curious a little bit more about sem was the only method that was offered today for our cut and cover and mine tunnel option? it's great to get the sell today and pelt like a sell but i want to know all the options and before the board and why is this the best value and not just told it's the best value option but i look forward to the continued conversation. i think there is a broader context with phase two that we need to acknowledge and not in today's presentation and i know it's an ongoing dialogue conversation. >> ed. >> yeah. i guess i would add for the reason the agency exists and the reason we're building the building and all the funding partners have put in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars and the city has puts it own balance sheet on the line to

complete the phase one is to get the trains to downtown san francisco because i think everybody in the region recognizeslet importance of doing that the regional economy and accommodate the growth in the region so i think it's great and i appreciate the chair shifting the focus of the board now to phase two because that's the ultimate prize as great as phase one project is and i appreciate the staff work for the presentation. it was very comprehensive to the technical to the financial so that is fantastic and it is what we should be doing. with regard to the technical on the phase two i agree with supervisor kim or director kim that this is one path and it does seem -- i thought it was actually fairly compelling that based on the

assumptions for this path that we're going to have to make this s curve because we're trying to connect to the adjacent to where there's an existing caltrain station that sem may be the best path forward. i think the idea of cut and cover construction in the heart of the city for a few blocks is difficult to swallow and where some of the concerns come from but based on the assumptions of the alignment, based on when you neck out to three tracks which seems like the idea you need to do that before the fourth and townsend station that's why it seems that all leads to the conclusion it probably makes sense to do the tunneling in this way but as director kim mentioned challenging the assumptions is part of what is happening in parallel so i think actually it was acknowledged at least lately in the staff report and even

the final slide. with that said i think it's appropriate that the program move forward with what i guess is the baseline assumption of the alignment. i think there is more work even what was done in the environmental to be done in terms of the impacts that would come from this approach especially because of the cut and cover, the impacts to the city. i think there is more work to be done there so i would add that into the next steps list. there may be a time depending on this alternative or parallel work that comes in the next year where we as a region decide that we want to choose a different alignment but i think we should move forward with this work so we don't lose time because we want get to the 2025 date because in parallel encouraging high speed rail to get to the trans way transit center by 2025 based on

their new business plan so i think this general direction is good. on the revenue side i appreciate the work that you all have done. it seems like in the whole report there's a lot of optimism and progressive view on budget and schedule which is good to be optimistic and aggressive. on the revenue side it does seem like we've kind of fixed the problem with the pfcs. if you strip out the pfcs you're basically back to two and a half billion dollars of revenue for a $4 billion program so i think -- i know you have coordination with caltrain and high speed rail. i think a very specific vetting of the pfcs with the staff and the boards of those entities sooner than later would be helpful because we have

kind of have one solution, one solution at different levels but it's one solution, and if we find in shorter order that the solution or the level of the solution is not going to be viable we would need to start exploring others and the same lines i would encourage you to vet the assumptions for the tax increment and mello roos with the people from the city because some of the assumptions are anticipating more than what was in i think the 2012 plan bay area plan so i think we need there is validating of the assumptions that need to be made but overall a great presentation. we should be moving this forward whether we end up with a different alignment or not we need to keep advancing to get to 2025 so i appreciate the work on this. >> thank you. >> vice chair. >> i would agree with what

director kim and reiskin have said and i thank the chair for bringing this forward now. i mean it is the next big challenge that we have to get the train to the station. there's been lots of conversations and the presentation today has been very helpful to look at whether it's the type of tunneling or what opportunities there are for funding and obviously a lot of work has happened to get all that information, but also we are looking at different alternatives, times of change, and we need to really start laying out a process that we believe we understand the impacts to our eir, to impacts if we did changes what that would mean for us and still trying to meet the 2025 date. there's a lot of work and i think this board has the responsibility of guiding

this process and really start looking at what options we have and what decisions we need to make so we're not all over the place and have to be transparent with the public of course so that's mine. >> mayor gee. >> i want to thank you for bringing this forward and we have to start somewhere. i wouldn't be surprised if this evolves a lot over the next months if not years but as we all agree up here the goal is to have the trains downtown, and with all the other studies and i'm not going to assume they're done, is that while one study may say it takes more time or money and we have to base it against something and this could be that something and measure success and options so i think we're at the point to move it forward to complete everything up to 30% to really

establish a baseline project, and then take it on the road to our stakeholder community and does this work? does the pfc work? does viable? is it too much? we need to validate the ridership numbers and don't spare the peer review early. it's an investment that will save everyone pain, grief and money later and do the peer reviews early to validate assumptions or mitigate the assumptions we're making so from my standpoint it's a start. this is not the end but it's a complete picture of what could be by when and we need to move forward to test it and validate it and poke at it, throw rocks at it and take it apart and we will have something to measure and again thank you and team for

bringing this forward and i hope that can move forward to at least the next step -- we have something to measure against. >> i think what we said is very important. i think taking three tracks out past fourth and townsend station is critical and apparently the rab study one of the key aspects is being competitive it's a two track system pretty much i gather. i don't know but we need to really clarify that because of course ultimately there are only two tracks going down the pinens laso we need -- i least need to see the operational study and show why it's important to have three tracks at fourth and townsend to do that because we know we will get three tracks into our station but if it's important then we need to know this because it's a major

difference and a major thing. i think the secondary costs we have to be very cognizant even though they're not our costs they may be costs to the city and county and so we want to be comparative there as well and want to be honest as the supervisor said. be honest with what the impacts are on the comparative things because that is supposedly one of the other things that the rab study is trying to get itself hands around and the cost and rewards for this thing but i too feel this would help the whole process i think is take the next steps that mark has said and say okay those make sense to us you know, whatever the questions are we need to start doing some of the things to revolve them

so i -- resolve them and i am in support of that and presume what i hear it seems to be that this board these next steps make sense as far as can i tell. so you have your direction. >> thank you very much for your support and i want to assure all of you that as we move forward we're working closely with the rab study and make sure that the endeavors are complementary to each other. thank you. >> okay. >> you have one member of the public. >> i am sure we do. >> we are close on time and we still have closed session. >> okay. well, it may be a short closed session. >> and i appreciate the comments that the board members made and shorten my remarks and tone them down somehow. i have great news for you. you

wanted to appoint a senior program manager and no funding and we have funds laying around from prop k and isn't that wonderful? let me kill the third track once and for all. if you look in the eir scoping comment its explains how we were able to run 12, not ten, 12 trains an hour with three platform faces with the olympics. you will find that the plans for the track layout and the time table and hopefully that discussion and go to go with two tracks. the only proviso the [inaudible] station must have four tracks and between between that with two tracks is good. looks like i only have two minutes here so the question now is mr. reiskin you're about to deliver the central subway and the

tunnel for 1.7 billion dollars so how can somebody stand up in front of you and give a proposal -- [inaudible] $4 billion. it doesn't add up. okay. so in closing i would like to direct your attention to the april 26 meeting of the full transportation authority board where it was presented and -- well, actually my friend echoed the sentiments of him and in the study and make it possible to connect to the east bay on the other end but the last point i would like to make is that the same board meeting supervisor peskin suggested that the tjpa be terminated and transfer the responsibility to the maintenance of the terminal and different entity -- [inaudible] >> thank you. thank you for what you send us from time

to time. very informative. >> [inaudible] >> all right. that concludes members of the public to address you on that item so we can go ahead and move into closed session. >> yes please. >> pursuant to government section section 54956.9 and no members of the public to address you >> the tjpa board of directors meeting is back to session and announce on closed session. >> in anticipation of legal council there is no action to report. >> that concludes your agenda for today. >> yes. >> adjourned through the chair. thank you. >> thank you.

>> this is the historic society commission for wednesday, june 1. please, sounds your mobile devices. when speaking before the commission if you care to state your name for the record and i will take will call at this time. >>[call of the roll]