lawsuit saying this is unconstitutional because you changed the rules on me in the middle of the game. a lawyer could file that lawsuit. >> certainly. >> and i know -- i don't want to put you in an awkward position, but it might be good to have advice on that aspect of it because there could be a situation where someone who is currently in the lottery today and bought on reliance of getting into the lottery is ineligible to get into the future lottery and couldn't get the map quick enough given the lawsuit that is filed. >> that's correct. >> okay. i would like advice on that. any other comments colleagues? okay. we will open up the public comment then. are there any public comment cards?

i have one card from bruce allison. >> [inaudible] >> okay. take your time. we will allow the other commenters to go first. >> eric brooks san francisco green party and our city. as we stated in the previous hearing we think the whole idea of flipping tic's and the condos should be eliminateed in san francisco. i mean what we should be voting on the board of supervisors within the next couple of weeks is ending the practice all together so there is no more incentive for this nonsense. with that said we do understand that tenants, advocates have been strongly involved in getting a fairly decent process to move forward to produce something they're happy with, so i would say that from the -- even though from the green party standpoint what we really need is -- for you to

push the state to repeal costa hawkins, repeal the ellis act as quickly as possible and in san francisco we make some serious moves to reopen and change the deadline for rent control so that we move the 96 date much closer it to today's date so we can get a much larger pool of rent control property in san francisco. with all that said what i would say about what you're considering sending to the board of supervisors is that if the tenant advocates do not support what reaches the board of supervisors it should absolutely not be voted yes on. the board of supervisors needs to oppose it, so unless the tenant advocate vs buy in on this no way. >> >> that's the word. thanks.

>> mr. collier. >> good afternoon. steve collier. housing clinic. i just wanted to address a couple of things. first of all in regards to the hypothetical lawsuit happened and the ordinance was struck down then the six unit or five or six unit owners would not be able do convert because the expedited process was suspended. well, understand the only thing that suspends the process is a lawsuit against the lifetime lease or the moratorium. okay. the lifetime lease is stricken down then no expedited conversions should happen because they're all bound together. in order to allow expedited conversions we need the benefit of not only the moratorium but the lifetime lease so the ordinance hangs together that way. that is a

matter of legislative intent to determine whether the 1396 would continue under the new form or under the old form. >> can i ask a question mr. collier? >> sure. >> let's assume that the court strikes down the lifetime lease but not the moratorium. >> right. >> under this poison pill -- if i may call it that -- there would be no conversions until the 10 year moratorium expires. is that right? >> yes, the balance of the ordinance. >> and when the lottery would come back it would come back with the new rules minus the lifetime lease since that was struck down. >> if the court interpreted that as being seferable, yes. >> that means five or six unit buildings let's say in the 2013 lottery are effectively permanently banned from converting assuming they couldn't get the tenant map

within six months of filing of the lawsuit. >> correct. we're talking about changing the rules in 2024. we're not talking about changing the rules in a year from now because the rules -- they are only allowed to convert through an expedited process if the lifetime leases and moratorium are upheld. that's the balance otherwise there would be no legislation. >> right. but under that circumstance with just the lifetime leases struck down, and please correct me if i am misunderstanding this, that five or six unit building in the 2013 lottery has to wait until the 10 year moratorium is done and operate under the new rules and excludes those buildings and permanently barred from converting? >> yes. if the new lottery is seferable, yes. people -- just because they have been in the lottery once doesn't mean they have the right to win the

lottery in the future. >> right. i guess that would be a debate probably in a subsequent lawsuit i am assuming. okay. thank you. >>i also wanted to address -- if i have a little more time -- your proposed amendment which is -- we think that the existing three year continuous ownership requirement which is law now and continued under the new lottery makes a lot of sense. three years -- it's important for the purposes of maintaining stability of people in units and avoiding a market of condominiums or future condominiums, tic's which are future condominiums developed into a market of selling back and forth with ever increasing chances of getting to condominium conversion. we want to try to avoid that kind of a marketplace which we think

inflates the real estate values and bad for tenants. we also don't see much reason why two owner occupiers in a three unit building that lived there all three years continuously should have to compete people there one year and turned over and over again. we don't think that is fair to the people actually complying with the intent of this law which is to maintain principal residence, and because those owners -- the lottery so far has been over sold in many -- >> i think -- we paused it during my question. so the two minutes is up. >> [inaudible] >> okay. >> [inaudible] >> right. >> [inaudible]

>> thank you mr. collier. welcome. >> members of the committee. [inaudible] chinatown community center and we thank the members of the committee for giving us the time to work with those owners and members of real estate industry to come up with some revisions. we understand this is not a package that everyone supports but we feel like we addressed a lot of the concerns that have been expressed to us by tic owners. in particular we sought to accommodate those from the tenant side. i think with that being said and i think the changes that we propose have really gone a long ways to address condominium owners concerns, but we think that -- and in particular the idea of

allowing transfers of ownership within the context of the six or seven year conversion process makes sense given that these are units that have already been converted. they are now ownership units and allowing those transfers isn't going to fuel further speculation but we are concerned about extending that policy to the future lottery. as mr. collier referred earlier we don't see why that change in existing rules is a good idea from the stand point of public policy. it does not -- it actually disfavors, it disadvantages those owners who have maintained stable ownership over the period of time in a competitive process such as the lottery opposed to the bypass process which is not

competitive. there's a transferred property doesn't take a unit away or a conversion away from a unit which has been held for a long time. we think that the policy of favoring family -- [inaudible] >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. okay. so first we have president chiu's amendments. is there a motion to adopt those motions? >>i will make that motion. >> second. >> can we take those without objection? >> also i wanted to add my name to the legislation as well. >> okay. >> it's already adding added. >> it was? >> i don't think it's been added. >> i'm sorry. >> add supervisor kim as a co-sponsor. can we make that

motion to amend without objection? so ordered and colleagues in terms of the amendment that i have circulated -- while i understand the responses from mr. collier and others given the increase in owner occupancy which i am willing to support in the legislation, i think that it makes sense to allow there to be transfers of ownership and under what i am proposing it couldn't be more frequently than three years so you don't see the continual transfer of ownership. i know people for many reasons are living in any kind of housing situation at times need to move or need to sell and under the current version before us if you are in theoretical

future lottery for eight or 10 years -- let's say it's a three-four unit building any change by any of the occupants for any of the unending reasons that people need to move or sell would put them to the back of the line and given that we're increasing owner occupancy i think this is an appropriate change to accompany that increasing owner occupancy that we're requiring so what i would request is that we duplicate the file and put this amendment into one but not the other. continue both because i understand it must be continued under president chiu's amendments so in two week when is we come back we can forward one or the other at that time and not have to make an amendment that might require a further continuance if that the direction that we're going so i am curious to know

the feedback on that, and i don't think by duplicating the file and in this and not the other i don't think that indicates support at this time for doing that. it is to preventus unnecessary continuances and hopefully reach a resolution. >> i appreciate the amendment that you offered supervisor wiener and i know this is challenging and what was discussed between the parties and i understand what you're trying to achieve is allow for some exchange of ownership but the concern they have is that this is a proposal that would start to disinnocent the continuance. >> >> ownership between individuals in tic arrangement that trust each other and i would be concerned that this kind of requirement might lead to

additional speculation among strangers that want to get into the market and move things forward. one aspect they like and the requirements and that got to the objections of what was a blanket tacking rule and at this time this is not language i can support. with that being said just to keep this idea alive for the next week i am okay with duplicating the file as you suggested but i'm stating at this time i wouldn't support this language moving out of committee and my hope in another discussions if there are additional ways to address it it's something to consider but i don't plan to support this version when it comes to back to committee in two weeks from now. >> okay. thank you. p

-- supervisor kim. >> i wouldn't support it in two weeks or today and do we have to vote in that amendment in today to prevent a continue nance two weeks? >> >> john gib ner, deputy city attorney. if you made this amendment two weeks from now or a similar type of tacking amendment two weeks from now it would require a one week continuance for another hearing and more public comment so i think the suggestion is make that amendment now and one of the versions in the file to avoid the continuance two weeks from now. >> okay. and our commitment is -- i guess we're having a discussion in committee. i would really hate to send out two

pieces of legislation to the full board and not a good place to put our colleagues in. >> i think a number of issues i'm not on the majority on this committee so ultimately nothing would get out unless we have two members supporting it. if this wasn't a substantive amendment i would be happy to wait the two weeks but given how many hearings we had and the issue i raised about the backlog of this committee's work and trying to be efficient with the resources. >> and again i appreciate it. and just to be clear i do not plan to support the amendment if it's in the language two weeks from now but for the sake of minimizing an additional hearing and depending where the conversations go i am okay with duplicating the file. >> okay. we will duplicate the file and without objection take it into one but not the other version? okay. that is the order. and then is there a

motion to continue both versions of item eight, the two versions of item eight? is there a motion to continue those items to the next regular land use committee meeting on monday june 3 as amended? >> so moved. >> okay. can we take that without objection? so ordered and just to clarify it's june 3, correct? >> yes. >> thank you colleagues. madam clerk is there any other business before the committee? >> no. there are no other matters. >> then we are adjourned.

>> good morning and welcome to the transbay joint powers authority meeting -- special meeting for may 20. my name is jane kim and i will be chairing the meeting. could we take roll call. >> director harper. >> present. >> director lied. >> present. >> director metcalf. >> director sart art. >> present. >> and chair kim. >> here. >> kim present as well. madam chair you do have a quorum. >> thank you. are there communications from the board today? seeing none any old or new business? seeing none we move on to executive director's report. >> good morning directors, members of the public. as you know we put out our seal bid that can be broken up into three packages recently and bids are due june 20 and after that he

we expect to bring a board for your consideration to the july board meeting in order to stay on schedule so that's really the main item right now in addition to the 100% cd's minus the it component us due at the end of may and that is on back to be delivered to us and we will review that with our team members and turn the package over to webcor by the end of the year at the latest and i will have steve give your construction update. >> good morning directors. steve rule with turner construction providing cmo services to the tjpa. the last month has been another good -- make good progress overall on the project and again no

injuries or osha reportable accidents. we had one near miss accident involving a crane losing some sort of loss of power in the lifting and a piece of equipment falling back into the hole. no significant damage to the equipment and no injuries whatsoever. they were following all of the appropriate procedures keeping the hoisting area clear so there were no injuries and work is continuing in the area. the excavation is about 72% complete overall and the micro-piles are 50% complete and zone one and 50% overall. the demolition continues in zone four as they start to work on actually demolishing the tops of the shafts and continue to work on finishing up the quality assurance coring of the piles. the geothermal installation

started in earnest in last period with two sections installed and tested and covered up in prepareeration for of the mud slap and the water work continues along mission street particularly in the intersections at second and first street to finish those areas up. again the awss and a replacement or increase in size of the existing system which leads getting back into the other utilities around that one and that is slowing the process down a little lit but all of the other utilities are cooperating in moving their materials around in the layout. we will see the completion of the micro-piles within 90 days and zones in one and two, but more significantly what we should see is the first foundation pour, the first map slap poured in zone one should

occur in july. you will start seeing the reinforcing steel and the waterproofing. we first do a waterproofing layer and the protection and the reinforcing steel and the first pour should occur in july. overall all the timeline continues to zero in on the 2017 october date of operations with the below grade work starting up. super structure as the executive director mentioned we put the steel package out to bid. that will get that moving along. the exteriors and so on through the finishes. some milestone dates that we're tracking and continue to show you as they change or improve. of course the final traffic bridge was installed in april and with some float left over. some of the other items the first map pour is on track

in zone one completing the excavation in first quart of 2014 is still on track and so on through the activities. the bse timeline getting towards the end of that with the completion of the traffic binge bridges and the excavation is 70% complete on. >> >> and on track for the beginning of 2014. as we go into the below grade work and up through the lower concourse and the horizontal land improving and the foundation walls and slap and box walls and we're in the beginning here with the and i will show you pictures and this will allow them to move into that waterproofing. the

excavation status i know it's difficult to read, but it has the micro-piles which are in red if they're not completed and grayed out if completed. on the lower left hand side those are where the must be slabs are pored and turned over for the below grade work. the areas in the upper left hand corner is the next mud slap pours and that will be turned over to them by line five or six. give them about six bays to work on the first foundation pour. just some progress photos. again since everything is down below the level of the street it's hard to tell that significant progress has been made but can you tell from the shadows the excavation is deeper than the

previous month. here is the micro pile account and with all of these piles installed. almost completely tested in zone one. we are completely installed in zone one. to date we haven't had failures of the micro-piles and the graph from before and they're staying on schedule and not indicating any problems with maintaining that schedule and keeping up what is required for the below package to proceed. so those are shots of the micro-pile work in zones one and 2p and as i mentioned the geothermal got started in earnest this period. it's about two or 3 feet below the surface what would be eventually covered by the mud or protection slap and you see

the header system where all the pipes go into and eventually up the wall and used later in the project tied into the full circulation system of the cooling and heating water. i will give you some other ideas of the geothermal and of course once they're pressure tested and signed off the area is covered up again and prepared for the mud slab pour which in this area will be this friday. waterproofing mock up was completed. it subsequently developed some good questions and collaboration with the design team to make sure all of the waterproofing issues are covered and that mock up came down and they'll begin shortly. some of the other waterproofing activities at the base of each of the micro-piles it has to get waterproofed. that's the small area that look like reinforcing

bars sticking up. those are the micro-piles and in the lower right hand corner they're mocking up the column protection. those columns are supporting the trussel or supporting the bracing and thigh all need to be in caseed in a steel jacket so they can be cut off at a later date when the trussel or bracing is no longer required and that area can be sealed up and waterproofed as well. as you can imagine that all gets covered up by the foundation slab that is 5 feet thick. some more shots of the mud slab going in. that's on the south side of the train box at the west end. excavation proceeding in zones two and three. zone four again all the water -- all the water treatment plant equipment has been

removed. the trestle bridge is started. as of last friday was completed with all the deck cover laid out. they still have welding and work to do underneath, so work is progressing significantly in zone four as well. shots of the work going on in zone four. and of course i mentioned the awss work continues. you can see how congested things are in trying to build the new boxes for the pipe and work around the other utilities. this work was taken place at mission and first street. we still running overall the 63% mark on local labor. there are the break downs through the end of april, and as far as trade break downs also through the end of april 1300 unique individuals having recorded time on the project. and again this is

just the transit center work and the utilities work. it doesn't include the previous demolition or the temporary terminal work. are there any questions? >> director harper. >> yeah. a couple. do you know what cause the loft of the crane power? >> >> i was told there was a hydroic system in one of the cable drums. it actually didn't free fall. it went down at a higher rate of speed but it wasn't a total loss and free fall. >> the other question i am not unfamiliar with the geothermal aspect. did we dorph that on the site? >> no, sir. good question. as placing the pipes under ground at that level there say constant temperature in the ground and so by pumping either hot water down through this system it's cooled to that constant temperature or

cold water can be -- >> it's just a heat system. >> yes. >> okay. >> basically it maintains -- we use the core temperature of the earth which is at 40 some odd degrees to heat and cool the facilities. it's one of the first facilities in the country to use geothermal pipes for that reason. it helps with the lead points. >> i was wondering what you meant with that. >> it's interesting to look at if you're ever in the neighborhood. >>i definitely want to get down there. >> any other questions? >> director reiskin. >> yeah, i mentioned i was up at a office building adjacent to the site and it was impressive to see the magnitude of the work and you can see when you look down and how much excavation is getting done. the progress is pretty impressive. just one question on the schedule and i