trust fund. >> yeah. no, i'm very interested in this project but interested overall in the developments potential in these areas and the p da and figuring out i'm sure you've looked at where we have control and there is potential development but even parcels in the p da we don't have control but are vacant a possibility to negotiate with the lymph gland great to have 3 buckets one that move forward that needs a little bit to get across the finish line and parcels we have second control and but you know we need to there's a lot more to figure out and finally, the papers we don't have site control but the list if we want to go and pursue the development in the parcels. >> this is good we'll take that san francisco has a

sophisticated soft site analysis many other cities and housing developers that have some of the information we don't have a regional platform but we're in the process of getting that thank you for providing that. >> thank you and you know, i think in many ways abag helps support our other parts of our region that may not have the capacity to do that identification and many ways that is a big part of work we're able to help to identify for other multiples to push and even incentivizes that type of development thank you. >> colleagues, any other questions or comments seeing none, move to public comment any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed this is an information item thank you for your presentations. >> item 11. >> item 11 update on the rail yard

alternative in the boulevard feasibility study an information item. >> okay. i'll recognize director rahaim from the planning department. >> good morning, commissioners director rahaim pleased to present to you the results of first phase of a multiple phase study to look at major transportation systems in the southeast quadrant of the city particularly around the rail yards. >> and the i 280 corridor this is a clunky name i prefer to call it the transportation sued study so it is called the rabbi want to thank the staff of the mta for their work with us an important multi faceted study that looks at multiple

transportation systems it converge in one part of the city to get the bang for the buck 0 on this important part of city i'll quickly talk about the marines reasons for the study and the components quickly we've been asked why are we are doing this now there are projects moving forward there is something on the order of 6 to $7 billion of investment that is proposed for this small corner of the city two the component of high speed rail and north of ask 16th street between the electrification we think that is important to see how they come together to end up with the best results for the city as you may know the recent announced by high speed rail california high speed rail they have somewhat shift they're thinking and now proposing that those trains the high speed rail

trains should come north first to get to san francisco by 2025 we think that is incumbent to think that is best served the city in the future we are concerned about some of the current thinking in their proposal specifically about some of the crossing high speed rail is pope rather than depressing the trains to depress the city streets flauth it creates situations where the streets will be essentially like highway undertook passes we don't think this is at appropriate way to reconnect the city, in fact, that will further separate the waterfront and mission bay from the city and so on we're concerned the lower image is the current image in oakland with a similar situation exists i don't think we want to see that has part of future so one of many

issues of high speed rail and the caltrain system there are a lot of existing projects and opportunity we want to address in this study and i want to say the city's position and, of course, the voters positions that high speed rail should come to the transbay terminal we strongly believe we're trying to get it done as quickly as possible there are a number of stand alone projects we want to make sure we're cropping with caltrain and all the entities we want to try to better knit this process so our goals to understand holistically the projects that are in front of the us and shape the future of this city in the best way we can the study has 5

components the first to look at the actual extension of the downtown rail and was call it the d t x that connects from 16th street street and the second for potential for a leak moving from the terminal to the system and third the caltrain rail yard for conversion or configuration and reuse of that site and fourth to look at 20th century to see if it make sense to end up with a better transportation system in the end and the fifth to look at the broad range of affordable housing space or development to help to pay for the system as we did the transit center district and look at the land use implementations so the study area is below from market street to about 22 street this is the

court of area we're looking at and all of the components in some form lie within this area i'll go through each component quibble looking at the alignment for the d t k3shgs along fourth street and second street and into the transit corridor this is the tunnel as proposed about seven years of construction current cost $4 billion and this is the baseline for what we're looking at in our study so we're looking at 3 additional options the tunnel that tunneled under the existing alignment under the pennsylvania avenue and the third an abatement there are no speaker cards through motorbike into that direction all connects to second street briefly the baseline condition the existing

alignment we cut and cover tunnel as one of the concerns from the public this is an environmentally clear project why are you fooling with that because of the cost increases and the new technology and the boring machines it is time to look at this and see if there is a more efficient way to do this this is the abatement of the essentially on the map but underground an alignment that tunnels under that alignment underneath and through the columns of intrastate 280 and avoids the train under the streets the third alignment is a slight shift to the west west could be done to avoid one of the existing train rails that routing flood this alignment

allows us to avoid one of the tunnels by shifting the alignment away from away from 14th street and townsend and this alignment under 3rd street that could veer off another any points before or after the existing tunnels under 3rd street essentially next door to airport and into second street according to the alignment this alignment has it is about the same distance because of the explores curve in the existing alignment but has the advantage of somewhat straighter shot so that's in summary those are the alignments the one we're taking out of consideration the one that tunneled under the existing up alignment because we don't believe you having, thread this between columns between 280

the towers are to schnauzer we're carrying forward into the next phase of the study the notion of baseline condition that is the existing alignment the pennsylvania street alignment and the 3rd street alignment secondly, we looked at 4 alternative transportation for looping the train back, if you will, we looked at four potential locations as you can see on the map we did them one an spear and steward and one in the bay on the south we felt it was worth looking at this this somewhere many phrasing phase of the process we looked at those carefully excuse me - back to second street the two don't seem workable the numbers one and 2 3rd street because of the interning required the high speed rail trains require a

broader interning radius so we're not able to make those two components work we want to carry the other components into the phase of the study for the implementations and cost thirdly, we looked at the configuration of the rail yard about 22 acres of land in the heart of the city we firmly believe that it is important to look at this land and the possible recognition or reconfiguration of this land caltrain looked at did poenl of reducing the size of the rail yard in the perimeter we looked at this and continuing to work with them and will continue that into the next phase as well obviously an important asset in the middle the city and make sure we can store trains and we believe we were looking possible locations for rail storage and outside of the city as well and finally, the 280 i mentioned

for $1.2 million only two places one can cross that highway on city streets it is important in a context of a larger transportation city to understand the possible costs and benefits of doing of removing this piece of the highway or notice and 2 will only go forward we think that make sense in terms of the transportation system and as you can see here the potential street connections in the future if we were to do that the obviously san francisco has a heritage already and moving through the freeways not automatically do that but the implementations and want to make sure if 2 were to happen it would create the better transportation system in a long-term public benefit just no summary we're looking at 3 of the 4 alignments on the actual rail lines and two

options from the center loop and continue the rail yard relocation study and looking at the notion of a boulevard in place of 80s 280 and the land use implementations of those reconfigures if and when they were to happen a lastly to telling you we've pled phase one to look at those options and entering phase two and soon establishing a citizens working group we're some of the names we'll welcome any nominees for much a group and expect this to take 9 to 12 months when we look at 2 detail including the costs and we participate further public hearings two huge ones in the last two weeks in queens of one hundred and 50 people a lot of interest ♪ project we anticipate that so

continue as we move forward i believe that that concludes my presentation. and i'm here with susan the project sponsor to answer questions >> thank you very much mr. rahaim commissioner peskin. >> thank you chair wiener to director rahaim i have a number of questions first really as a function of governance and d t x move forward any discussion between the various agencies caltrain this body, the city by and through the planning department or other agency san francisco municipal transportation agency as to who will ultimately lead the d t x projects. >> lead the actual design and construction of it. >> that's correct. >> that's certain been on the table we are and as currently constructed tjpa is responsible for financing and building and maintaining the d t x there the been issues that is correct or

not but i think that is certainly part of mix of tdecis that is happening. >> whether the tear down is necessary for the d t x expansion. >> it is likely not depending on - the alignment but given the enormous public investments something on the order of 6 or 7 or $8 billion not including the term we thought that was appropriate to look at it as a better transportation as a whole. >> relative to the street connections we agree are important are those constrained by 280. >> they currently are the 1. 2 million mile stretch only two places to cross. >> is that part of 280. >> perhaps that could be the

case. >> and typography. >> i think that you could make those connections and keep i 280 if you got the rail. >> could be. >> thank you commissioner cohen. >> director rahaim i'm not sure you're the best person to ask but i wanted to know if any outreach to the bayview community other than - i know that outreach has been conducted and meetings with the boosters but visitacion valley and bayview any meetings or outreach done. >> we've had a couple of large public hearings in the potrero hill area not specifically to the bayview. >> we've gone out to some of the areas and presented to them and if there are any that wants us to present i'll absolutely

willing to do that did you mean the cac. >> i contacted them but not been to the cac. >> we need to do that. >> thanks. >> okay. colleagues any additional questions or comments. >> chair wiener. >> i'll submit in us as commissioners as is transportation authority as well as county sprfrdz that this is probably the bodies we are the bodies that should be discussing who and what agency should be in charge of bringing d t x to the transbay terminal obviously major changes and and i for one wants to suggest perhaps when the transbay terminal is finished the tjpa lifespan perhaps should be coming to an

end essentially every function except perhaps the maintenance of the transbay terminal i think we should be discussing between the executive branch and the transbay joint powers authority and the transportation authority though how to make d t x and who is in charge moving forward objective since the passage of proposition h the dollar pining of the transbay to get downtown with the high speed rail otherwise we'll have the most expensive bus terminal in the history of mankind. >> i'll associate myself with commissioner peskin remark i think that one or ones phase one is complete we have a very, very serious discussion actually not then but now about the project

delivery of phase two downtown extension not optional and it needs to be a collaboration within the city by i but regional and frankly the project is statewide importance in terms of delivery within the city or delivered by the high speed rail authority to make sure that we have a strong plan in place how this project will be delivered and delivered well, i agree. >> and colleagues he also want to express to director rahaim my concerns that tying i 280 to the downtown extension alignment given it's controversy i worry about further delay the d t x i certainly understand the alignments being discussed are interesting whether 3rd street or pennsylvania avenue or the

alignment i'm frankly concerned the longer than we will not have d t x to fulfill the mandate of proposition h to the extent the i 280 tear down and the investment is connected to the d t x we have experience years and years of controversy and delays so i for one will respectfully suggest that those to things not be altercated together for the i 280 tear down is pie in the sky. >> so i thank you commissioner peskin i'll add the following i in terms of i want to make sure we are by and large the decision of the z t x on full analysis i know people have outside of this chamber who have actually some inside the chamber

announced their categorical opposition to tearing down the i 280 before the study it is one of the studies in terms of what the alignment will be to d t x we as a city region and state lives with the next one hundred and 200 and 50 years tomato i don't know the right answer in terms of alignment i know we should make sure we get it right and if this means a little bit of extra time to make sure we get that right we stick with the original alignment i for one favor making a decision based on full information and the other thing i'll say i know there's a lot of controversy about the i 80s tear down some of the arguments we're hearing the same arguments in taking down the embarcadero

freeway and the extra freeway i think there be few people that would say take down either of those freeways i want to make sure we're bays the decisions on good analysis and making on informed choice about alignment because they're political difficulties surrounding that and that is the one hundred and 200 year station. >> so director rahaim. >> i appreciate that i pillow agree that it appears like sidetracking given the scale of investment ♪ part of town we thought that was worth talking about the analysis study i granted you there are serious controversial and if i may i neglect to mention another advantage of taking into account looking at the investment for the future connections

i think we all agree the piece bay connections we're hopeful the second transbay crossing in our future we want to make sure that whatever happens with the alignment to make that connection this is part of that analysis as well >> i want to reiterate how important that last comment was about high speed rail. >> colleagues, any questions or comments okay. seeing none any public comment on item 11. >> seeing none, public comment is closed and this is an information item item 12 and item 12 recognize vince harris director of the construction at the san francisco municipal transportation agency for 10 years of service for the city and county of san francisco this is an informational item. >> through the chair thank you commissioners wanted to recognize vince harris who is

retire if the sfmta the capital on program retiring this month he's not here but want to recognize him for his service vince had a long career and previously severed and muni for the construction from 1999 to 2005 and during that time he oversee the capital improvement as much as third-story and l l r t and the facilities for the redesign apart from the services to the city a veteran of many assignments 35 year career the alameda county transportation authority and working in other parts of country like texas and washington, d.c. in addition to all of his work for the public segment in the infrastructure he always served on any communities on the

conference the authority and thank you to vince so far his extraordinary to the city and county of san francisco and the industry as a whole we prepared this certificate of appreciation and invite commissioner lee commissioner weiner to sign and bring it to you in a week or so. >> any public comment on this item? item 11 seeing none, public comment is closed and this is an information item item 13 and exemplary mr. chair we'll be honoring vince in may at the board of supervisors. >> thank you, commissioner. >> item 13 and item 13 introduction of new items. >> colleagues introduction seeing none, public comment any public comment? public comment is closed. >> item 14 and item 14 general public comment. >> any general public comment. >> yes. >> good morning, commissioners

all law for respect are elderly folks with seniors and of taking care of for our young ones and children of the future as far as having good packing while brothers and sisters and families worthy peers of people all mission destiny for city work of improvements for oneself and the word one should be smart of principles of conservation of resources and work perfectly with excused of system organization and people's management all of career performed their duties one learners how to live their life and the limitation of money resource to produce credit for functions is one of personal

journalism with a mighty mission can get a head e head start for true powers only require one aspect of refrigeration destiny of personal growth and process to set for the loyalty of love and humanity and meaningful duties will be the goal of partial interest and family order and natural management going public with this area of was this ever virtues thank you. >> and additional public comment. >> next speaker, please. >> adjournment we're going tol

this regular board of education meeting to order monday, april 25, 2016, as you can see i'm not our student president we'll do this and make sure we have an exciting meeting with that, a reluctant. >> ms. casco and. >> ms. fewer ms. mendoza-mcdonnell ms. norton mr. walton ms. wynns president haney and ms. chin and mr. totiano presents. >> would you, please join us in the pledge of allegiance and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for