and again, we would like to -- we are talking to caltrain about this end of the line as well which is of course right at the city border. in the long run, then, when high-speed rail comes in, this has gotten a lot of play recently, but the idea of removing this portion of interstate 2 80 is on the table and i just want to start by saying we have, asked the

high-speed rail authority to look at this when they were working on their e-i-r for the full system. two years ago we had asked them to consider this as an option. the rational being that at $70 billion investment in high-speed rail should consider a range of options as it approaches san francisco. and we believe that this option had to be considered as part of it. so, while we are not saying this is an absolute -- the only absolute solution to this concern, we are saying that it should be an option that is robustly considered in this phase of the work. so, we have put the idea for folks -- excuse me. the idea of removing the train north of 16th and creating a boulevard at that point. it would utilize the grids just like removal of embarcadaro did to disburse the traffic. it would create connections, wider sidewalks and bike paths and create about 07 feet of developable land along the edge of this boulevard, much like the octavia boulevard project today. the underground alignment as

you see here could be amended to create less of a sharp curve if this were to happen and obviously accommodate regional level and bicycle traffic in the process. and, of course, open up particular -- open up the rail yard for potential development. again, the rail yard is about 19 acres. we believe could accommodate about 3-1/2 million square feet in zoning that's comparable to what is being looked at in the surrounding area. and again, the freeway -- removal of the freeway does, we believe, increase the value of that parcel with all the qualifications that supervisor kim mentioned, of course, about the value. but removal of the freeway does add more land to that parcel for development as well as just simply increasing the value of it without having the freeway there. so, in the short term, i'm pleased to report that our discussions of caltrain have -- with caltrain have resulted in an agreement that we would do a six-month study to look at

alternative to full electrification of the rail yard, that our compatible with long term. so, to look at whether the rail yard could be fully relocated or partially relocated or could be downsized in that location. and caltrain has agreed that if this study, which we hoped to be complete by august, if it comes up with viable alternatives, they will incorporate those alternatives into their e-i-r. so, that is an important milestone here that i just wanted to emphasize with you today, that we are looking at alternatives to full electrification of that yard. so, with that and with that study in august, they have agreed, as i said, to incorporate potential alternatives. next steps, then, are public comments. caltrain is of course moving ahead with their e-i-r to finally certify an e-i-r for the electrification which much of that work had been done, i think approximately 10 or 12 years ago. that public comment period is open and the notice of

preparation is i believe has been issued. we will then, as i said, work toward -- study the feasibility, excuse me, of relocating the yard. and the boulevard concept that i mentioned before. so, for the public, the scoping meeting that is being proposed here actually in city hall is thursday evening 6:00 to 8:00 in the board chambers for the public to make comment on the e-i-r and the scoping of that e-i-r and comments are due by march 18th to caltrain. with that, i am happy to take any questions. thank you again. i should thank the planning department's partners in the city, both mta and the ta have been very heavily involved in this and have been very much integral to this whole discussion and i really appreciate their work on this. thank you. >> thank you, mr. ram. >> can i? >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i know we'll go to public comment. i just want to make a couple

comments, being that i spent quite a bit of time on this the last couple of months chairing the ta board of directors as well. i think the one thing i just want to say to the various departments that are involved, both here in the city and regionally, i really hope we come to a consensus around a singular plan as to how we move forward that is going to benefits everyone's concerns and priorities keeping the construction of transbay terminal moving and keeping secure our grant of the 400 million dollars from the new start federal funding program, to increasing revenue from what we can do here in the city to ensure -- because there are still other gaps that we have regarding dtx and electrification. it's great that san francisco i think is really ahead of the curve amongst all the counties in really coming out to bat for both high-speed rail and electrification. it's really great to see that there's so much effort and energy moving forward on this. but i think as much as possible, until we come to consensus we should really leave all the options out there

and open that we are evaluating everything. i know there will be a number of concerns about the 2 80 in the neighborhood that i represent in south beach and mission bay. i don't have a position either way. i really want to see what the studies look like, what the boulevard look like, the freeway and the growth and impacts we're expecting. but i also have heard some perspectives that we can underground 2 80 at 16th street while still keeping the 2 80 up as well. i just want to mike sure we have all of these options out of the table. ~ make sure the one thing i think we're all unified on is we don't want to see a double grade separation at 16th. i think everyone agrees that is the wrong way to head, it is important to the neighborhood. clearly to us at the mta and i think it's something that all of our neighborhoods would be supporting. so, that's the one piece that i'm glad that we are moving around. and the last thing i'll just say is that i'll be really interested to see in the numbers in term of what type of value we can generate so we can hopefully complete a project

that i think everyone here in the city cares about. >> thank you, supervisor. okay. is there any other aspect of the presentation? great. so, at this point we'll open it up for public comment. i have two public speaker cards. john mabura jorge, sorry if i'm mispronouncing that, and corrine woods. if anyone else wants to make a comment, the blue cards can be filled out in the front. and go ahead. great, thank you very much. supervisors, i just wanted to comment briefly on the time. i know you said this takes about three hours or so from 1:30 to i believe 4:30 or something like that. and the time that we have available is under two minutes. so just over two minutes. i was hoping you can increase your time from 2 to 3 minutes as well on tuesdays. once again my name is john [speaker not understood] and i am an african union representative student and

visitor at st. john's church here in san francisco. my comments are basically on the light rail, but also on lot and lot number allocations. i have a proposal for comments that are made to impact. i'm entitling it the book of levitecus. [speaker not understood] nonresident aliens in san francisco, and special order on priests and coach jeffery glazer. and in addition to that i'd like to make a reading here from exodus 3:1 through 15. then the lord said, i have observed the misery of my people who are in egypt. i have heard their cry on account of their task masters. indeed, i know their sufferings and i have come down to deliver them from the egyptians and to bring them out of the -- out of that country to a good and broad land, a land flowing with

milk and honey. to the country of the canaanites, [speaker not understood]. the cry of the israelites has come to me. i have also seen how the egyptians oppress them. so, come, i will send you to pharaoh to bring my people the israelites out of egypt. but mows he said to god, who am i that i should go to pharaoh and bring the israelites out of egypt? he said i will be with you and this will be the [speaker not understood] that it is i [inaudible]. >> thank you very much. [speaker not understood]. good afternoon, supervisors. corrine woods. i chair the citizens advisory committee among other thing, very involved in eastern neighborhoods planning. and i want to urge the city,

the city family and all the agencies to do as director ram said, allow the options not to be foreclosed. we are obviously very concerned about the idea of undergrounding 16th street and mission bay at seventh. we are very concerned about not putting the trains underground soon we can do it. we are concerned that having that entire rail yard at fourth and king electrified at an incredible cost. if caltrain spends $100 million to electrify that storage rail yard -- and i'm not saying we don't want electrification. i'll tell you, every person who lives on barry street and has to put up with diesel dust in

their houses is really looking forward to electrification. it's too bad that they won't have the money to buy electric engines for the entire fleet until 2029. but, hey, it's a start. we do not want that rail yard to stay. we would love to see alternative to the undergrounding the trains, both high-speed rail and caltrain. we would love to see alignment along 3rd street if that's possible to study. the information that they're using for their e-i-r -- and this is a critical, critical e-i-r, is more than 10 years old. the neighborhoods have changed. there is so much that needs to be incorporated into this e-i-r [inaudible]. >> thank you very much. mr. rogers. good afternoon, supervisors. jim lazarus, san francisco chamber of commerce. ~ i also had the privilege of

chairing the transbay transit center cac. i strongly urge the board of supervisors and the city's representatives on both bodies, both the joint powers authority for the transbay transit center and the caltrain, joint powers authority, to take a strong position in favor of opening up real alternatives to surface use of seventh and king. this, the caltrain electrification and the extension to first and mission must be primary goals of the city and county of san francisco. other options are really not acceptable. we need an electrified system to downtown. we need the fund with federal partners, with state, with prop 1a california high-speed rail funding and our own funding available through the transbay transit center project that tunnel project as soon as possible.

one of my great disappointments that i think we're going to be all confronting when that transit center opens is a 400 million dollars rail box in the basement unused for years and years after we open a $1.5 billion bus station. ~ our goal should be to get a train -- a caltrain into that building when caltrain electrification is completed. and to find a way with federal partners, state partners, and the region to get that very expensive extension, but perhaps with some of these alignment and changes and revenue opportunities presented by the planning department, there is a path to make this happen in the next year. thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. hoff supervisors, i'm jim haft. i was involved t