provided august 15? >> yeah. it was the approved set. correct? >> the latest set. >> does that answer your question? >> vice president fung: yes. >> we can hear from the department, mr. snyder, do you want to go first? >> president hwang, commissioners, good evening, dan snyder with the planning department. very briefly to frame this from a planning perspective, this is an as of right project. no neighborhood notice was required. it is code compliant. the issues you heard raised by appellant is on construction methodology, seismic issues. if you're inclined i would be more than happy to cede my remaining time to my colleagues at the building department who would speak to it with measure accuracy. >> vice president fung: no planning department notification was required. >> correct. absolutely no section 311 or 312 notification, no planning

commission notification, from our department. >> good evening, commissioners. patrick o'reardon, dbi. i won't even begin to speak to the complexities of the engineering involved with this project but it is complex and it does involve means and methods or personaliation grouting and tunneling, shoring, having to do with creating this additional basement space. so i did visit the site yesterday just to get an idea of what the -- was and what everything looked like, and reviewed the drawings. and i did note that the drawings showed the personaliation grouting to be within the property at 2865 vil ahoe and didn't show an encroach onto

2875 vallejo. no work was going on to this permit which was suspended anyway. today, i visited with our dbi engineering plan check folks. david pang happens to be on vacation all week so i spoke with his supervisor, robert chun. and he reviewed the documents before you here tonight. and it was his opinion that the review, having to do with this work, was appropriate. and he didn't see that there were any missteps with the review from the dbi perspective. i also noted that 22 special inspections are relating to this scope of work, which include items relating to the structure as well as the geotechnical aspects of the construction. so we will be doing our dbi

inspections, as necessary for the construction, when it is underway. and we will also be requiring those special inspections to be submitted to us with letters of certification, final letters at the end of the work and we will not sign off any approvals for the project until we have approved those certification letters and we're happy that everything is being monitored throughout the course of the work. so i believe that dbi also sent out notification to the adjacent building owners, as i understand it, it's a notification of a structural addition to the building owners on the adjacent properties as well as the three properties behind this property at 2865 vallejo. i'm available for any questions.

>> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, then, sir, aren't you an employee or a paid consultant of the appellant? so you can speak under his remaining time but you can't speak under public comment. we are moving into rebuttal now. so the appellant, you have three minutes. >> we'd like to have mr. -- speak to you about the engineering side of this. but let me correct one thing. there was a comment about a stairway. we had a stairway between this work and my house, we wouldn't have any problems with the project. the stairway only goes back as far as the garage. from the end of the garage, it's all new excavation and there's nothing to keep -- it will be going right by my house. the wall is going to be three feet from each side wall, and the geogrout goes within one foot now. previously it went right to the

line. now they're saying it will miraculously stop one foot from the line, even though it's liquid. and they also have that in their exhibit showing -- you can see, maybe he can point that out. thank you very much. >> thank you. my name is ryan heart ludky. i'd like to answer one question that was asked about the other project. when we looked at the other project which was 2881 which was last year we reviewed the calculations and found -- ill say errors in the calculations or mistakes for design of the shoring. we talked to the design engineer and he modified the design to provide the proper strength for shoring of the excavation. that was part of my objective, and the service that i provide to keith on this job. when we got the project in

mid-august, we met with the contractor. once he heard that he had the permit we asked for the drawings, we asked for the calculations. respect dbi and dbi and the people that do the plan checking. i got a copy of the calculations and a copy of the shoring plans. you could not connect them. and i been in this profession for a very long time, almost 40 years. so that was number one. we couldn't make a connection with a bunch of computer -- but you couldn't tie the computer output to the plans. also, we did not have any drawings that illustrated the -- grouting. we met with the geogrout, and he showed us the plan this he had in mind. in the package that the attorneys put together, exhibit e, that shows the grouting for the gmi as proposed, mr. carp said that it's four foot six away, well it's four foot six

away from his property line near the back near the elevator lobby but adjacent, very close to his house, for i think 30 feet, near the house. so there's some misrepresentation. so i did subsequent to the filing of the appeal, i did have a conversation with the engineer that did the calculations. there were -- it's not perfect, but i understood it but i had to walk it through with him. maybe mr. pang did the same thing. the only way for me to understand was talk to the engineer that made the calculations and make a connection between the information that owe on the shoring plan. so the whole point is that it's high risk. i'm here to help mr. keith understand the risk and protect his property. so thank you. >> vice president fung: mr. ludky, i did not see, in your letter any indication of concern over the calculations. >> i couldn't understand the calculation. >> vice president fung: no. but you have reviewed it now with the structural engineer

that designed -- >> it's not perfect. there are overstresses in some of the members. but that's not -- i'm not going to -- i don't think it's appropriate to get into those details. it's not perfect, but it's better -- you know, it's adequate. i'll say that. it seems to be adequate. >> vice president fung: thank you. >> i have a question also. there was a statement that i had that if this geogrouting were to travel that it actually could be a benefit. could you discuss that. >> i think it's subjective. keith has probably some geogrout underneath the west side of his house from the 2881 project because that was adjacent to his property. if you have differential soil along the length of the property which it's going to entd up which think some of the foundation may have strengthened soil by the -- grouting, some of his foundation under his house may not. the question is how it's going to behave in a an earthquake

with differential materials under the house, i can't predict what would happen. but i think if all the construction is successfully executed, then all of the soil that's underneath his foundation will be restrained by the adjacent foundations and retaining walls and drainage if everything is properly built. my point of view in my recommendation to keith is it's a very high risk construction. we have done some due diligence talking to other geotechnical engineers that's had experience with these contractors. nobody's perfect. it depends a lot on who's doing the work. i told keith we would -- again, i understand what dbi said. having continued inspection, having people pay attention every step of the way what's going on would be highly desirable, especially in the shoring and excavation procedure because even the contractor says that personaliation grouting is not perfect. sometimes they find problems so they have to address the

problems during excavation. if the material was further away from the property, that would be less of a concern. i -- good construction, so that was my advice to keith. all right? >> we can take rebuttal from the permit holder. >> i'll try to briefly answer mr. ludky's points. he talks about unnamed geotechnical consultants. if they have, i haven't heard of them. he mentioned no names. this process that we went through is very sophisticated, as a design -- in design. the reviewer was david pang of dbi, who's very, very good engineer, who is a very, very good engineer. the gentleman here keep talking about geogrout. geogrout is a company that looked at the project a year ago, for a different structural

engineer, mersa in oakland. they are not involved in the project. we chose -- or the specialty subcontractor chose another contractor with bigger, better equipment, that is less seat of the pants type of work, it's electronic, it's very sophisticated. and it's the injection of a very fine -- cement. there's no chemicals involved because of the epa rules. and water. and it's like randy said, if you go to the beach, you excavate sand. at first, it's moist and it will stand up. it's moist and it will stand up. as soon as it dries, it starts to fall apart. so by turning it into this weak concrete or some people call it sandstone you do away with that. the process involves a grid of

four foot six on center, not from the property line. at four foot six on center, there's a nozzle that's stuck down and there's a group of people that are trained nozzlemen. there's dials on their machine -- on the top of the rod. the hoses, the exact pressure, how much grout goes into the cement. it's a very safe process. all the trees -- major trees above the grouting process, they're all going to be preserved. we have an arborist, a very sophisticated operation that's going to take place. and these nozzlemen who do the work are very experienced, and there's two of them for each -- one of them watches the dials, the pressure, the amount of water, the amount of cement, the mixture, then there's two or three people on the truck, there's people operating the hoses. it just -- it's way beyond what

these gentlemen think it is. they just don't know. but dbi knows because they approved these kind of projects all the time. and it's a safety measure -- some people try to excavate in sand without any shoring and that's when you'll have movement. but when you turn the sand into sandstone you don't have the movement. it's very expensive, very expensive. but that's the -- we're going through. thank you. anything else? any questions? >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any rebuttal from the departments? okay. commissioners, the matter is yours. >> vice president fung: well, commissioners, the question is

whether the department erred in issuing this permit. and what has been brought up is questions related to potential risk. i'd rather use that term. it's difficult to assess exactly what the risk is. the problem with underground is that it's not always consistent. and that runs from the borings that are done on a spot basis, limited basis, usually, to ascertain what the profiles are is one thing. however, most people would design these with a great deal of conservativism and i think that's probably what not only

the engineers but the department reviewing it. looking at the appellant's letters related to their analysis of the situation, i would say that their concerns are what is potential risk, and less so with a serious deficiency or error made in this particular either design or the issuance of the permit. i'm surprised that one of the things that wasn't brought up is water flow. it was, in one word issued in -- because underground construction like this especially, with this type of grouting, is going to change the water flow, undergroundwater flow in that area. whether it impacts adjacent neighbors or not, it's really hard to determine.

but it's a common enough technology these days, it's common enough to use it also for water-proofing purposes when you do certain types of injection. so i think that, at this point, i do not see anything in the appellant's appeal to warrant that we either condition or seriously review further the permit. >> president hwang: i'm similarly inclined to hold the permit. i think i'm sympathetic that as the neighboring adjacent property owner, you have concerns about this massive and complicated project happening right next to you. and i think, you know, raising

those concerns puts them on clear notice that should anything come up that impacts your home, you know, you've -- it's already been discussed. i don't think, however, we have enough before us to undo the work from the assessment of the department in issuing the permit. >> i appreciate commissioner fung's analysis in the framing it in terms of the potential risk versus any kind of known flaw. and so i would concur. >> vice president fung: i move to uphold the permit and deny the appeal. >> before a roll call, i just wanted to advise everyone in the room the sheriff has asked that we all exit through the grove street side of the building

because of the activities outside. >> vice president fung: grove street? >> grove street. >> vice president fung: how do we get there? >> in the basement. >> vice president fung: that's a long walk. >> exactly. >> thank you. >> we have a motion from the vice president to deny this appeal and uphold the permit. on that motion, president hwang, aye. commissioner hurtado is absent. commissioner lazarus, aye. thank up. 3-0, this permit is upheld. thank you. >> presiden.>> there is no furts before the board. >> president hwang: we're adjourned.

>> good morning, and welcome to the san francisco county transportation county transportation authority. i'm scott weiner and to my right is mar and to my left is david do, are there any announcements? >> no announcements. >> will you please call item

number two. >> number two, approve the minutes of the july 10, 2012, meeting action item. >> colleagues, any discussion? is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we approve the motion to approve the minutes? >> can we do it with an objection? that will be the order. item three? >> item three, state and federal legislature update, information/action item. >> good morning, commissioners, we have presentation on both the state legislative agenda and also on federal, we are going to give you an overview of the new map 21 surface transportation act. but talk about the state legislation, i have invited our legislative advocate mark watts. >> good morning, chair and members.

mark watts on behalf of your agency. the legislature wrapped up its business for the year at the end of august. at this point in time, several hundred bills are on the governor's desk and has until the end of september to dispense with them and he has been making pretty steady progress with a couple dozen a day and so we will be able to see the out come of those. with respect to the matrix, there are four bills that i want to draw your attention to. one which is added and we hope to add it earlier and unable to have a meeting on the matrix, and then at the end of the session, that will be ab441. its final version, it is not as powerful a tool as it has been intended to be by the author. it is sought originally to add a requirement to the ctc guidelines for developing, the state transportation improvement program consideration of health strategies, in its final

version, it basically directs the ctc to attach reference documents to the guideline to help the county agencies develop health strategies. so it does not have quite the teeth of the original version. it is added to the matrix at this point in time as a watch. and we will see how the governor deals with the bill. one other major, or not major, but bill that a lot of folks are watching is sb878 this bill has gone through several it ter rations and different versions. it finally become a bill to establish a new transportation inspector general position. and there is a lot of resistance from self-help counties. because the scope of the new office would allow the inspector general to do, would have allowed the inspector general to focus in on the local programs as well as state transportation programs.

amendments taken towards the very end of the session narrowed down the scope that the inspector general can undertake in terms of looking at local agency programs. several self-help counties are still resisting and are seeking a veto of the measure. two bills that i also want to just finally highlight relate to infrastructure financing districts. now we have talked about these for several years. there have been a number of attempts to try to develop the legislation that is acceptable to the governor in the world of infrastructure districts which is in a form of tax increment financing, in the wake of redevelopment agencies, more focus came to this tool, this year and two major bills are on the governor's desk at this point. ab2144 which is the speakers bill, generally provides a broader use of infrastructure financing districts. one thing the two bills and i

will discuss the second bill in a second, have in common, and this was a fatal flaw i think in earlier versions of infrastructure financing district bills. it would have allowed entities to scoop up tax increments out of school districts share of local and both of these bills have prohibitions against that. the reason is the state is compelled to backfill any of those kind of redirections. so these bills have a higher degree of promise of being approved. the speakers bill is a broader-based bill it is more akin to a redevelopment agency structure and the one unique feature of this bill different from the second bill i mentioned as second, is that it still requires a vote to establish the infrastructure district. 55 percent vote of the populous and the issue bonds. in contract, sb1156 by the

protem much more narrowly tailored. it is tailored for sustain able communities, strategy implementations and focuses in on walkable communities rather than the broader scope of the speakers bill. however it does not require a vote of the people for implementing a... they is a new name for it. it is in essence the infrastructure financing district does not require a vote of the people. but it is also very limited. there are several provisions... >> commissioner? >> i was going to ask, what is the funding for the stien berg sustainable? >> it will be tax increment. it has the bar on school-related property taxes from being included in the financing. and it does require obviously a collaborativive between the potential taxing agencis that would be forming this new district. >> there is a special provision

in terms of the city and county of san francisco, in terms of the membership. if you were to decide to establish one or more in this community, requires the mayor to make appointments to the board. it is different than the other structures in place for other cities and counties. in addition, i would also highlight that for a major... under the stien berg bill, for a project related to the high-speed rail, transit station. it has very special provision that allows within a half... the tax increments within a half mile of the transit of that station to be included in the district. and however, it does require that at least half of their funds raised in that new district, related to a high speed rail station to be dedicated to the high speed rail station development. so those are two unique

circumstances that i found in the bill. one last interesting piece, it does also authorize the use of the general sales tax authority to be a revenue source for this particular district. under the stien berg bill. in addition to tax increment it allows a sales tax to be authorized in that district, which would be subject to the natural requirements for votes. so those are the four bills that i wanted to highlight for your attention flt as i said, only the one is being added. 8441, the other ones we have already been tracking. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues any additional questions? >> is there any member of the public who would like to comment? >> was there additional report? i am sorry? >> you are looking around. >> oh, federal? i am sorry.

>> good morning, commissioners. fort, deputy director for policy and programming with the authority. you should have a powerpoint presentation in front of you and we are also loading it up on the screen. and i am going to give you an introduction to map 21, which is the federal transportation bill that replaces safety will lieu. >> i am going to go over both and i am going to talk about the major reforms including the expansion of transportation alternatives and project delivery along with the impacts of the transit systems in san francisco. >> so, map 21 is on the 600-page bill, folks are still combing through the pages to determine what is exactly in the bill. so there are some changes that we will see that we might not even recognize until the end of

the 24-month life of the bill. the major reforms were primarily driven by the house transportation and infrastructure committee chair. representative john mika and the senate environment and the committee chair barbara boxer. michael was focused on delivery reforms and boxer, innovative financing and those are the key points that you will see in the bill itself. president obama signed it into law in july. and back in june, i don't think that anybody was expecting that we would actually see this bill come to fruition. but within a couple of weeks following the bill was on the president's desk for signature. the primary issue to point out with map 21, is that it is a two-year bill and it does not fundamentally change federal transportation policy. you can see from the picture on the slide in