in the discussion. i strongly share commissioner richards and melgar's questions. i do believe the expanding in the build envelope was a great idea. i have questions just as commissioner richards does about new construction and adus because it's not clearly defined what parameters are, what can and can't happen. i believe that many discussions about streets trees, bicycles, waiver, property app done, meetings with all the departments are foundation of a strong discussion which i believe has to become more robust. i would think further discussions about unit size are important. 1200 seems high, but 800 in that range seems more reasonable for what we're trying to do. the modifications to rear yard

is a question. the impact for the new unit living space as well as adjoining is important to further investigate. i am curious about the discussion on corridors going from 5 feet to 3 feet. that becomes particularly difficult when that corridor between buildings is actually used for recology and existing potentially with strollers and walking s. that is a squeeze, particularly when you're in older buildings, have a fair escape coming down in certain situations. that's a detail. the only thing i see that there is a diagram that pretends that all streets in san francisco are flat, and they're not, and the conditions really get more complicated when you put the same type of unit study in topography and figure out what

kind of complications arise. it's a very important study. i'm looking ahead here, i'm trying to push. i think that these adu descriptions you started could need a whole larger amount of graphic depictions of do's and don'ts and impacts so you really physically can see what physical references mean or don't mean, referencing the 3 foot corridor or rubbing from a 15 by 15 or 20 by 20 foot open space and you reduce it to 9 feet by 9 feet. the way it's written, and perhaps it is implied, there are reference to specific codes that are not mentioned. there's subtleties here that need to be brought into this

discussion in order to be real. that includes new construction in rh 3 adding a unit, and that is intensefication, that is by law not allowed. so you don need to make some changes, and i think cumulatively, someone said it takesver the entire city, you are running into eir problems. and i think we need to look at it with that magnifying glass in order to make this work. great beginning, really happy, but it needs a lot of tuning. >> president hillis: so just a couple comments. i think we've actually done this where we've added an adu. we've wanted the tool to add an adu to a new construction. so i think we're marrying this -- one, there's

protections of existing builds. i know you don't believe it, but there's rrement that you have to come here to get a c.u. to demo something. you can't demo anything beyond a single-family home, so we've never allowed the demoof a two unit or more building. they're the -- the same tenant protections apply that currently apply. this doesn't skirt the tenant protection rule. so i think what we're saying, at least to me, if you've got a single-family in an rh 3, this will allow you to buildhree units and a smaller fourth unit, correct? yes, which i think is good. you have a -- you should be -- you know, if it's right that you should be able to demoan existing single-family home that's not historic, commissioner richards says all the time, we've got the capacity to build hundreds of thousands of units. yeah, if we do it.

but if we stop every project and don't add on -- right now, if you're a four unit building in an rh 3, you can add an adu, so you can go above and have a fifth unit. this is no different from what we currently have on the books. probably the biggest impact where people say you should be on the west side is on the west side, where you can build a home and do this. i like this. it's a little bit of back door upzoning or an increase in zoning to allow for adus, but i think that's what we need. if we want to stop every demoof a cottage in rh 3 to not allow four units to be built, i think that's why 827 is around, so i'm supporting.

i'd actually support the 1200 square foot -- if you've got a floor plate that's 1500 square feet, i don't know what you'd do with the strat-300 square foot. i mean, you could put a laundry, but i prioritize houses over garages and laundry. i think we'd approve this type of amendment, but then they come back and ask to create the laundry into an adu. you can't claim the housing accountability act for the demoof a single-family home into a new home with an adu, we can't be in support of that. >> we can't? i would defer to the city attorney. >> but i think we'd actually be encouraging it. why are we doing three or fewer units? so if somebody can build a ten-unit building, why aren't

we allowing them to build an adu to that? >> we just think these would apply to the larger scale developments. ten unit, it's usually like the zoning already allows and they'relike maximizing what's already there. >> preside hilli sometimes. if they're in where we've decontrolled density, they can build as many units, but if you're out on geary and 38, aren't you governed by the number of square units that you can build? >> unless you do homeless sf projects in that way. >> president hillis: although we've seen home sf -- we haven't seen a home sf project yet. haven't visited -- i think we should look to expand it beyond to where we still have density controls, but i'm supportive. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so we're looking at our demo laws. i understand the city attorney

is actually reviewing legislation by supervisor peskin. i think to approve this today, not understanding that piece of legislation in relation to the housing accountability act is foolish, so i move to continue to june 21 with more input from the city attorney on the impact of the ability to demolish single-family homes under the guise of add be an -- adding an adu as well as tenant protections. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: we're talking about housing crisis. i'd like to focus that into affordable housing crisis, and i'd like to ask originally, originally, when we first started to use the abbreviation adu and did not talk about accessory dwelling unit anymore, we also thought that they would be part of

affordability. that's the way it started. and i'd like to ask as to whether or not there is an element here by which these units, because they're getting certain provisions within me a moment, please.tera -- give thank you. that they should be perhaps, considered for some portion of affordability, and i'm not seeing what. there are ranges that affordability that range is by now from middle to very low-income. whether there could be shades of affordability applied to adus. the last one i would say is we need to more clearly think about -- somebody phrased -- coined the phrase eviction by adu, and by inadvertently not thinking about it, that we have to have metrics which prevent that from happening. those would be my added comments to your list of concerns, commissioner

richards, and i would support a continuance because the discussion has kicked off in a really profoundly wonderful way. i'd just like to see a little bit more. >> commissioner richards: that's a second. >>ssioneore: ine was a second to you. >> would the commission consider moving it forward if we took out the new construction piece so at least we could get the other pieces forward? >> president hillis: i wouldn't. that's the biggest piece on that. we talk every week about adding more units, rezoning the west side, adding more units. adus have been extremely successful. to blame adus for evictions i think has been nuts. we take the two cases that have happened here -- most of them happened not because of an addition to an adu, they happened because of the ssmic retrofit, and that's what drives the major construction in the adu in the eviction construction procedures, not necessarily the construction -- conversion of a garage to an

adu. i think we have to get serious about additional units. it's great. you can now build a newhouse in an rh 1 district and have two units. i think it's perfect. commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: so i -- you know, i'm wondering why you need this today. if we could get a city attorney opinion in the next couple weeks that could -- i'm just speaking for myself -- put me at ease in terms of the issue that i raised, you know, i would be more comfortable. i don't think we need a whole lot of time. is there a reason this needs to go today? >> we would just like to get it done before the legislative recess? the agendas are very full with upcoming items, so we thought this was a fairly stream lined approval process for this legislation of adus, so we did yacht reach, we had a meeting,

we had a lot of letters of support. you also received a lot of letters of support, so that's sort of the reason behind wanting to move this forward today. >> president hillis: commissioner fong? >> commissioner fong: i hear the crns i partiar commissioner richards has about it not being fully vetted, and your comment about son of 823 -- 27, i mean, it is that, but i think that's what that bill was supposed to do, is to awaken cities to do something, and i think there may be many sons of 827, this potentially being one of them to add more units. to commissioner -- or president hillis's comment about new construction, yeah, if you could potentially get -- not just squeeze in one or two more in an existing building, but get three new units in construction, all the better. i'd kind of like to recollect

that the real origial piece of is whe we were talking about adus was to somewhat legitimatize some of the housing united on the east side, so i think that was sort of the quiet reason for doing this. and i think maybe we've done that -- or at least we're in a better place. displacement, i'm sure that has occurred. i don't feel that on the west side that that's been the leading cause for displacement of people converting over to adu's. frankly, i think it's some homeowners thinking that i need to make some additional income, and they turn a laundry room into a unit. andomeer practical purposes, not necessarily some degree or capitalism, but families trying to stay in san francisco that they've converted those units. so i'm supportive of this at the moment. i don't think it's going to be impact.

i thi -- exact. i think there's going to be bad actors and people who take advantage of it in san francisco, but i think it's one of those things we should move forward on 827, use this in picking -- in being able to make more units in san francisco. i think the worst thing we can do is nothing. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i think the other thing to add to the city attorney's list is if we're adding an adu to a building built before 1979, th dwelling units were to be under rent control. if we demolish the building and we build an adu and a house, two units, neither would be under rent control, there's more questions that this has that i'm prepared to even understand the answers are today. that's why i'm asking for two weeks. i don't think asking for two weeks when we're trying to get

this resolved before the recess is going to add to the housing crisis. my purpose is to stablize communities. >> president hillis: we've never approved the demoof a rent controlled two unit building unless there's a d.a. it's always a single-family home going to -- what rhd tried to do was convert it to maximize the zoning, which i think this does, so there's some benefits to that. >> commissioner richards: i'm for maximizing the zoning, but if there's a tenant in a single-family house that gets evicted, that's where i'm worried. >> president hillis: and that tenant has the same protections under existing law, which isn't a huge amount under single-family law. it would come to a c.u. i think we should add into the ordinance because we've seen it happening, to notice to

existing tenants. that makes sense, i would add that to this, because tenants don't necessarily know you're going to take laundry away, but adus have been onehe m tst successful programs in getting unitso the city. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i'd be supportive if the adu was with the demolition. if you add the u oo the existing structure, i'd support it. >> under the authority allowed, you candd an adu into the existing structure. >> commissioner richards: into the buildable envelope? >> for single-family homes, yes, that's already allowed. >> president hillis: but i think the issue is where we can

add the most units is in the west side, which is all rh 1, you can add an adu anywhere. you can add an adu to an existing home or demo-richards richards but you don't have to do it through new construction. that's what i'm saying. if you'd take the new construction out, i'd support this. >> so i'm sorry. >> vice presmelgident : i actually disagree. i think it is-- i'm not trying delay this. i just want a city attorney opinion with the issue with the housing accountability act and new construction. we've seen it here, to allow us to have an adu in new construction. i'm afraid of the unintended consequences as the housing accountability act is applied, and so i don't want to throw that baby out with the bath

water, 'cause i do think it's a good idea. i just think it needs to be vetted a little bit more for may tasmy tas taste. >> commissioner richards: you've convinced me. to june 19. that's two weeks. >> our city attorney has been very quiet. can we get something in two weeks? >> i think because you all talk to fast tonight. deputy city attorney kristin jensen. as i understand the issue most everybody is interested in you're looking for some confidential advice from the city attorney's office on the housing implications of the new construction component of the proposed legislation. >> commissioner richards: yes. >> president hillis: and i think the hypothetical is that someone demolishes a

single-family home and says they're going to put in an adu. >> commissioner richards: i think it's a little bit different than that. it's can they -- can they just the housing accountability act -- the question is whether a property owner could invoke the housing account ability act and essentially require the commission to approve because they're building more units. >> right. >> president hillis: because they have the adu. >> to justify the demolition. >> and the concern mostly deals with the single-family home situation as opposed to the multiunit situation. >> president hillis: 'cause they can do it already. if it's an rh 3, they can already claim.

commissioner fong? >> commissioner fong: so i think that's a very good question, but my question is why wouldn't we approve it pending the determination it is not in conflict with the housing accountability act versus waiting two weeks? >> commissioner richards: may i? i'd also like the city attorney -- >> commissioner fong: obviously, whatever we vote on tonight is going to get vetted before it gets to the rules or the board of supervisors, so i think that vetting process is already sort of built into this, isn't it? >> commissioner richards: if -- just a thought, as i'm listening, is if this -- if this -- >> if this legislation does go through, it isn't as if you would be forced to -- >> president hillis: i think commissioner richards' concern is we would be compelled to

order the demolition. it's a little bit what we face in some projects. some people bring the housing accountability act as kind of a hammer to approve the demolition. >> the housing accountability act does extend to not just the approval of a project but also to the approval of a demolition request. so the advice needs to extend to both. >> commissioner richards: that's what i thought. could you also in these two weeks understand what supervisor peskin's proposed ordinary nance is on the demolition on this and how it applies to this. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'd like tave my of the things which were mentioned earlier. which we're at this moment completely suffocating by letting this housing accountability acted be the

only reason. i would like to have the other questions that were asked and i saw you write have them be included in your next presentation. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: would it be possible for supervisor tang to meet with representatives of the tenant rights community to understand their concerns around anything and make sure that at least their views are heard, please? >> she's open to meeting with them, but again, those are amendments to the rent ordinance, so we are looking at amendments here to the planning code, and as we understand it, if there's any removal of any type of unit, it must come here first for a c.u. so the rent evictions issues that we have heard about and have actually talked to supervisor peskin's office about in detail are best addressed through amendments to the administrative ordinance. >> president hillis: i think the only thing is -- because full a permit just to replace a foundation on a multiunit rent

controlled building, and you have to remove tenants -- or you don't have to remove tenants -- i don't know what the notification procedure is when it affects tenants or common space. >> so there are some new procedural changes that we've done to address that issue. do you want to come over and speak it again. >> one topic of adu permits only, we have developed the procedure as i noted. i can briefly go over that again if you like. as part of the adu process there is a screening tool that planning requires prior to enrollment of the program, so the screening form requires review by dbi staff. it has to be stamped in before filing the adu permits. we have worked with ddi staff to amend that screening form to include an owner affidavit

stating they recognize removal of how the removal of services require just cause. it also provides the property owner to now post notice to tenants and letter posted of proposal related to the adu so that they are made aware of the proposal, and they have to provide us copies of that notice now. so that is not something that is currently required. it modifies the process now in that the tenants are noticed well in advance of the permit issuance which can happen as we know months later. >> president hillis: okay. thank you. >> one other types of activity that may happen related to seismic, this does not address that, so that's another topic. >> commissioner richards: so just another clarifying question -- all questions should be clarifying. does housing services mean

parking, storage, laundry, all those things? >> yes. >> commissioner richards: okay. perfect. >> clerk: well, there's still the remaining motion to continue that no one has seconded? yes, commissioner moore? >> commissioner richards: june 21. >> clerk: so commissioners, there's a motion to continue this until june 21. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0 and places us on item 13. [agenda item read] >> good afternoon, commissioners. ann marie rogers, planning department staff and director

of the long range citywide planning division. i've said that part of the work that i've done in walking into this position is to try to identify what are the most important projects for the city and for our department to be focusing on so that we can make sure we're putting appropriate resources on those projects. this rab project is one of those. you may have read ex-commissioner ron mcgill's article on this, where he said this is a 100 year decision that's facing the state and the region. i'm really pleased this project has benefited from the long time direction of our director, john rahaim, and today we'll get to hear his side of the issue. >> good eving, commissioners. john rahaim. planning department staff. nice to see you tonight.

so we go from 1200 square foot adu's to a $6 billion project, so it just tells you the range of projects that the planning department is working on. i just want to take a moment to thank all of the amazing partners on this, besides the staff you see behind me, mta, t.a., and the high speed rail authority, and caltrain, and tjpa has been involved in this. just as a reminder -- and i don't know -- [inaudible] >> we started this for a couple of reasons. one is there were serious concerns that the city had about the preferred -- the existing d.t.x. alignment. the d.t.x. is the acronym for the tunnel that would connect the existing caltrain tunnel to the transit center, and the

concerns were a number of things. one is the crossing at grade of several intersections through the city. the second was the coordination of several different activities that were going on in that area at the same time, so we felt it was important -- we received a grant from the metropolitan transportation commission, to take a step back and look at this holistically. just to point out, there's extraordinary growth happening in this state, and to think about why is it important to connect the southern california to northern california to begin with, the rail project. you see the amazing numbers you see here, the projections are, and again, these are rough numbers, over 50 years, that we could see as much as a 77% growth in jobs over the next half century, and a 33% growth in population. the reason i'm raising this issue with this presentation is

simply that type of growth requires massive transportation to support it, and you have two options, really. one is to expand our highways and airports, and the other is to devote to rail. reat really is the stark ity that we're facing here. i think that we would all agree that expanding highways and airports is not a great solution, that's why railways is on the table. in looking closely at the bay area, we see similar numbers. the projections are in excess of 40% over the next 50 years in both housing and jobs in the bay area. so again, connecting this region with rail, it seems to be the most efficient, environmentally friendly and west way to go when we -- best way to go when we look at other options that we have on the table. coming into the table, similar growth, we're looking at two thirds growth in population. we could see the city get to 1.4 million people in the next

50 years, and we could see a comparable growth in jobs. again, all of this depends on the capacity to grow, but we will obviously see a lot of growth, whether we plan for it or not, and again, the demand on existing streets sort of belies the notion that we can expand them or not. we have to go to a different system, which we think is rail. and the second point i would make in the city is simply the possibility of using this project to reconnect neighborhoods that have long been disconnected. the existing rail line, the existing high, have long tended to separate the neighborhoods along the waterfront, particularly mission bay, from the rest of the city. we think the project is a way of connecting the other neighborhoods, or in the case of mission bay, connecting it to the city for the first time. with extraordinary growth numbers in this part of the city, it's worth pointing out that about 75% of the city's

growth will happen in this quadrant of the city over the next 30 years. so we have really three major pieces of infrastructure that have been planned and are somewhat underway as you know. the transit center is about five weeks from opening. represents a multibillion investment just in itself. the high speed rail is under construction in the central valley, and the plan is currently it will come to northern california first, and then, of course -- whoops. and then, the electrification of caltrain, just these three things represent about a $6.3 billion investment in infrastructure, if not more. the other big concern we had and the city has had this concern from day one, is simply that the initial proposal from high speed rail was that the

existing grade crossings at 16 street and 7 street would remain. when you add the number of trains over time that are coming to this district, that means that about 20 minute period out of every hour in peak hours, the streets would be closed. the conclusion that was initial initially put on the table was to put the streets under the trains. this would result in a condition like geary, and because of sewer utility, it would require a much deeper tunnel under the train tracks that exists, for example, at geary boulevard. we have been concerned about the type of gradepation that w was -- gradation that was the proposal. we obviously had to look at trade offs. i won't go thrgh this. costs are an issue, connectivity, and operations of

the train, and so on and so on, schedules being a really key point because we wanted to make sure whatever we did did not affect the potential of getting the tunnel under construction on roughly the sam time frame that we have today. i will turn this over to evsus gygi. there were other components that we initially looked at, and i will just close my part by saying number five here is one i really want to emphasize. when we started the study, we were looking at the possibility that whether or not, i should say, we were asking ourselves the -- whether or not the removal of a portion of interstate 280 would help in this overall transit system. obviously, that was extremely controversial, but we felt we needed to answer that question. and the answer is no, we do not need to move it, we don't need to modify it, we don't need to

tear it down to accommodate the train lines, so that is no longer under consideration in this particular study. with that, let me turn it over to susan for the rest of the presentation. >> hello, commissioners. my name is susan gygi, and the study started off as five big transportation and land use questions that had to be answered in the next one to 15 or 20 years that would all affect san francisco in the next 100. but understanding how each one of the interacted together allows us to make sure as we make a decision on any one of them that we're not inadvertently closing doors on any of the others. so that's really the umbrella of what the rab study tried to look at. so although they're still on completely different time frames, the most time sensitive one is the first component, which is the rail first alignment in the transit center. we looked at rail yard location

or reconfiguration, urban land use considerations, and then the transit center extension and/or loop, and the boulevard of i-80. so if we look at each one of them individually, the most time sensitive of course is the rail alignment as john stated. when we started to look at all of these pieces of infrastructure that were planned on top of each other by different agencies but all operating in san francisco s, quickly came to realize with everything that we wanted to happen was going to have to happen with the city. the green alignment includes the building of the downtown rail extension, so we get trains into the salesforce transit center. because of that, and because of caltrain and high speed rail

coming to the city, we'd end up trenching our streets. so those two components, the building of the dtx, and the trenching of our streets is what we call the future of surface rails. there's really only two ways that we can get trains into the salesforce transit center. we either trench our streets to get them there or we move the trains underground. so the two other alignments take the trains underground in this portion of the city. so the orange line, or the pennsylvania avenuesub titled the dtx plus an extended tunnel puts the trains underground somewhere around 22 street, underground, under 16th, within the right-of-w of the streets. it connects up to the downtown rail extension and gets the trains into the salesforce transit center. the third alignment, what we call the blue alignment, it's the mission bay alignment.

it moves from the existing alignment to the east and up third street underground. and across the mission creek and into the salesforce transit center. i want to point out, we -- i have about five years of rail -- you know, rail engineering experience in my background, and when i saw this, i thought this is the way to go. it's a straighter, it's a -- it's -- it gets transit to an area that we currently don't have great transit to, but once we started to do the analysis, it isn't -- there's a lot of unknowns associated with the mission bay alignment. it has to be incredibly deep because we have to be underneath mission creek. mission creek is inevitable, so we have to be underneath it. and then we're climbing at more than recommended for a train to get back up to the sales force transit center, because we need to be there at a certain coordinate because the

salesforce transit center was built to get trains from a certain location. and then, not only that, we have really bad soils and unknown soils in the mission bay area as well as the- it would -- it would require the largest tunnel bore in the united states. for those -- and one more. -- two more, actually. the -- or sorry. the ridership capture area. we would have a new line away from the blue line. this new station is incredible deep. it would be in mission bay, and when you draw the -- the ridership capture area around that station, you'll notice that a good portion of the ridership capture area is actually in the bay. so you get better riders to capture from the downtown rail extension portions, so the

graen our t green or the orange line than you do in the blue. and unfortunately or fortunately, a lot of the area that we would be able to -- because ucsf is an educational facility, you don't get a whole lot of taxes from them. and so for all those reasons -- and i'm going to cut to the chase on this one, and we'll bring it back as we come around, the staffs of all of the departments in the city and counties of san francisco have gotten together, and we believe our preferred alignment is the pennsylvania avenue alignment. if you look at the second it's the rail yard relocation or rekwigs, so this is an idea at the fourth and king rail yard, they currently have three operations. they do passenger maintenance,

moving and storing, and moving massive amounts of people like after a giants game. what would happen from caltrain actually severed some of those functions and put them in a different location? so moving the operations underground into the fourth and townsend station that is included in the downtown rail extension and then moving the storage and maintenance someplace else and the staging and accommodations within an operations plan. the third component is if we were to relocate the rail yard beyond just the fourth and king, and we only really -- for this presentation, we only are showing the fourth and king rail yard, what kind of urban form and land use considerations do we get? so not only with the pennsylvania boulevard extension do we trench our streets, you can get six more east-west connections between mission bay and the city. in addition if we are able to relocate the fourth and king

rail yard, you get two north-south connections and one of those north-south connections at fifth street connects to the planned bicycle pedestrian bridge over mission creek. in addition, we get to restore the street grid, we get to eliminate rail space and noise, and we get to establish housing and retail. and the fourth and fifth are more long time. the salesforce transit center is three floors, six tracks. when you bring a train in, and you unload, and you restock, and you do a security check, when that train is sitting at the platform, another train can't come in. at some point, we're going to want to run more than 10, 12, 15 trains up and down the corridor. the only way to do that is to move those corridor activities someplace else, so that's

busting through the east side of the salesforce transit center and extending to east bay or alameda or returning to the south. if we extend acrost, one of the things that came out of this plan -- or the forward thinking of the rab project is understanding that we're redoing the seawall, knowing that we may want to extend, and understanding that we might need a punch out panel along that seawall is a forward thinking item that allows us maybe not to build it now, but it allows us to built it in the future, and we we have the xy's and the coordinates. if y -- if you loop around, you still get a lot more capacity at the salesforce transit center, you just don't

get another rider pool. and then, the fifth component gets all of the excitement, and it -- it was about looking at remaining the last 1.2 miles of friday north of marisa, and it quickly became apparent that the other two freeways that we have removed were removed because of structural damage during the loma prieta earthquake, and we either had to put in a lot of money to fix them or take them down. i-280, that is not the case. what we did during the rab project is we understood that the different components that we were looking at neither require the replacement or the continuing use or the removal of i-280. so it's completely separate project and a completely separate timeline that can

continue on at a much different time frame. but what we are looking at today in any respect, none of them require or the removal and/or retaining of the i-280 corridor. and then, what everybody loves, is the cost. so just looking at the alignments and what is associated with them, so for the green -- for the orange and the blue line, i want to make sure that since the trains are underground, the forward thinking railway goes away. the operations would go to fourth and townsend, the operations and maintenance would move to a southern yard, and the staging would probably be taken into account in the operations plan. taking all of that into account as well as the value capture that we think we can get in the area through like a mello-roos district, you end up with about

$5.1 billion with the future of surface rail. now you've probably heard that the dtx is about $4.1 billion. the pennsylvania avenue, all in is about 6 billion, and although it would take about a year addition to extend the tunnel, we could actually run trains in the green portion that the orange is also overlapping because in -- now this gets a little technical, and i hope that you excuse me. there's this thing called a tunnel stub box at the corner of 7th and townsend that allows us to construct the dtx and offline connect to the dtx and operations while we construct the extension underground in the pennsylvania avenue. so it's not as if we're delaying trains getting to the salesforce transit center in any respect. what we are doing is we're moving the trains underground about another year later,

another 1.6 miles of distance. and in the mission bay alignment, because of the of owe depths, because of the soils, they cost about $9.3 billion, and it would take about 2031 to get a singular train into the salesforce transit center because even though that blue and the green and the orange overlap, the blue is at a different height, so you actually can't even construct any of the dtx in the mission bay alignment. it's at a different height, and it would take different environmental clearance as well. i think it's important to note that those are construction -- those are, like, construction in impact dollars, but it's also important to understand that there are social benefits that weren't taken into account monetariyly. so how do you put a number on

connectivity, how do you put a number on neighborhood identity? how do you put a number of resiliency? well, actually you can. we just didn't. and how do you get all of the trains in the sales fore transsit center, that's what this graphic tries to show or flush out a little bit, the bigger differences between the -- the -- what i would call the social impacts of the three alignments. and then, we talked a little bit about the schedules. you'll see here the future of surface rail, the dtx is constructed about 2026. again in the pep nnsylvania avenue, and then moves the trains underground for the south about a year later. and then, the mission bay alignment which takes much longer because the additional environmental clearance and the construction of a much longer

tunnel. so the next steps, we had our public meeting, yea, may 29, and we are in the process of going to different boards and commissions for the next couple of months in -- in preparation for what we believe to be -- will be a joint resolution between the mayor and the board of supervisors to -- towards hopefully looking at the pennsylvania avenue as our iminary preferred alternative. but it doesn't just stop there. there is a plethora of work that's going on in this area that absolutely needs to be coordinated across agencies and across different projects. so that's what this graphic is trying to show is the different projects that all kind of are affecting the -- the caltrain corridor in this area, the salesforce transit center down to the city boundary, basically. so you have caltrain with their business plan high speed rail with their blended service

operations and the environmental clearance of high speed rail getting from san jose to san francisco. you have tjpd doing the dtx and the design of the environment pennsylvanavenue, and then, you have what san francisco's going to be doing which we believe are four distinct projects. looking at the 22 street station. currently, it's not ada accessible. it was dropped into an easement at the last minute. it was one of the fastest -- or the largest percentage of growth stations every single year, and it's where the most bike bumps happen in -- or the entire alignment every single year. so understanding where to better place and not only -- not only place the 22nd street station but provide for multimodal access, it might be -- we'll be looking at that come -- in that study. and then, there's the connectsf transit corridor study, which is looking at the entire city,

and how do we better connect up between different neighborhoods with our transit. there's the connectsf streets and freeway stuhich is begoed by c.t.a. looking at the streets and the freeways, and then, there will be a conversation around the land use planning for the fourth and king area. and then, there's also additional regional projects that are also going on that need to be influenced and be influenced by what's going on in this corridor. that includes the b.a.r.t. study, looking at the transbay two, second regional crossing, and then other regional studies, as appropriate. and that's it. >> thank you, susan. just to wrap up, to thank susan for her presentation. we've never had an engineer on staff and it's been a huge learning curve for me in the

study, and incredibly valuable for susan. sometimes she talks in a different language, but that's good, and i've learned, and we all have learned a lot in the study. we are at the point of coming forward with a recommendation, and that is the pennsylvania avenue alignment, and as susan said we're kind of shopping that around, if you will, and getting feedback from the community on this. we had a public meeting last week. many different neighborhood meetings leading up to a formal city position on this which we hope to be, as she said, a joint resolution of the board and the mayor, and probably either in july or september, depending on the schedule. so finally, i just want to thank one last entity, which is the citizens working group on this. we've had a very hard working group of stakeholders from a number of locations around the alignment. former commissioner ron miguel chaired that group. ron can't get enough of us after all these years, so if i

may, i'd like to ask ron to come up and say a few words, as well, and that will conclude our presentation. >> this is actually what i'm here for. it's my pleasure and actually a privilege since 2016 to chair the working group for this project. the members represented a large segment of our city geographically, particularly those areas that would be impacted by the rail alignment. they're intimately involved in all areas of transit, local and regional, and by the time we were finished, we fully understood the complexities of the project. we started in august of 2016. we were charged, actually, with looking comprehensively at the solutions because bringing high

speed rail into the box under the new transit center was an absolute necessity. we did walking tours, we did station tours. we looked at all the configurations that were possible, and i will say that unlike a number of committees examine commissions that i've -- and commissions that i've been on in this city, our decision was unanimous on pennsylvania alignment. there was absolutely no question at the end. we did not go into the details of how you tunnel. we are not engineers. we did not go into the details of how the math works totally because the figures you saw up on your screens a moment ago, if they go up, they will all go up incrementally the same. it's just going to be what it is at the time this is built. this we have billed and the department has billed as a

one-in-a-100-year decision. when i was up here on item 11, i mentioned that i had been involved in land use for about 40 years, and that's when i realized that i've actually been involved in transit use for about 60 years. i was around and active in trying to get b.a.r.t. into the bay area. you know the naysayers, those counties that turned around and then backed out of it. we can't make those kinds of decisions now, if you can imagine the bay area without b.a.r.t. that was an absolute necessity. at the meeting thursday night, the public meeting, i asked everyone to think at futurists. that's -- as futurists. that's hard for people to do,

but if you think of the years that b.a.r.t.'s been around. if you think that some of you are living in homes thae getting along older than b.a.r.t. i'm in a home that was built in the 1870's, still viable, this is something we have to do. so i urge you to be proponents of the pennsylvania street alignment, to be around long enough to ride on it. hopefully my grand kids will be, and really appreciate your attention to this. >> president hillis: thank you, commissioner mcgill, for your work on this. thank you, susan, ann marie, for your presentation on there. is there any additional presentation, mr. half? >> so commissioners, i am jim half. i am indeed a member of the working group. there are some others who would

have liked to be here today, but for various reasons, including the hour weren't able to come. i've only been involved in trying to get the train down for 30 years, not 60. as you may be aware, there has been there antiquated proposal from 2004 to get the train downtown, which was created at the time when mission bay was basically empty property, and the ucsf campus had not been built. it's been a great concern of a number of us, to say nothing like people of ucsf about, how trains would get downtown without impacting them, and i think susan is overly optimistic that ten trains an hour going through that intersection would only take 20 minutes. i think it would take 40 minutes with the gate down. i think it's unworkable, and the planning department has been working on this, but

unfortunately, it got a little brushed under the rug, after the first brouhaha, but they brought it up again and working on it, and you've seen the results. i think this pennsylvania alignment should be supported by as many people as support. the public transit center i supposed to be publicly open on august 12. there'll be a lot of press and hoopla about it at the time, and we cannot afford to answer the question that'll undoubtedly be asked, well, how are you going to get the train downtown by saying, well, we don't know. you need to say, we have this plan in mind. now, there will be those people who say, well, it's going to cost these billions of dollars. we don't have it, so why should we worry about and snd a lot of time on it. well, for that matter, the $4

or $5 billion for the old plan, there wasn't that money available, either. ther wl be some planning involved to getting it to, as they say, a shovel ready project, and within those years, we will need to find this money because it's absolutely essential that we have this $2 billion train -- bus and train station and it actually serves trains. and so your attention tonight is very important, and the fact in the next several months that hopefully you'll be able to say i've been briefed on this, and i support the pennsylvania alignment. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. miss hester. >> about the i-280 change

that's disappeared from this. on your calendar, number 17, which i think you continued, it's 331 pennsylvania, which is along this alignment. and i really think the staff needs to provide information showing all the projects around the caltrain yard right now that are coming through and places like this along pennsylvania avenue just for information. because your decisions on central soma, which is going to the board of supervisors right now, and individual projects, you need to at least have them in your brain. there's -- there may be a connection somewhere, and you can ask the questions. i don't know that miss gygi pays attention to the level of

current planning that i do, but i have another project on pennsylvania that i got a notice on two weeks o. so i pay attention to those projects, and thelanning department needs to do this in long-term planning -- current planning and long-term planning i'm not sure communicate intensively well. so that is my concern. it's just pay attention, feedback, scope them out. 331 pennsylvania, which i think is continued to the 21st, is at 18 and pennsylvania. secondarily, when did the transit get named salesforce officially? it was named that last year? i guess