from the start to completely remove the building and build it out of new material and build it in the same lace and not all it a demolition, every single stick has to be removed every single stick. >> okay i would like to put myself in the position of of the planning commissioner that the information by which we are instructed a few weeks ago and given today it doesn't quite add up and i'm frustrated that the interpretation has so much ambiguity between last and now although the majority of people in this room don't know what we did a few weeks ago that we are in a very serious situation having today a situation which a registered architect would call a know litigation however your interpretation says it's not so what are we going to do? i'm leaving that with a question

mark because i'm very frustrated and i feel inexaibl compatible of really making judges about this probability in the ambiguity of how this definition of demolition is being used and this in particular reference to registered architect saying it is, builders who cannot submit warnings based on some kind of signature by engineer saying it's not and so i'm just kind off opposed to this question. >> if i may add these plans are from a licensed architect and i don't know if you would like that hear from the project sponsors architect since it's their plans how they would like to proceed with this thank you commissioners my name is andy roger and is i'm a licensed architect and i have been practicing in san francisco for about 14 years. in fact,

we are very much consistent with abiding by the city's stated demolition callations and i would like to point out that mr. mr. smith, planter questioned me several times about our calculations and so i went back to him several time and made sure that we were right on. the crux of the matter has to do with what constitutes of the removal of a wall and what i understand and what i have been led to understand by the planning department is that if the wood framing is he remaining in tact. then that wall is not demolish and had when you have a building that is the aim of this one you are not going to be able to meet the current seismic code with those foundations because you cannot put anchor bolts into

the foundation that wand the bolt that we are retired to have now and i would like to persistent out the drawings that mr. williams was showing included interior partition and is that is clearly not part of the san francisco planning department criteria for demolition it has do with interior walls and the vertical surfaces. so ... the other thing that were the to point out is that there is also not really a way to meet both the energy code, the lateral code and the fire code for walls without removing the at least the interior claddings and sometimes the ex-tierior cladding. so i hope that helps a bid. >> air force couple of questions and first the stated date of this home being built was 1879 and now admittedly

looking at the outside somebody did some things because everything was wood frame and mow it looks stucco and so would i would assume there were alterations over the years first of all, i'm mr. washington. >> sorry, this house is had under gone construction but had a major alteration sometime in the 30's probably before any of us were born into a mediterranean revival. and so, it's whatever originally historic was in the house and so it's clear of the review preservation that it was granted. >> well that was my first question because this was with a lot on a street with a home a lot of home that were in the victorian era and the other situation that the architect

just spoke about and showing up the walls and one would presume that there are a lot of homes on the street that are of that age and they must take seismic matters to be able to strengthen their soms and there are probably some that they may not have demolished the walls to to be able do had a and that is one concern that i have and the other concern that i have aside from the impacts expressed by the neighbors and -- if you want to answer that, i guess that would be fine did you. to answer about what they did to strengthen existing homes? was that what you were going to answer. >> yes, that has to do with the edge of the foundation but the only way with a home like this to milk it work is to replace the concrete foundation and one has to shore up the structure above that and replace the wood framing but the wood framing is usually all strong

enough to with stand the verdictcal lobes and with this house in particular and many that i have work on there is no way to save the existing foundation and so, if what he is saying is correct, that it's tantamount to a demolition if you are removing the existing foundation there is very little that could be done on all of these homes i would agree with that there are a lot of homes that i have seen from franklin street to other parts of the addition and they call them out of there so the house can be raised in the foundation and then the house can be dropped back down and i guess the whole point is that even though it has been altered some of the new structure has very little reresemble ambulance to anything else on the street and i would like to see something that is that was more sympathetic and connect actual to something on the street understood, it is more

contemporary but we were trying to pick up on the massing and the scale and the size of widow and door elements that existed on the street. >> yeah, some of that is there and yeah, that is one thing that bothers me about it and as far as the impacts there has been a lot of talk about the light well and is it has been represented that it's not possible to match the light wells exactly. there will be a lot of compromises that would have to be made do you agree about that, that would make it difficult to put together what you are trying to accomplish? yeah, and i just want to point out in in the last iteration especially on the easy side, we came in on broth ends with both the light well to the north and to the south. they were extended to specifically address those neighbors concerns. such that we dropped the washer and drier at the south end and on the south end we shortened the bathroom by wo feet and so it's not possible

to make the stairwell work and have the bathroom up there which, is important to total plan. >> okay that thank you i'll see what the other commissions have to say on this staff is -- a apparently urging us to not take take k. d r and approve the project and the other issue that was brought up is the 18 feet further back into the rear yard but there is no problem with the rear yard open space or mid block open space as far as the addition there and there is a sloping lot and so, it's going to seasonally essentially be dug in and so

the top floor is essentially set back 5 feet from the -- shallow residence. and yeah, and so i that you understand that is not really a factor because it's not really useable base, you are basically going up against the hill and all right i think we have a couple of other commissioners now. >> commissioner ellis. >> two simple question for the architect on the probability sponsor side, some of the issues that were brought up and these are fairly -- at least the first one is minor and on the top floor you know matching the top well there seems to be a foot or so -- but that was one of the requests coming back on the top floor to match the light well -- right i think that would

have been 16-inches. >> that would have been thick it started out as a sing and then it was reduce today a single sync sync -that is a double sync. that is correct [spelling?] we could. >> and then i'm sorry -- that was my fault. it is a double sync and yes, i think we could reduce it to one sing there if we needed. >> and the other side of the home on the first floor, could you go back and match your light well all the way back to where your light well start begins

sorry on the first floor? on the first floor on the living room and i guess on the second floor, the living area either a got a light well in that area and it's set back in the dining room but that light well is coming back to match the light well. >> i'm sorry you want this side of the plan? that would be the west side? let me see -- yeah. yeah and the light well stylly back further than -- property commissioners what you are looking at in the plan is the light well is just a problem path. the plan is actually a light well that is created and that exists now to allow more light into this region -- side

and it's not interview with a light well for 475 jersey can you pull up a one four?. >> yeah, light rail it's -- this actually is an existing that goes all the way down, we cut that out to create more light on the first wall for the sign that belongs to -- [inaudible] . >> right and what was ms., may be requesting of that, that, that light well be continued to the street yes and to the ground. >> no, it does not -- no, that is what she was requesting. >> she want to request that we have this go all the way down the problem is that, i know have

demolition. >> is that true? yeah. that would be the motion of existing wall that is not shown as a demolition currently. >> because in order to do that i might have to go all the way up or down to two story. >> again, i don't think these are huge. you know, but they could be. you know, making compromises to the neighbor and but trying to make some promses for the neighbor. >> missioner? question for i guess project sponsor there were picture that happens shown with the story poles and is windows of one of the d r requester's showing not a lot of blockageack

there but what kind of separation do we have there no on one side with these they have permanently kaived out 4 feet and we are at adding 3 feet in the back and so it's a total of 7-foot separation and in the front it's more like 10 feet because on the front portion of it until about almost 15 feet -- no, deeper than that, we actually widened that from three to two so 6 feet and so together with this widow now, actually has a ten-foot set back and they did that deliberately to make sure it doesn't apply to go into those windows. >> thank you because i can't expect too much more and is compliant to go up that other floor and they will look all the that but they also will get a

lot of light coming in with the ten-foot separation yeah, that is something that we will have a very deep almost like 19 feet all the way down. >> and certain, there is no motion on anywhere we can do any little tweaking to make anymore space for the light wells i would appreciate it. >> i have personally look at this other plan inch by inch to squeeze out every single bit of space that i could to try to match the adjacent deck on one side on the upper on the back and the front as close as i can and yes, commissioner is correct, you could try to push some of it back, to get the back deck set back a bit more deeper but, there is a lot of --

because of this -- i couldn't do both. because it means taking three and-a-half feet out and staircase going down [inaudible] well probably given what has been presented, i would like to i guess i'll make a motion to not take the d r and i certainly would add to that in that it's not part of the conditions #1 architect continue to work with staff on design and i'm not saying to redesign it but i'm saying wherever widow treatments or anything can be done it make it more acceptable to the connection of the neighbor that would be appreciated and number two, finance to work with d r requesters and neighbors wherever possible to create any

additional mitigations to the impacts that they have because, we have had a history of project being presented that were different and now, this project is considerably larger than was originally proposed even though it was another project and another developer and so that is basically my motion second. >> motion commissioners do do you agree with the commissioner ant knee knee aye. >> commissioner hillist guy aye. >> and economister woo. aye and so the motion passes unanimously. six to zero and -- commissioners that was the last item on your regular calendar, before you now is public comment. i have no speaker cards.

>> is there any public comment this even evening? seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. >> back in session, and council will report on the closed session. >> this is a report on the action taken in closed session with item 13. >> the tba board of adirectors approved by a vote of 5-0 a purchase and sale agrees to sale 101 first street to the

to*efr llc, for $188 million plus escalation, for all cash to close on or before april one, 2013. and approved to related agreement regarding the operations of the transbay tower project. >> thank you. >> are there any other items or announcements? >> that concludes your agenda for today. >> seeing none, meeting ais journed. >> thank you. tga approved the city of san

francisco sfgtv meeting of the san francisco transbay joint powers occurring november 19, 2012 will begin shortly. >> good morning and welcome to the special transbay point powers authority board of directors meeting. today amonday, november 19th, and could we please take roll call? >> sure, i will note for the record that director harper is joining as ortiz's alternate. and with that, director harper? >> here. >> lloyd. here. >> metcalf. >> here. >> kim. >> here. you do a quar um. >> thank you. are there any communications today? that i am aware of board of directors in more old business? seeing none we can move to the executive director's report. >> good morning directors and members of the public and just

a few announcements before we move on for our construction update for today. it is now displayed to the public at the academy of science and that will run for a number of months. so we would like to thank the california academy for putting on display the mammoth tooth. and we will be looking for a new home in 2013. and finally on october 17th we had number one of our regularly schedule committee meetings to provide a construction update to our neighbors. so everything that moving along well. now to give our construction update with steve turner. >> good morning, directors. steve, ru, with turner construction, construction oversight. i don't know. is that up? there it is. >> another good month, of work or almost a month and a half since we filled you in on the

last period. there were no recordable incidents. we did have one near miss. but, brought to light some issues with the excavation process of sight lines and so that has been dealt with successfully. and allowing the excavator to work while the folks down below were able to position themselves appropriately so they are not in the way of it. we have 550,000 craft hours now, about 60,000 since the last update. 157, chefs, and i will show you the chart for that in a little bit and the excavation continues into zone three, and 1, 2, 3. some of the other activities, have been awarded and submitals have begun. and the final utility, relocation package 4.2, the aux silry package is under way and we will work through the holidays on mission street and

will continue on early into 2013 and because we are doing the first levels of excavation in zone three. the archeologists have been on call and on site. and nothing dramatic yet. and they have trained the operators well in spotting archeologycal finds. coming up in the next 90 days, we will mobilize that below great subcontractor and will start working in ground one on the geothermal packages. they should complete zone three all the way to freemont street which will give them a run through howard on to froe mont street. >> the butresss should continue and should be ahead, estimating

164 by the end of the month. and the micropile program should move into zone two over the next 90 days. >> give you some updates, on the over all schedule, and the time line of the project. it continues to remain as a october, 2017 completing. and bus operation date. below grade structure will be starting shortly here at the end of the year. and then, of course, the super structure package is out for bid right now. and we expect those bids back in early january. >> what was going to be installed on veteran's weekend it will be installed next year. possibly on president's weekend after more work is completed on zone four and gives more room to work, things are moving along as still originally planned. >> the over all picture, the

sight has not changed much, although it gets closer to closer to freemont street. both traffic bridges are in and excavation continues. and here is the excavation map that the program managers put together the area, of the darkest red area is the deepist, that is the minus 41, 42 foot, that is the bottom of the excavation, that is about 60 feet from the street level and you can see the succession of the bracing as you move from the west to the east towards zone three. you can certainly see the significant amount of change from the left in early october to the photo on the right at the beginning of november, and end of october and the access tressel has progressed further and bracing as well. just to give you an idea of what the quality of bracing actually looks like, we took a shot from the west and looking back. and gives you an idea of how much temporary steel is going

into that excavation and its depth and it is quite a project. and for a little bit of scale, there is your average, 6-foot tall gentleman standing on one of them two-thirds of the way down into the excavation next to the trussle bridge. the micropile progress in zone one, you see the rig there, drilling in the micropile close to the shoring wall underneath all of the bracing. just some more views of the bracing and the excavation as you are looking west along the tresle as long as the lower levels. to give you an idea of what the work is that is going on and the scale and the magnitude of the size of the hole that we are digging. they finally crossed under the first street bridge and this is excavation under that first street bridge. and they will move into the lower levels of shoring there, shortly. and zone three, the central section of the project, both

the bracing going in as well as do watering wells. and another shot of that. and the final demolition as they approach freemont street and have to take out the final wall from the center section of the project. >> the butress area has changed a little bit. if you look closely, we are getting rid of some of the equipment, they are actually in the final third of the work. and down sizing just a little bit as the progress is made on those shafts. the three shafts in yellow have actually been poured out by the end of last week. so, i believe that they are at 157, 159 now, it should be i think that two of those should be poured last week. and so we are zeroing in on the completing. and right on track, is a weekly update here on the production

of the shafts and you can see that we were behind the curve in the beginning with just the learning curve of putting the shafts in but we are caught up and projecting a finish on time. but, it is a quality control, remains in effect on the butress there is coring for checking the structure and that is just the general shot of put ng a rebar cage and the awss work. is the only utility work going on now and as you know we had a little extra activity around halloween and i thought that i would show the photos of the world series, and we are very proud of the giants and some of the players are basically right outside of the job. the budget remains consistent, with the budget, on the construction size. and with the release packages to date. as i said before, a little over

550 craft hours completed and running over 60 percent on the small business or local labor, i am sorry the bay area labor. and here is the break down, san francisco, continues to contribute about 20 percent of that and the other county surrounding the projects. and these are just a list of the trades. this is a body count of actual any craft's people that have worked on the project since the beginning, we are here with the multiple going on and we are steady. and this is the quality of workers and have logged hours to the project in those classifications. >> thank you. >> this concludes my report. >> the next item is public comment >> and now it is a