and there are going to be serious costs initially that we have to work together, and to be able to find that gap, in funding and i would really like to understand, what it is going to take to achieve this compatibility and next month and hopefully we will be halfway through the process if it is really is 60 days that we are going to be looking at what the blended system is going to look like, and reality wise, and tech sxli from the engineering standpoint and i also, understand that there are some questions or kind of different proposals that are being raised about the governance for the cal train and now that you know, because of the connections with sam trans that there might be a decision about spinning it off into its own entity and changing the way that the leadership occurs, and from the three counties and i know that they are currently pointed and i know that there is a suggestion recently that the city council with the senator hill that we will go to an

elected body system, and similar to bart, or not something that i have the specific feedback about, and that i am interested, in that conversation, about what leadership, and what the organization is going to look like for a cal train moving forward and this is really informative and this is super helpful for me and i know that the board of supervisor ss interested in this and i will be calling for a hearing at the land use committee as well. and that finishes my comments, i didn't know if director reiskin? >> just a couple of quick points, i think line under the surface, and i think that director lee made some reference to it and maybe something that we can bring forward at the next meeting here. and maybe in like the planning department, and is what is the long term and what is the 50 year vision for the 4th and king? what is the ultimate disposition and because i think that director lee was correct, that we will be as part of this process there will be trade

offs and compromise and seems like one compromise of keeping the dedicated platforms will kind of lock in the need for permanent fourth and king facility, where i think that dtx envisions a fourth and townsend underground station which i think that there are difference of opinion on what the long term disposition of fourth and king is. and but the decisions that we are making here, and what assumptions people have of what it looks like 50 years from now, and it will be impacted by the decisions that we are making here and so that was just one point and the second point, and i appreciate you raising that, and i do think that we have to remember that where these two or these three systems come together and we have cal train building out, and upgrading 50 of the 75 miles, and we have high speed

rail building a few hundred miles and then we have the djpa building the last mile and at some point i think that we have to decide, is that governance of these different bodies building on the same right-of-way, and even make sense? and it does not make sense for cal train to be building this part and pjpa in a different entity is building in this last little piece. i think that there is a larger conversations that as a region and a state we should probably have and the most immediate is i think is in the next 60 days is figuring out how to not lock ourselves out of the 50 and 100 year feature that we want. >> thank you. >> so, thank you directors, and just a point of clarification in terms of your interest, to bring back a resolution at the november november board meeting, on and but that would also include width and i think that is something that i think on lee brought up and we are happy to bring that and from

our perspective there is common width and we defer and to the two operators totell us what that should be for all of the reasons stated by lee and so we will bring that at the meeting.. >> we do have public comment on this item. >> i know that director reiskin has another obligation and so we will take the public comment and i will make a motion to continue this to next month, so we can continue this hearing item. so you have rolan followed by ademleven. >> thank you. >> thank you, chair, kim. i think that what just happened is unfortunate, there were three presentations with conflicting information and some of it was inaccurate and (inaudible) presentation and one word and that is amen. but if it offer as a

recommendation, maybe, for next month, i would like to touch on two things, it is a 25 to 50 inches and then talk about the capacity, and cal train currently has got two kinds of rolling stocks, one is 25 inch and the other one is 50 inch and if i am aware the 50 inch is the one to climb the stairs and the issue with the 50 inch is that there is not sufficient head room for (inaudible) and so you can have a 50 inch by the roll, training inch pan and it is not a problem, because everybody has their own, and you are not going to have in the train (inaudible). cut to the ceiling so that the people can stand and upstairs you are going on the seats and so you are losing the capacity there and it just does not

work, and it works if you don't have (inaudible), okay? and so that is the end of the discussion. and so the option that you have is you can forget about the bilevels and the 50 inch everywhere and just one level and then what happens to the entire system is that you double the length of all of the platforms. and so in closing, that is the end of that discussion. of capacity, and you will not be able to get 100,000 passengers with six trains and in the long term we have 8 cal trains and three high speed trains. (inaudible) and so you need to go and revisit that and the high speed plan is to take over (inaudible) i really don't know, my closing remark is my recommendation to you is, right now, the ta, and the mayor's office, are working with world class experts, and they are the people that designed the terminals and the platforms,

and that managed to get 12 now in and out of there, and in the street platform and my recommendation to you is reach out to these people and if possible, ask them, to come here, next month. and really, tell you how this is supposed to work, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good morning, board members, friends with cal train, and we are really glad to see, cal train and high speed working with this over time and we are glad to see the intent to have a report on the long term impact on the capacity, and the long term impact on operations. and the long term impact on key stations, and it would be helpful to look at in addition to transbay, at milbray and

giradon as well and that capacity of several have mentioned is going to be critically important cal train rider ship forecast is to merely less than double by 2040, but san francisco forecast is that rider ship to san francisco is expected to go up 3 x. and in san jose, they are predicting 5 x with a lot of transit oriented development, and downtown. and that capacity, we are going to need it. and so being able to get the maximum into the transbay is going to be critical. and having solution that works operationally for cal train, and the service. and in terms of a service pattern, and in terms of cost, is important because that is our economy. and that is our environment and if there is something that is problem matter in terms of operational costs, we are going to be paying for it as institutions and as taxpayers, and so that is going to be a critical element as well.

and another critical element that the board has already mentioned. is about the importance of being able to send all of the cal train trains into the transbay, and the, and there are three times as many jobs around transbay as the rest of the line combined. and the transit oriented development is going to if anything, grow that, and that will have the connection to bart, and to muni and to the rest of the regional transit system and so all trains into the transbay and maximize that service, for the long term. so, we are glad to see the collaboration on a potential solution, and look forward to a solution that will be the best possible win/win for all to get the capacity that will last for longer than anybody in this room, are alive and probably any of our kids, thank you. >> thank you. >> that concludes members of the public that want to address

you. >> seeing no further comment or discussion, i am just going to make a motion to continue this item to next month. and can we do that without opposition? >> next item please? >>approving an amendment to contract no. 08-04-cmgc-000, authorizing webcor/obayashi joint venture to award a trade work subcontract to clayton coatings, inc. as the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $8,594,839 for tg16.8: fireproofing, thereby increasing authorized direct costs by $8,594,839, and the authorized construction services fixed fee by $653,208. >> mark savana will report on this item. >> good morning directors and i have a short presentation that i present to you and i can answer any questions, which do you prefer? >> actually just a very short couple of sentences of a description for the members of the public that are watching and then i do not have any

questions or comments and i don't see any from the board. >> okay. (inaudible) fire proofing includes the applying of the spray (inaudible) and the material. and the structure, and the structural elements and (inaudible) the fire resistant material on the structure (inaudible) and that we will see in the (inaudible) and being in the finished coats, and includes two years of warranty for the work. and we (inaudible) shipped the package on july tenth and we received this on december 18th and the budget for the scope of 6 million, and the so was 6 million, and the s(inaudible) was ten percent and we had 6 prequalified bidders and we received three bids, and ranging between 5.7 and 6.9, and 7.3 and 8.9 and (inaudible)

for the patch work. we received the bidders (inaudible) national (inaudible) and (inaudible) our recommendation is it award the project to (inaudible) as the lowest possible bidder. >> thank you. >> all right, so no comments, and we will open it up for public comment on this item. >> seeing no public comment, public comment is closed, could we take a motion on this item? >> i will move approval. >> there is a motion and a second. >> take the roll call on this item. >> director lee. >> aye. >> neru. >> aye. >> harper. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> and that is four eyes and item 9 is approved. and next item.

>> and item 10 isdirecting the transbay joint powers authority to vote in favor of city and county of san francisco community facilities district no. 2014-1 (transbay transit center) (cfd), and take such other actions as may be necessary or expedient to the formation of the cfd. >> any questions. >> and i appreciate this resolution in favor of rcfd form nation and the action that was taken by board of supervisors two weeks ago and to support that approval and i also want to recognize the mayor's office because i know that the mayor particularly a very strong position and we were able to stick to the original formation and the city will be made whole by the district and so it remains to

be seen what will occur in the next couple of months and i want to recognize the leadership for standing strong on making sure that we will be able to receive the funds from our private developers to fund this important work. and are there any other comments or questions? >> seeing none, we will open it up for public comment on this item? >> seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. do we have a motion on this item? >> do we have a motion? >> second. >> and a second. >> so can we take the roll call on this. >> lee. >> aoe. >> nuru. >> aye. >> harper. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> item ten is approved. >> and next is approving the minutes of the september 11, meeting, and no members of the public want to address you. >> are there any amendments or comments on the board members? >> seeing none, is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. and on do we have a motion to approve the board minutes?

>> yes. >> so moved. >> second. >> and roll call on the item. >> director lee. >> yes. >> nuru,. >> aoe. >> harper. >> yes. >> kim. >> aye. >> and the minutes are approved. >>ty, and i believe that we do need to take a motion to rerecess, and so we will recess the meeting to convene in closed session and i do need to take the public comment on item 14, is there is any? >> seeing no public comment, public comment on this item is closed and can we take a motion to convene into closed session? >> yes. >> and we have a motion and a second and we can do that, without opposition, and we just do ask that the members of the public and the staff to exit the room and so that we can go into the closed session unless you are hear to speak or present on this item. thank you

>> we have adjourned closed session and we are convening. >> could we have an announcement of closed session. >> the property negotiaters regarding the temporary terminal lease with the national rail road corporation or amtrak, the board authorizes the executive director to excuse a lease, with the interior and exterior space, for a base rent of $8310, per month. >> thank you. >> and so seeing no other items on the calendar, madam clerk are there any other announcements? >> that concludes your business for the day. >> already, meeting is adjourned.