development for follow on blended service, we saw potential elements for precluding future service as a result of not having common level-boarding. that is really what drove us to look at it far more vigorously as we are now, and that is why we're confident that we'll land on a solution that resolves the issue and allows us to land on a common, level-boarding platform and maximize the level of integrates service we can have in the corridor. the follow-on elements of blended service in the corridor we touched -- dave touched briefly on the fact that we'll be coming forward with our follow-on environmental review for future high-speed rail service. to ensure that we are operating in truly an integrated configuration, some of the follow-on analysis that we'll be completing will include a full environmental review of stations, passing tracks, grade separations, maintenance facilities, and all of the support elements in order to

accommodate a system that will allow us to operate high-speed rail and caltrain trains at 110 miles per hour in the corridor, providing us the capacity to run up to 12 commuter trains per hour, per direction and up to 8 high-speed rail trains per hour per direction -- excuse me. in total -- i'm sorry -- i always say it the other way. 6 caltrain trains per hour, per direction and 12 high-speed rail trains per hour, perdirection. and in soliciting the industry, we released a request for expressions of interest to receive from firms that are interested in the design, building of the high-speed rail to use on the statewide system. the order will include a base

order and options of up to 95 train sets. we're look at procuring a single-level train and it's important to note that in order for an international standard to operate at greater than 220 miles per hour, which is a requirement for our system, we need a single-level electric multiple unit as opposed to the bilevels units that will couch talked about. because all of the motorized equipment necessary to operate at 225 miles per hour all has to be under the floor. so we're left with a single-level emu, that has a 3-2 seating configuration, much like airplane seating and unlike caltrain need to have a proven technology that as been in service elsewhere around the world that we can pursue. the width is going to be roughly a little wider than the

caltrain current considerations roughly between 10.5 and 11.2'. and the vehicle height again is aimed at in order to operate over 220 miles per hour, at roughly between 46-51". some technical requirements we're looking at 450 passenger seats per vehicle and as is the case with caltrain, complying with all rules and laws with the system and look at developing maintenance systems along the corridor, in order to support the bay area system. there will be a heavy maintenance facility for the statewide system in the central valley. but we'll also need a smaller facility here in the bay area to manage the trains along the peninsula corridor. >> i have a question going back to terminology. can you go back one more slide?

>> sure. >> it says in the blue bullet a minimum of 450 passenger seats and first-class space equivalent of 1067 millimeters, is that what it is? >> yes. >> of pitch, what is "pitch?" >> essentially the space for seating. >> thank you. >> so the expressions of interest have been received. the deadline was late last month. we received responses from ten manufacturers. the expressions of interest will continue to be received after the final. this doesn't really begin the procurement process, but just an opportunity to begin the conversation with the industry and get an idea of what kinds of vehicles are possible for use for the statewide system? we expect to issue a request for procurement sometime next year.

and the firms that have submitted their expresses of interests will be given credentials to begin that question and answer participation process. just finally, dave alluded to the fact that we have begun to talk to the industry about possible vehicles to use at a common level boarding platform. this is a very basic design that we're presenting to the industry and utilizing. it's, in fact, a swiss manufacturer stadler has a vehicle akin to this. you envision the two sets of doors that you see there, potentially one at 48 -- 50" and the other at 25", having dual-boarding on a vehicle like, this which is bilevel. and can provide manufacture of the capacity that caltrain requires in order to maximize their vehicle capacity. in the dual-boarding configuration and because of the opportunity to have

dual-doors, it provides that transitional opportunity as supervisor kim you had asked the question about how you evolve from 25 to 50? at a single-level electric multiple unit you don't have stairs from 50 inches. whereas at 25" you have stairs to get up inside the vehicle. there is no vehicle that provides a drop of stairs on the vehicle side that. is the difference that you really don't have that vehicle side option. you have to provide that improvement on the platform side. whereas with 25 inch, caltrain could continue to use the existing platforms that they have today in much the same way that you board a gallery car today. you would get on the 25" emu. we don't have that same option at 50", which is really what creates the disconnect. >> i see that. was what i didn't understand. i thought we had to provide external stairs either way, but you are saying with the 25", they are internal stairs inside the vehicle, similar to what we see in caltrain vehicle now's?

now. >> right >> i assumed external stairs with the 25". >> you were correct. >> it is an internal staircase. >> yes. >> that makes sense. >> that is my update. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you very much. seeing none -- we appreciate your time. supervisor kim is that the end of the presentations? >> yes. >> thank you. i want to thank you everyone for coming out. these are really hard issue as we try to move towards the transportation future of the bay area, but it's good that we're having these conversations. we'll now move to public comment. i have two public comment cards. bruce and then jim lazarus.

if there is anybody else, there are blue cards in the front or you can just speak after we call all of the names. >> good afternoon, chair wiener, supervisors kim and cohen. my name is bruce agate . this is critical as we are in the process of making decisions for multi-generational transportation infrastructure investment. between the transbay transit center. dtx and others to maximize passenger capacity and operational flexibility. let's call these are foundational principles.

uniform platform height boarding levels gives us ability to achieve this principle and this flexibility, allows you to adjust service plans daily, hourly, weekly, et cetera between the two systems to ensure that you get the most value out of both. is it possible? what is best option? i don't know the specific answer. however, as we heard today, there are examples either in north america or other parts of the world where similar issues have been addressed and we need to understand what it takes to get us there. we are pleased -- i was pleased to hear today caltrain and high-speed rail have been meeting and been involved in productive meetings. we also understand the need to move forward in a timely manner on electrification and high-speed rail and to minimize costs overall. however, please ensure no decisions are made, which could limit reasonable options and alternatives before this joint review is completed, and can be taken under consideration by the various funding partners of the

high-speed rail mou. any decisions made premature could limit possible options. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. lazarus and i will call two more names. >> good afternoon, jim lazarus, san francisco chance chamber of commerce. whatever you do, i think the leadership of peninsula in san francisco cannot make the mistake of ending up with a system with differential heights of platforms. anything that can result in reduced flexibility at stations and certainly at the end of the line at transbay has to be avoided. it wasn't a height issue, but those of us who have been around since muni metro went into embarcadero station, know we have end of the line

problems with capacity in san francisco with muni medical center metro. we thought it would be resolved and we still have problems at peak times i'm sorry if it's going to be a problem ultimately or a difficulty for caltrain to figure out the equipment that they need to buy. but we know what the international standard is for high-speed rail and that seems to be approximately 50" level floor, with the propulsion systems underneath. if that is what it has to be, we need to find a way to make caltrain's equipment compatible with the needs of statewide high-speed rail and the need to have an efficiently operating terminus in san francisco. thank you.

>> thank you, mr. lazarus. next speaker. >> good afternoon. supervisor. so a few things. to start with the question on land use, stafford city used to be an abandon rail-yard and the reason it was abandoned it used to get flooded and used the dirt from the london tunnels to raise the entire thing by 30'. you need to think about opportunities on the transbay tunnel. you could be raising treasure island by 30'. you could be raising the bayshore baylines by x number of feet. on the subject of platform heights. in europe, every high-speed rail must be able to arrive -- every station will have to

become compatible by 2020. the slides unfortunately shows waterloo station which was abandoned in 2007. the issue there is that the trains coming from europe with 30" train, but every domestic platform is 36". it's compatibility with the rest with 36", but the foreign trains from france are 30". the question of the high-floor emus. there are many problems. head room and they actually made the trains 50" higher, which means that they are not able to go through the tunnels. on the width, where they increased the width by 66"s, these trains if you actually allow them in option directions in the tunnels will actually hit each other. the next problem that if you go

double-decker, these trains unlike the single-levels are unstable, so they use non-standard tracks. they use a different gage. >> thank you. shirley johnson. >> good afternoon, chair wiener and supervisors. my name is louis, san francisco transportation authority. i would like to make a couple of statements of clarifications. we have been a big supporter of both high-speed rail and cal train for a long time. these are projects that we have been dreaming about for a long time and very happy that they are happening. on the compatibility issue, this is one that the transportation authority

together with the city family we have been advocating for quite a while. in all deference to dave, with his relatively new to the area, we started talking about a compatibility two years ago, when the mou was first put together. and caltrain project was revived because it had been on the shelf because of lack of funding. from those days we have been encouraging high-speed rail and caltrain to have compatible height in the platforms. and we're very happy to see that now they are moving in the direction that they are moving. it looks like there is a light at the end of the tunnel, so to speak and quite encouraged by the information that we have been getting. in order to address one of supervisor kim's questions, it is true that the majority of the commuter rails

double-platform -- double-decker vehicles usually come in 25". however, there are manufacturers that make them 48". the same thing happens with high-speed rail. the most common is 48, but they also make them at a lower height. there is room for compromise. maybe there are less vendors, but they are available. >> can you complete your last sentence? >> as far as the diesel vehicles becoming obsolete, that is true. however, that will not happen until the platforms get raised. in other words, the vehicles will not become obsolete on the first day. it may be 6,8, 10 years before the platforms are actually raised. so therefore, the diesel vehicles will be able to operate during that time until

the platforms are finally raised. and i agree with mr. couch, when he mentioned that cpuc needs to be addressed. however, not knowing what height we're going to be negotiating, it's kind of hard to approach them for that. so first we need to come up with the height and then start negotiations with the cpuc. >> supervisor kim has a question. >> my question is about the 50 vs. 25" and mixing them with in with the existing fleet and i heard of challenges and why isn't from your perspective you can bring in the 50" trains and still keep the current diesel fleet? >> well, >> well, there are many

solutions available for a train to be able to address multiple -level platforms. one of them is the two doors that we have been hearing about, low door, high door and moveable steps, that the steps move to a higher platform and create steps for lower platform. >> i see. >> that is also a possibility. so it's a matter of maybe the right approach is to basically ask the vendors to provide a solution for the problem. >> i see. >> we have this issue. we're going to have this height platform now, and we're going to need the chance to operate for so many years at this height and then go to this other height. what do you propose? and have the industry come up with an idea. what is best for them? and that would be part of the selection process. >> thank you so much. i did want to say, i looked

through the ta report, that wasn't one of the suggestions. what i read the suggestion was looking to see how we can raise additional funds for them to completely replace their fleet all at once and keep the diesel trains, i think from san josé down to gilroy. and to have caltrains sell trains that they could sell, that they weren't able to use because they had replaced 100% of the fleet. >> correct. and we agree with you. >> actually, i'm quoting your report. >> that is the solution that we proposed, that we think is the best solution. it's basically to go ahead and find the funding to help caltrain buy the whole fleet now, rather than just buying a portion of the fleet. because it becomes problematic for them to be operating two different types of fleets, two different types of vehicles. the maintenance, the operations, so it would simplify everything if they had the whole procurement now. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> next speaker. >> thank you. i'm shirley johnson and i live in san francisco. i'm a frequent caltrain rider and i'm really thrilled to hear there is going to be level-boarding on both caltrain and high-speed rail. i bring on bike on board, so it's very important that the boarding is level and it's also important that the boarding be compatible. i think we have heard that over and over again. so basically, first of all, supervisor wiener, i would like to thanks for your support of bikes on board and thank you, very much. i look forward to bring mig bringing my bike on board hsr as well. it's a very complicated argument and complicated situation and who makes the ultimate decision, the higher authority who has these groups work together to have compatible platforms? thank you. >> thank you.

>> chair wiener, supervisors, i'm jim haas and i have been involved in one way or another with caltrain for 30 or more years. for much of that time the city of san francisco was kind of like a poor relative and made demands and wouldn't put up any money, but we're in a position through the sales tax and thanks to you all for prop a to have put money on the table and therefore i think we can ask and demand more things with more responsibility. i think the first thing we need is a unified management for caltrain that focuses on the train and that the other activities that are currently taking management time running the san mateo buses are sent to another person. secondly, i think the city's participation in the caltrain board has to be upgraded and made more aggressive to make sure that our positions are well-known and that we succeed. thirdly, you have heard about

the platform issue. i don't need to say anything more, except that i would note, if we end up with two different heights and platforms, i'm told at the millbrae station, the high-speed rail would have to build an underground tunnel at a cost $700 million. deep down a lot of administrators at high-speed rail and caltrain, they don't really, i think, have confidence that we're going to get it downtown and they have backup plans for stations at 4th street and we need to make sure that we overcome them and one is the melaruse issue and i think we'll have to assume there will be a lawsuit, but we have to lean on the other developered not to participate. i have said that to one development group.

>> thank you, mr. haas and the train will come downtown. i don't think it's worth having alternative plan because it's going to happen. any additional public comment on item no. 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor kim. >> thank you, i did have one question for high-speed rail. i think this is a question for all of the parties as well. as we look at a uniform boarding platform vehicle for both agencies, are we also discussing what the potential sources of funding to pay the difference in costs would be for caltrain? i think our last speaker brought up some of the additional costs that might occur for high-speed rail if we did got into the two-level

platforms. >> yes. as casey pointed out we're talking amongst the nine funding partners, mtc, the counties, caltrans, et cetera and we're also looking at what the follow-on investments for future high-speed rail service in the corridor will require? and in order to get though that integrate rail service, there is more than some logic to expedite that investment, so we're addressing some of the issues, platform stations and others that will add to the benefit of integrated rail service in the corridor, to allow us to address this issue directly. >> are there specific sources that we know we can look to? >> certainly the advent of cap and trade to look at the possibilities. that is what we're in the process of doing. >> thank you so much, and i

know this will be ongoing dialogue and we're just one of the counties that are super interested in the alignment issue and it's a regional issue, so there are probably a number of different perspectivesfrom a variety of counties, but from san francisco, there is probably a unified position that we would like to see uniform boarding platforms for our vehicles, seeking the greatest alignment and hopefully the most affordable costs in the long-term for our system as we modernize. so i do want to appreciate all of the agencies. it's a very challenging issue, and i think you brought up why technically why it's so challenging to move into kind of a unified system? but i just want to say that i'm very appreciative of the work that we're trying to see what is possible, instead of just outlining the challenges as to why we can't do it, but we're actually saying how can we make it happen and exploring the viability? i'm certainly happy of the commitment from our city in

terms of hoping in the funding gap and electrification is a priority and there is a little urgency that caltrain has to move forward because you are already at capacity and congratulations on meeting those numbers. it's great that so many people are riding our public transportation system to get around. i'm hoping that we can make a motion to continue to the call of the chair. it would be, i think, a good use of our time to get an update in the next couple of months here in san francisco. thank you. >> great. thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor kim has made a motion to continue item 2 to the call of the chair and we'll take that motion without objection. [ gavel ] >> thank you everyone. madame clerk, can you please call item no. 3. >> item no. 3 is ordinance approvion extension of moratorium in the south of market plan area. >> supervisor kim is the

author of item no. 3. >> thank you. it's a continuation of the interim moratorium extension on production, distribution and repair conversion in the proposed central south of market plan area. it was introduced in september, but in the first vote, it was only able to toll for a certain number of days and this will will be able to continue it for the rest of the year. i do have some amendments -- minor amendments to introduce that the city attorney has distributed copies to committee members. but i'm happy to do that after public comment. >> so we'll move to public comment. is there any public comment on item no. 3? seeing none, public comment is closed [ gavel ] >> thank you. so the amendment that i'm proposing one is on page 5. lines 25.

the interim zoning moratorium shall remain in effect for 22 months and 15 days from termination date from ordinance 210-14 or until the date that permanent controls are adopted. and in effect to address the converse of pdr to a manner that better conserves neighborhood character in the identified area, whichever occurs first. so mr. givner, this is the only amendment that i see that you had state there had might be one other. >> there is one other amendment, just cleaning up a typo on page 3. no need to read it into the record it's stated in the copy. >> this has been before the land use committee and full board and this is again just the final extension of the interim moratorium extension and i want to thank the

committee for your support in september. >> great. thank you. okay. so we have an amendment proposed by supervisor kim. and we'll take that amendment without objection. [ gavel ] >> and then can i have a motion to forward item 3 to the full board with positive recommendations. >> so move >> that will be the order. madame clerk, could you call item no. 4. >> a resolution approving and authorizing an agreement with the real property conveyance of land located at 600 7th street. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. so we do have mr. updike from the department of real estate and the mayor's office of housing and i believe this is the second land dedication for affordable housing that is the city is undergoing and this is for a parcel in district 6,600/7"

street, affectionately known as the concourse public assembly site. mr. updike. >> thank you, supervisor system kim, chair, good afternoon. to satisfy their inclusionary housing requirements through the dedication of land to yield a required number of housing units. in this case, the developer, which is archstone concourse llc, whose general partner is equity residential, plans to develop -- excuse me, 432 units at 801 brannan and 239 units at one henry adams. here are those t