the railyard is actually privately owned. it is owned by a large industrial developer that is based in san francisco but it is, and actually -- actuality, the largest industrial property owner in the world. bait air rights are under the control of that company. if the trains were to go away, they would have the rights to develop that property with the change in zoning. we looked at possibilities. what if we separated the actual operations that they do on that site from the storage and maintenance and staging creeks two separate functions that happen on that sight? we looked at locations and we believe that there are some locations a railyard could locate to. they are within the ten minute travel time to the terminus which is the requirement that the company has. we think there are two sites that could be possible to relocate the terminal. we looked at urban form and land use considerations and made some very broad assum nsout what would happen here if the railyard was to be removed, or lowered, or modified. adeetgr aneav much

that railya railyard. i want to point out we have had a 22 members citizens group for 18 months now. i want to thank those members who have given up hours of their time to not only understand the technical issues, but also the interconnections and the trade-off and help us so that these types of conversations with the community can continue. that concludes my presentation. >> chairman brinkman: thank you so much. that was a great presentation. i think, for me, and i do sit on the joint powers board for caltrain, it is exciting to see this moving forward. what is invisible for a lot of people in san francisco who do not regularly use caltrain, the electrification work has started and is ongoing. and the blue bit in here on the caltrain business plan, that is what is it will does is what will make sure that caltrain is the newest caltrain that will carry a lot more people and run a lot more service in conjunction with high-speed rail. it is really exciting to see this all started to come together. i just wan

the fourth and king railyard would remain as it is today. for passenger operations and storage and maintenance. and we would get the trains into the salesforce transit centre. the other two options are moving the trains underground instead of moving the streets and the vehicles. the orange alignment is considered avenue alignment. it is the d.t.x. extended tunnel. that means that we build to the d.t.x. at the same time, we can environmentally clear and defined the pennsylvania avenue extension portion and we move the trains underground. somewhere between 22nd and cesar chavez. when we move the trains underground, we remove the surface tracks. now you get not only the 16th and mission drayton ocean mission bay drive, but we connect a lot more streets between mission bay and the rest of the city. because we've moved the tracks underground, wheat because remove the trains underground, remove the tracks of the surface. the railyard which is currently used for operations, storage, maintenance and staging, the operations will move underground in t

you mention two sites for a new railyard. where are those sights? >> bause they are in private ownership right now i don't want to actually mention the exact locations of those sights. we believe there are physically two sites that are in properly zoned areas could accommodate them. >> supervisor fewer: and you said that's within ten minutes? >> the requirement -- yes. the requirement from caltrain is that the railyard, wherever it is in the long run, has to be within ten minutes of the terminal. >> supervisor fewer: one is outside of the city of san francisco and one is inside and both of those are privately owned? >> that is correct. >> supervisor fewer: to be have any plans of buying the property at all? >> at this point we do not. we made assumptions about potential costs and the cost estimates. >> supervisor fewer: so you think these two other sites that are privately owned, do u inkththenerow might be willing to buy them? , i mean, seldom. >> at this point there is no way of knowing. we would have to pursue that in the future. >> supervisor fe

the alignment, as i've been talking about, the actual railyard itself, urban form and land use issues with respect to the rail yard, and the surrounding areas. and then we also looked at what would happen if we extended the alignment beyond the salesforce transit centre. and we looked at the issue of 280 and weather it made sense to consider modifying or removing it. i will start by saying that the last two items on this list have essentially been taken off the table. we looked at an extension of the alignment which could happen in the future and we think it has positive benefits. and we looked at whether if we are moving to this portion of 280 made any sense in terms of the overall transit system. whether the freeway would get in the way, if you will, of a rail alignment or vice versa. whether it would have to be modified. we have concluded there is no reason. there is no real connection, but we can accommodate the alignments that we need without touching the freeway. for now, that is not under consideration. again, just a little more detail, the alignments that i ed