and 1 or 7 those are areas where there's a hard time generating a lot of construction of new commercial space so there maybe an argument made for that being lower i've mentioned the exception for ucsf should be included not to single them out if they have the charitable thing we have to equal in the institutions and grandfathering some commissioners brought the grashth it is reasonable if sms something in the system for a long time they should get the garth or maybe the last year maybe a lessor orer amount and they would be many will be approved and approved go under

the old system as i understand both commercial and residential do the t d i if if already approved that's my summary on the issue. >> commissioner hillis. >> so i was going to try to macho motion i move to recommend approval of the ordinance with the following changes so on the grandfathering so project that have applied development applications after july 1st, 2014, will have a 25 percent fee waiver, those that have applied prior to july 1st, 2014, have a 50 percent fee waiver and 25 percent for

projects from july one 2015 to when it was adopted on the comments i'm recommending removal taking out the secondary institution language so that they'll continue to be exempt like they are now i've heard comments in my justification most secondary institutions in san francisco now are exempt for outlet reasons the ucsf exemption because it is city owned - so you know, i think we're getting ucsf and cca and other small you institutions i'll remove that language so they'll secondary institutions will continue to be exempt i'll add backhoes and not wait the 10 years so they'll not be exempt and on the fee recommend that

the board consider a graduated fee rate by neighborhood where the feasibility reports shows the projects are more feasible or a consider not other setting the fee subsidies that kind of gets it where we're seeing a lot of eastern neighborhoods and market octavia you wouldn't have that offset to the existing fee. >> second. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you i appreciate you commissioner hillis for raising a motion i was going to try to make one as well that sounds decendents to me i have flashbacks when with our looking at short-term rentals to just a couple of things that may make it into

motion we'll see none addressed the summations about the inclusion of the parking issue aware or make sure we talk about it i know that commissioner hillis caught it my person view on that again, it is about one area of building that is inducing growth to me that's the area you're putting bodies cars are not bodies i don't think that you know we want to change modes but as for a policy prospective i have a hard time frankly creating it in nickel and dimed of parking to transit frankly, i think that is a way of me be able to say we want few cars in the policy then that's a separate policy i want to

mention that i'm not in favor of including that type of fee i don't want that to get lost in the shuffle i think the only other thing i'll say i have a question of hope sf that's the one that doesn't seem immaterial i think about sunlz and others and to say that oh, by way of we're exempting all advertisements if hope sf not just refrain from this fee is not an image material change my question is can sometime remind me on hope sf how we're paying for transit i i know that most hope sf projects are some ever sort of development agreement or some

governing documents it covers the open space and other improvements if someone can give me the quick summary. >> he'll let someone else answer that the reason it is in material the one exempted the affordable housing and market rate housing the way it was written originally and the change to include non-residential space that's. >> relative small space that's my conclusion it is immaterial. >> so the city attorney can correct me so that was why it was immaterial. >> i disagree for the larger projects potrero hill is not a mrurt outlet not non-residential i like tripling the density so it's to the immaterial to say

you were exempting not exempting non-residential and now you are that's not a minor change. >> to be clear commissioners one is it the intensity and the market rate housing is subsidizing the affordable housing on the sites it makes those sites very, very changing from a financing stand point bus not only pagan for that but others infrastructure the new infrastructure on the sites those projects have been in the piecemeal for quite a while so under the graisht exception i don't know the exact dates the applications but we'll look at that wife that had the expectation to have to pay this fee the residential uses were not subject to this i get the sentiment and a fair amount of

market rate housing but the cross subsidy is making the finance that combined with the infrastructure is making the financing of those projects very, very challenging. >> just to be clear that's not my sentiments the way we're talking about the communication those larger projects and hope sf i want to be clear other than the reasoning this is not the amendments were 234089 sort of billed as immaterial changes that was not immaterial i want to clarify why and what's happening my sentiment is make the changes and i think we should maybe on the motion real quick on the free graduation by different areas perhaps we should make it something specific they'll chew on sort of make that a specific finding.

>> family some of the stroirl districts cover an economic conditions within the city. >> i wasn't suggesting go this is an actual suggestion i think that is i'm still unclear on what that means oh, that was when someone made the suggestion if we're passing on to the board of supervisors we should not put them in the confusion we're asking for or what we think is a good idea. >> commissioner richards. >> i think to the point commissioner johnson made if we do anything if we can peg it to some type of sensitivity analysis there is not the margin in certain areas to build x type of development but over here more than enough maybe come up with a number that can be applied to anywhere that's my guess and second thing want to

peg on the actual amount what's the motion on the amount of fee did we coffer that. >> i want with the existing fee and consider an increase. >> anybody from staff if we go ahead and move certain ones of those up this is i know an analysis in front of the me if we took one 25 which will be $5 increase over the $20 correct. >> what's that doing to the sensitivity analysis let's coming up with a number and recommending that. >> so 25 residential and 20 office and 29 pdrs i'm not interested in the pdrs but if you look at the other two the 25 and the 20 and office and take into account the office and say we want to go with a hundred and

25 percent make it 25 what will it do for the feasibility. >> remind me is the feasibility. >> it's. >> it's right here. >> what the feasibility analysis shows it essentially what was studied rates interested no 2012 when the t f f concept so the feasibility analysis study what what whether happen if ars rates are applied or increased by a hundred and 25 or hundred and 50 or 2 hundred plus what happens to the different development types of under those scenarios it various depending on the types of project and where is it located how far they tip into the feasible based on the rates you're increasing. >> i'm looking at the 11

millions square feet. >> rather than trying to we're not going to be able to answer that but maybe the motion can say the board consider in certain areas raising the fee subsidies up to 25 percent of noouks nexus and what's the analysis. >> i think i could support that i'll make a motion. >> i'll amend my motion. >> we said 33 percent. >> up to 33. >> then i had one other question motion i'd like to make to have a reset period to be 3 years versus 5 and or the analysis. >> to look at the fee the justification for the current fee up and down 3 years is that acceptable to the motion maker. >> 5 years is the mandatory but earlier upon request of the board of supervisors or is

mayor. >> we recommend. >> or include yourselves. >> okay. i like that idea even better we'll have a joint meeting with the mta. >> is that okay commissioner hillis. >> okay. it's okay with me okay thanks. >> commissioner antonini all yeah, i'm okay with the motion i just needed a classification on the 33 and 1/3rd 33 over what the exist fee is is that what you're saying. >> only the nexus. >> oh, the nexus so i'm looking at the feasibility study has a range of 6 to 16 and 14 to 6 i'll be more inclined to you know raise it a little bit in those areas rather than marshall that was within the development feasibility range we don't want anything beyond the range.

>> it is currently like 25. >> and my other question for the maker is the grandfathering okay. we said july 1st it is now september 10th so how about september 1st instead of july 1st, 2014, for the combrairth because this is even a year ago you wanted to make it july 1st. >> yeah. >> i feel like this has been out there for a long time it wasn't thought of yesterday it is has been actively in the mta commission. >> it's been discussed nobody knows the numbers i think that i doubt 20 two many people knew this july 1st, 2014, that was coming up cement first, you, maybe make a case there was some thought that's my suggestion on that amendment. >> i mean i'd rather stick with

just like first things take to along the initial development application you've done early in the possess process you'll not see those projects for another year or 18 months it is 3 months. >> all right. >> commissioner richards. >> i guess one last to the point of the dated i remember hearing when i as the open think octavia cca that has been out there a long time one last question over time practice changes so i had that question around you know reflects the common practices anything in the current common practices that happened historically so court practice i want to make sure that the flexibility is captured in what we're going to be able to spend the money on is there

anything missing. >> yeah. i think hiv the mta has used the trait concocting to pay the operators salaries to the bus driver salaries. >> so this was excluded. >> that would be excluded under the new t s f. >> affordable health care okay. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm wondering if we could add to lower our affordable housing to hundred and 20 percent rather than hundred and 50 partially because we've not explored avoiding 50 and currently at passenger door 20 we're offsetting the general policy we can amend that to resolve that earlier points i think at the moment i'll refer prefer to stay and one 20 and

take it a slight higher rates knowing we'll have to come down in the economy sends us into another direction much further into wealthier times we'll use the 33 percent but for the time being that's the rights number. >> commissioner johnson. >> i'd like to see the motion is amended to have the i'm one 20 and not one 50 and the amount of fee to 33 percent. >> i did not quite understand you made that intentional commissioner hillis i couldn't quite - >> the fee is 20 what's recommended it 25 percent i

think the motion says we've ask the the board to consider increasing it in conditioner areas up to 33 percent that is feasible that responds to what supervisor avalos said in some neighborhoods even at 25 percent may not be practical so you know it allows the board to consider the retails rates up to 33 percent under the graduated system. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you i don't know commissioner hillis if you're considering that first point for the motion to my pinch on the keep it at one 50 we have few references to sensitive vices that from one 20 to one 50 this is one way of doing it so i recommend that we keep that

piece the way it is. >> yeah, i'm now my responsibility i know there is debate with over michlt housing i don't know that is the place to necessarily put a stake in the ground on that from the debate is out at one 50 if so city burglary subsidy there not on a affordable housing project that includes the one 50 or 60 percent or lower on one part of the project that's those an affordable housing project that should fall under the exemption again, we're not asking for inclusionary alter one 50 that's included in 2, 3, 4 inclusionary at one hundred i'm comfortable the fee subsidies are hundred percent of affordable housing and 50 is fine that's what's

called out in the bonds to us it's the bond can be used for bond, etc. at one 50 and the bonds should be exempt. >> commissioner richards and i think that is a good train of the thoughts another question anything besides the bonds that mentioned that new one-on-one 50 we've struggled with that and said hundred 50 is maybe the new upper end. >> we have a person from the mayor's office of housing. >> anything protectively coming the one 50 is the upper ends of the old one 20. >> sophie from the mayor's office of housing and community development i just ran up the stairs i'm panting a little bit certainly not sure if it was addressed but in the affordable

housing general obligation bonds they extend up to hundred and 50 percent i'm so the proposed michlt program i anticipate should the bond pass in the future we'll develop a michlt rental program up to one 50 percent i'm f that doesn't currently exempt it only applies to those units emptied subsidized. >> maybe our recommendations in the bonds passes the one 50 is the new standard but if it does we'll going back go back to the one 20. >> i'll reiterate about the hundred and 50 percent i'm we've identified that as there are affordability gaps that extend to one 50 ami and beyond the model we use there was thinking

about a family of two teachers two children and working families preserve the options for michlt programs but extend it this their difficult to get to the programs like tax credits and others so certainly, if the bonds passes that will pave the way to creating oversee programs but whether or not the bond passes under those a need at that level i want to make sure that's clear. >> thank you that's fine. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm fine with the one 50 unfortunately, it casts a smaller net and doesn't capture more but i've made suggestions on ones below our level not part of this motion that is for the supervisors to consider. >> okay commissioners

there is a motion that has been seconded with i believe one amendment that was included just for clarity sake we're amending legislation that was just recently substituted on september 8, 2015, and handed up to you that's our baseline we're working off of would you prefer i called a motion in its entirety or talk about those separately. >> i recommend it in nights entirety so let's see if i captured the motion to adapt a recommendation for approval as amended to include grandfathering projects after july 1st, 2014, to get a 25 percent fee waiver and projects

submitted before 8 percent fee waiver comments we are removing the secondary institutions and adding hospitals and then on the fee that the boards consider a graduated fee rate up to 33 percent of nexus by neighborhood and that we'll be adding the planning commission to be able to request and updated fee analysis basically anytime. >> you're looking for 3 years. >> just say 3 years. >> we put the 3 years in? >> and there's no offset planned area fee subsidies. >> i think that was and or consider no offset to the plan

areas. >> okay. okay. >> that's part of the same idea. >> right. >> on the economic analysis. >> well, the 3 years was basically including the planning commission to be one of the agency that requests an update to that fee analysis. >> there's no - >> yeah, the reason i'm asking for 3. >> i was asking for 3. >> i think there were two different things to make the regular outlet of the report 3 and on the extra goody. >> it that amenable. >> right. >> so making the economic analysis required every 3 years; right? >> but that it would be requested and considered by the planning commission including the board of supervisors and the other agency listed okay.

that's. >> may i have clarify the for the 25 rate of grandfathering i wanted to clarify is that just for residential projects we had a different proposal for non-residential and residential and non-residential is 25 less than the proposed new rates. >> i think i was consider. >> new leases. >> just want to make sure. >> so grandfathering of projects the reduction of fee subsidies will be for residential only very good. >> than on that motion. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore no commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioner, that motion passes unanimously 7 to

zero. >> commissioners the next item supervisor wiener is here he's changed his schedule around i'll ask you, you want to hear this item yet. >> break. >> good evening commissioner and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, september 10, any kind. please silence any devices that

may sound off during the proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. xhefg on there our regular calendar on item 10 for case notice to tenants of dwelling unit meager this is a police vehicle amount. >> diego i'll amp a planning code to the section 311 and telephone to remove an unauthorized unit before i continue i want to provide supervisor wiener's office with a time to >> good evening advance and do pass draw for supervisor scott wiener recently it cameo our attention not every tenants files for the preempts to demolish their units the current

rules treat the tenants differently in terms of not everyone gets the same level of notice without notifying an existing tenant if not on the official book it gives the tenants little. to avail themselves of the rights the planning code to the existing tenants for action including the demolition it turns out a loophole in those requirements when it comes down to unit not on the books those units and people don't receive notice in some cases including one that was recently considered we the board of appeals the existing tenants have no notice their unit is being removed without notice those tenants are basically very little recourse do push back this is unfair in a

move a few months ago the board of appeals passed a resolution unanimously urging the board of supervisors and this does that so i'll let diego talk about it but in a nut shell this requires the notice of all tenants whether or not the units is on the books of any action that will effectively remove the units whether a standard demolition what oftentimes happens it doesn't come to the planning department permits 0 through beginning the effective demolition by removing one is to have and next day the stove and that's a way to avoid scrutiny so this legislation considers by the building inspection back in i think in june and it was by

that commission and i'll ask you support it today thank you. >> commissioners the planning department broadly supports in ordinances that is to show you. >> tenants in a building receive adequate notice irrespective whether they resides in a unit that is urban tolerated it results in a minor procedural change to the procedures the department believes that those changes will be integrated into the exit procedures however, the department believes that some of the proposed amendments require the modification for the improved administration the first is outlined in our case report we'll add language to 36 and 312 the second set helps bring did mechanisms in line with the

existing line procedures that are underway by the planning department in particular the staff recommendations surrounding increasing the post notice to align what the current cu and the poster of notice say we recommend aefl the post notice to align with the 311 and 312 consulting content but with the relevant added language proposed by supervisor wiener's office we ask the aligned notice this happens what all others entitlements and late we recommend did planning department have the notice not the zoning administrator's office this is similar to section 311 and 312 notification policies that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions thanks. >> thank you. >> open up for public comment is there any any public comment

on this item? okay seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore. >> mr. scans can you please fill me in who is responsible for posting. >> under section 311 the planning department causes this to occur it is a team effort between the project sponsor posted notice that they receive from the planning department and the planning department also males out the nos notices we mailed mailed it out from the address from the project sponsor under section 311 and 312 it is a bit of both parties. >> i'm glad our mentioning 3 languages spanish and chinese and russian the city is full of city of the other languages i think we might leaf some out there is a vast of spoken arabic

sounding languages and i want to make sure those people understand what is it is all about the building owner has people of other language background their equally informed otherwise they're creating on urban comfortable sidewalks. >> commissioner antonini. >> this is good legislation and complaisance that involves noticing and it may help us disorder sdooerd whether the units exist or not i know this is including not legal units but we spend a lot of time in discussions over whether a unit is there or not there and anything that makes it clear claim whether there is a unit or even a tenant because it might

tend to establish a record for our purposes that somebody lived there even though it was not a legal unit but i think that is good to have as much of information as possible. >> commissioner richards. >> yes. a couple of things first that hits home i had a friend in a unit not legal they didn't know they were getting evacuating i appreciate the supervisors leadership and hope that staff could figure out if under recent any other loopholes out there based on the things we're seen and harder advertise it is a fantastic idea on the posting mr. sanchez a legal unit unit you're trying to get a demolished is there a verification that sign is

posted. >> we ask for arrest affidavit that says the project manager posted the notice for the full thirty days their signing an affidavit they did. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to make a comment the legislation is sensitive there have refimentd of the department adds a lot of clarity so thank you to the does want for the extra mile i move to approve with modifications. >> second. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further there's a motion that's seconded with the modifications commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes in an amount 6 to zero. >> commissioners, that places you under your on item 11

lansing street an in kind agreement. >> good evening kim with the planning department staff the item before you is the portion for the rincon hill impact fees for lansing street in exchange for an in kind arraignment for the sponsor to provide streetscape improvements their drawn from 89 roanoke city straight plan for portion of a block on harrison street the fee waiver for 6 hundred and 66 tell you plus of the entire impact fees that is 8.8 million the in kind projects in adapted area plans are required to pay the impact fees for project enter into an 69 agreement with the city and provided in exchange of that provide straight consortiums or infrastructure

improvements so for all portions of their fee the rincon hill area plan is unique it includes streetscape plan for improvements so for every block of the 10 blocks within the area plan boundary the streetscape was a drafted and adopted recently at that commission the proposed in kind agreement will implement the proposals of the rincon hill streetscape plan for the stock on harrison street within f x and to the rest of the 45 lansing privately the improvements are the sidewalks on the northern part of the harrison a bulb out on essex and landscaping and sidewalk furniture the promoted improvement 59 harrison and essex street the i

80 probation officers pedestrian challenges it creates an opportunity to capitalize on the existing construction with the prelims of the public improvements proposed before i this rincon hill straight sprap the streetscape will not occur until 2015 when the that motion carries has scheduled conduct on harrison in the rincon hill boundary staff recommends the fee waiver be approved it will provide necessary improvements with the factor timeframe the project sponsor is here for any questions. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> so no project sponsor presentation on this just the availability for questions okay. thank you.

>> any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner johnson. >> thank you just two quick questions the first one is the sort of philosophy the streetscape that are proposed by the developer 19 are the same that the fee would have been. >> there are portions number two, their fee subsidies $3.8 million and streetscape improvements will cost of hundred and $68,000 plus so portion the fee are going to be satisfied with the improvements and the rest will be paid. >> so real kick is the 6 hundred and 68 are the final staff report says that's one of two estimates and a final number. >> the project sponsor has two estimates and the city goes with

the lower one. >> great and just confirming homework association takes on the maintenance. >> the maintenance improvements had will be by the adjacent property owners with front the streetscape improvements and the project sponsor is informed the neighbors and they've agreed. >> but not the neighbors the homeownership association. >> i'm not sure it's itself homeowner. >> just clarifying thank you. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> could you refresh my memory we had others feedback it

accelerated the realization of partial streetscape and open space improvements in the lansing streets area i recall that from is another project i assume that is a combination. >> in the roifb one more in kind agreement for the tower and the improvements were on first strait and harrison street portions - >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> i'm in favor of the project that make sense i have a question from the staff report i don't need an answer now but maybe later in the staff report there are 12 hundred additional units entitled names all the ones on rincon hill that have been built or under construction i'm trying to figure out where the other 12 hundred units i walk up there many nights and

don't know where the others are. >> i'll get you a list. >> thanks. >> commissioner moore. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> commissioners on that motion to approve. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson common core commissioner richards commissioner wu sdmoechlt so moved, commissioners, that motion passes you unanimously 6 to zero commissioners that places you on item 1312 is continued until october 22nd so case item 13 on faculty street a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon caring by planning department staff the end for a conditional use authorization to establish a 6 hundred thirty formula retail use doing business as as wells

fargo stoift 55 thousand plus retail establishments doing business as as lucky supreme court or supermarket if so in the shopping district in the western edition neighborhood and wells fargo is a banking company with 62 locations in the u.s. and 40 branches in san francisco therefore formula retail uses within the 3 hundred foot of the radius block of 25 percent of the 16 commercial storefront and 40 percent the overall commercial frontage the promoted use will not onlyly increase the concentration to 29 percent with no change on the project one the storefronts is a formula retail use operating as chief bank within the subject nc s this

location offers the establishment in the neighborhood with limited access to such services there is currently one available storefront within the visibility the projects occur an existing within an existing formula retail use and no exterior alternatives it is limit to a wall sign that will- 9 the cupped storefronts will be neighborhood serving totally 56 percent of those 4 formula retail use the proposed use to date, no public comment has been received by the department the department recommends approval of the proposed use meets all the planning code it's been found to that compatible with the nc s and would normally increase the formula retail use

within the district that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you project sponsor. >> good evening commissioners i'm representing wells fargo i'm jim with stan tech architecture thank you very much for considering our proposal we're working with on this in store branch an attempt to service the may be this is not an designation bank we'll expected people to come for miles for banking a one time shopping opportunities for them they can do they're shopping at lucky and do banking at the same time what your customers like we have a tremendously loyal customer base in this neighborhood that would very much appreciate the wells fargo branch what we enjoy

about the experience the fact it as secure zone in the exterior the store in the plan the two atm are immediately adjacent to the customer checkout stand this is really important to them and the other thing that is the one time shopping so what we're trying to do is better service an extremely loyal customer base by addressing it in store service if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them thank you very much for your conduct. >> open up for public comment any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i think that is a good project no wells fargo in the area and you know, i think that is a great services to the public i bank at a number of different branches and banks it is nice to

have them more than one in the area even if you have another bank it is nice to go from one to another if you're transferring funds or doing business with the banks that may have holding of yours it make sense to me move to approve. >> commissioner moore. >> a need for increased security i think fewer people are using on street atm man's machines and i observe it in my own neighborhood people prefer to go inside what i appreciate within the formula retail use occupying a modest amount of space is not dense first degree any retail space within a

formula retail use i think it is definitely something i'll support. >> commissioner there's been a motion and sect to approve that commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to zero commissioners that places you under our discretionary calendar this is a public initiated discretionary review we'll have 3 separate presentations and a combined 10 minute presentation from the project sponsor and then each the dr requesters get a 2 minute rebuttal and the project sponsor will receive a 2

minute rebuttal. >> before staff presentation commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i'm a dentist and one of the dr requesters is a patient of mine and in the last 12 months this patient has paid for dental services to my employer dentists the amount i was paid is far below the threshold the city attorney has set to recuse myself in front based on advice from the city attorney i'll able to participate. >> planning department staff the items before you a request for discretionary review authorization for the items one for the demolition of the existing structure and the for

the replacement of the new structure 3 discretionary review were filed for the demolition of the existing structure all by different members of the public the project is on the west side of the street north of the intersection and glen park neighborhood the project falls with the rh1 zion the project to demolish to dwelling units one bathroom and one car garage and construct a new 35 feet 3 story dwelling unit with four and a half bathrooms and two parking garage it is setback and cantonese a stake up to the building on the north side providing a setback to the front the block is characteristics by a pattern of open space, however, it provides a rear yard

of 25 rear yard is required to preserve the open space at the end of the block this is a non-conforming cottage the southeast portion the prototype structure runnings along the north side a 3 feet at the southeast corner provides for the rear cottage a rooftop with solar panel on the third floor with the facade and at the rear the second floor the surrounding neighborhood is a mixture containing one and 2 dwelling units and the residential neighborhood has a family structures such as the one immediately setting the residential design team it is complimentary with the neighborhood character after the discretionary review for the subject property it was

recommended recommend a rear all of the evidence reducing the setback by 8 feet and setback on all 4 for the majority of the proposed structure along the southern property line one letter of opposition for protect this area and it was submitted that morning, i have a copy of the letter it is here aside from the requests that were filed by the neighbors although in the reports the petition from 14 properties is included as an attachment tot to proclamation the department recommended the depth not productive the dr the project is consistent with the policies of the general

comprised with the destine code and no - financially assessable by the prepared of a certified prayer no tenants will be displaced and given the skafl the project no impact of the local street system or muni and although the structure is 50 years old the evaluation is a determination that the existing building is not a landmark that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> first dr requester. >> i'd like to clarify that the 5 minutes is to include the dr requesters and their team if you've acquired people to help you out that's the time you have to speak. >> i believe it is hearing ton. >> the first application was by

under mr. shawn we'll go in the order of - >> i don't think that matters. >> we need to try this overhead before we start. >> if you place it face up it will start. >> kind of blurry. >> syria your time is open. >> okay

commissioners good evening thanks for waiting for us i'm ed, i live in an 18 hundred square feet house on the corner since 88 i'm the dr requester filer on the demolition under 317 as you may know there's a mandatory dr requirement to demolish a single-family home and 16 criteria applicable to demolition including the affordability you'll hear a lot of demolition if affordability going down it implicit meet the criteria the speaker will go into the data so how do you avoid a mandatory dr here this

is hopefully it is in focus the number is the planning department published it is important this property as one and a half million dollars as march 5, 2014 there it is in the exhibits it is dated march 5, 2014 a speaker later will go into the value of the vertical values so one submits an profiler that exceeds the thresholds the spokesperson which is an electric protect get an profiler for to property for $1. million plus the appraisal saying the cottages is worth $2,000 per square feet this is a 9 hundred square feet cottage if you don't count the basement 2 thousand square feet is a new record for the submittal we

looked at the appraisal condominium or submitted by the, llc you take the model as a compass wisp putting forwards the, llc and it is in the credible we have support from the listing price for the lot was $1.1 million the appraisal says the lot is worth 50 percent over this so the neighborhood hires the decorator with the appraisal and the value of the property at $1.2 million i'm giving copies here for everybody all those appraisals we hope change this appraisal value is way below the threshold we contend

it is not credible here's the appraisal by john's therefore the appraisal can't be used to excuse in application from the criteria applicable to a dr we have over thirty households supporting our demolition thirty households photo we would welcome the remodel of this cottage like the oldest homes on the block those homes on this block are old and remodeled as you can see from this photo this property is liveable today since this is rent out there's renter in there. >> next picture. >> this is a photo of the property on the right on old

cottage two search and seizure look at the photo on the left 775 noah street a house like this one we don't want demolition of this property we welcome a remodel we recommend you take dr thank you. >> thank you second dr requester good evening commissioners thank you for your time i know it's been a long day i've been sitting here a long time microfilm i'm one the dr filers i'm shawn lived here 29 years my family has lived in the bruno heights neighborhood for a hundred 11 years, yes that's right hundred and 11 years to

say i care of and am invested in my neighborhoods a gross understatement here in this first graphic that is being down this is a graphic listings the square footage of the neighborhood homes it focuses on the subject block this block is unusual and unique the square footage is not a criteria it is correlating controlled in san francisco western neighborhoods allow this is in bruno heights i see this misses the points awhile square footage is controlled in most neighborhood it is a big part of how neighborhood character is defined the average eyes size of. >> home in the 15 to 2 thousand square feet is it so not over 25 hundred square feet even the blocks anomalyly you'll hear is

a non-conform house on the corner only 2 thousand and 60 square feet for all 3 units this tells us whether we have a number of properties with 4 thousand square feet in lot area all of the lots going down d it the street are 4 thousand square feet in the lots you saw one thing it tells you that open areas think on this block they're one the beginning characteristics of this block many homes have open space and those front yard and side yards especially the side yards visually connect the street to the barrier block this is an outline you've about to see of the existing home on morrey in green and the proposed

construction in blue in essence the new structure takes away those aspects the lot that takes away from the block as a whole what is gains by the loss of character to the neighborhood the answer simply massive exterior square footage for the property sales price for, llc owners fourth the size of existing homes tells you that homes should step down that allows outline homes to share light and air and open space. >> the size the prototype building tells you that the value of exterior square footage for, llc owners trumps the gentle slopes the open side yards and rights the privacy and loyalty to neighborhood many graphic outlines in blue an expected height and width one of the building transition between

3 units non-common and the smaller to the north it is important to note the apartment building on the right a true anomaly is a current building one expects to be larger in massive and depth and width this should not be the case the new buildings should transition to the new dimensions this small home is representative the other homes last i want to leave i with a last graphic the building is red the green to the left is my house the green to the right is one of the other dr requesters homes it the sponsor you can see the massive difference in scale some the projects come before i can have a intentionally and change the

material that can make a project work this is not one of them this proposal is to masking out of scale and character and so inappropriate the design can't be hydroincrease over the existing building and 3 hundred percent increase over the average size a blunt disrespects the privacy and tingling is not acceptable we ask i approve or disapprove the application for the demolition and the new construction and help us to work request the. >> thank you. sir, your time is up thank you. >> is there a dr requester. >> i assume, sir. >> david i own and reside at

the two residents on 75 harding park street along with the daughter and that purchased this property in 1983 my family weathered those ever since the proposed design at 178 percent 3 is extremely large and out of reconcile with the neighborhood it extends the tall bulk the apartment another 40 feet to the north and carries the bulk east side towards the residents on harper street and along the ned of my cottage dwarfing it. >> the proposed design imposed an - an inappropriate character for the neighborhood

we support the comments with the community explained with the who other applications for the discretionary review our request for discretionary review relates to the physical impact of the promoted 1783 residence will have on our cottage on harper street in my opinion not reasonable the design of the proposed new residence has direct physical gak impact on our comp and imposed the san francisco violation this cottage was constructed in 1908 after the 1906 san francisco earthquake and the cottage was built a few inches - show this one first maybe go to this one. >> the south wall the proposed

residence is a few inches north the common property line and a few inches away from the cottage 16 feet of total light this wall will cover half the living room window and the desirability of the stair to the basement and a small window to the basement level ross are the architect it impacts the wall of the cottage access to a portion of the left wall for the function it is your remains in several parts of the wall. >> it requires natural ventilation and light for the occupied retains they own since

1873 to the natural light to the living room it is required by the building code and eliminates the ventilation from the stair to the basement and half the natural light to the basement into the windows on the north wall along the common property line with the 1783 noah street it is because the cottage was constructed in 1908 the windows are allowed to remain but the approximate of noah street both 0 the foundation through the 74 harper's cottage wall north wall function violates the florescence the ground loading on soils that support in function the present condition is the ventilation that is a disruption on the

north side and most likely lead to failure of the wall foundation and the structure will be consumed and the occupancy of the cottage may not be possible this will be catastrophic for the family ask for discretionary review and ask important modification that will reduce not eliminate the risk of potential foundation in here they cottage remain the exist natural light and ventilation to the cottage and thus impose the building code violation and remain natural light and remain light that allows adequate space to the north wall and the

building inspection asked us for the south wall proposed noah street thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. now we're open for members of the public who are not part the dr team anyone supporting the dr. >> once you starts speaking, sir sgovt will go to the screen and i leave hundreds of feet from the proposed house and i've lived there for 73 years over a century i want to elaborate on the issue of affordability as you know the mandatory dr is when the house

price is less than the single-family one $.3 million that picture will dramatically be out bit sunshine it should be over million dollars today it is supposed to reflect the prototype depression doesn't meet the quantify essentials a major shifts changing the nature of the western neighborhoods san francisco is undergoing a substantial shift from a city that is historical provide work place to every sect of the population and all raze and population with the physicians and public school teachers and not-for-profit that support the arts so this is a graphic b will

income disparities in this grateful you heard on 2224 overseeing street one the projects that led to the bruno heights duration the controls it demonstrates the setback for the disparity of the owns in san francisco in our city more than any others city in the country between 2007 and 2012 it allows a demolition of the perfectly go home to make room for a monster house to make the home prices rise this is a sad truth at this point all we have left in many neighborhoods is relate affordability the relative affordability can't match accident ability is an important stated, in fact, one the criterions listed this one right

here is whether the project text the affordability of existing houses this is does not do that. >> so it is quite obvious the project manager does not men. >> thank you. >> good evening thank you for hearing us today planning commission my name is yvette i'm actually reading a letter from scott on noah street he was not able to make it today that ladies and gentlemen, of the commission my name is scott i live next to the

subject property since 1981 i want to be here in person my work is such i couldn't get away my job makes that difficulty difficult to get off i know other neighbors are not there i want to talk about the attorneys and architect and, llc seemed to think this building is a good idea we'll document the designs problems and the mpgz by the sponsors and the fact the development is out of size and character with a neighborhood that existed for a better part of a hundred years i've lived here only a third of that time and seen many changes none none so inappropriate as the investment property i support all 3 dr applications but i've got a few comments about code section 317 and the demolition

not only is the demolition not necessary the property didn't come close to meet the code of 317 regarding the occasion the developers are using every trick from the level of review of the oversight of the proposed building here's graph 1.317 shows did standard this is a liz of the decree that are applied to the demolition of every single-family home that is valued for the review there are 16 standards the project did not meet the 16 including every standard that deals with this the 10 that failed are shown in bold. >> i would like to not non-owners living in the house right now the spore may say that not rented under the law and occupancy not owner occupied is

rent occupied by depiction with tenants living in the house now the sponsor must building that is habitable if so why would the, llc own want to don't worry about it we'll be using the rental how's not built by developers ♪ property it exist in scale and character the neighborhood i urge the commission deny the permit in a neighborhood that has so little >> thank you. >> next speaker a >> hi, i'm kevin white i live with and family across the street wret from the project site my wife and i have acknowledged there since 1989 and in the family since 1982

this project will block light and our view we've enjoyed formal decades we'll see a 5 thousand square feet ammunition most of 2 thousand square feet or less believe me this house is no the the spirit or scale or character but i'm worried about the appropriate building many of us believe as you've heard the property doesn't exceed the threshold that exemption the thresholds as as you've heard requestion the accuracy at issue is how is that threshold determined this is very important because the project sponsor proposal didn't meet the mandatory dr standards section 317 the thresholds is 80 percent the com bins the lands of the single-family units in san

francisco you've heard this finger figure of 80 was last updated in march of 2014 with 2013 data so here is a chart of how that average has grown compared studio 2015 it used to be here and now it is here i think we all - well, it is off the charters literally. >> we all know that the prices have grown significantly i can the zoning administrator difficult job duo to update it to have an accurate 80 percent so the legislation stiff standard can be implemented why can't this be updated in a manner that it actually reflects cotter values and give us the cat to make fair determinations that way projects like this will get. >> thoughtful review and not

skirt mandatory dr standards the last time the figure was changed applied to projects in the pipeline i ask you to please update the threshold with current data and political it to this project thank you. >> is there any additional public comment. >> good afternoon. i have a graphic here. >> my name is pat i'm a long time residents of noah valley in fact, born in san francisco it is obvious there is several key issues about the proposed building that needs to be changed whether by disapproval the current application and allowing the supplemental was and building are a substantial reduction in the promoted new

building the building is far too at all and wide and too deep the dine guideline lou gehrig's disease the buildings to be larger is only for the corner if we extend it when the residential design team it will be expend to the next and than ever building on this block. >> this building needs to actress as a transition from the large and non-common building to the other homes all of which are smaller much smaller here's the video of the graphic we propose a 4 point plan first, the top floor needs to be removed or setback from the

elevation not to exceed to thirty feet that maybe accomplished by two or three excavation on the first level it needs to lower it's height so it stenos down with the street and called for in the residential guidelines typography is one the design foundations of the city of hillside second open side yards must be remained perhaps 10 feet of width on this south side with the exit south yard and 16 feet wide are a minimum of 5 foot setback along the south side property line that abuts the property line but not as tall or deep as the proposed building we believe there should be an open side the yard at 5 feet behind the proposed side entry and a further setback for upper

floors. >> as proposed elder those are part p of what is so special as you walk up the street it feels like a garden with trees and large planting in front of the building and third there needs an a reduction in the decks he in the size and place to minimize privacy impacts off the north side and west property line and lastly reduce the rear by 5 feet. >> thank you. sir, your time is up. >> any additional members of the public in support of the dr if other speakers please line p up. >> is there a camera. >> once you start speaking

sfgov will go to the tape. >> i've lived in the neighborhood for 40 years oh, there it is the graphic first, i'd like to present a petition signed by 29 neighbors the graphic there okay the graphic depict with the design and scale with the neighborhood and a number of people that live here, too this is important to immediate neighbors we've been effected bit the mass and character the proposed structure it is important to families they know this is a problem effect every western edition especially noah valley our neighborhood particularly on the top of the

street a moderate sized home my neighbors and i don't propose change but change that is positive not harming the landscape into the typography we're a take a look neighborhood we watch aechlz kids and pets and gather formal street planning and retirement parties for our bob the mailman of thirty years we come together for the fourth of july on the street we care about each other how is the builder of this 5 to $7 million house with plans that show disregard for the liveability for his neighbors going to fit if we fear this sets a precedence persistence for dog of other homes and

mcmonk battle was figure out i participated in a discretionary review in that case get out of character house was reflect by the planning commission please help us keep our neighborhood the dynamic treasure it is thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is francis i live on layingly street hundred and 50 feet from the proposed project we're discussing today at 1783 human resources i'm a 40 year residents of the neighborhood the last 31 years at 59 laying will i street i lived in the

excelsior where i built my first home in any 20s and before that in the mission district of san francisco microscopically were having 3 about his born and raised and went to san francisco public schools and two are teachers i would like to support strongly support the dr for the neighborhood that is being presented to you and i think you all are aware the issues that i'm not going into the particulars of the dr they've been addressed all to talk about the issues that you are i'm sure you're aware that face san francisco families and i'm sure you have a commitment to making san francisco as liveable and

affordable as possible for the next generation of san franciscans with that said, i wonder about the commitment of the applicant to develop those a house that a long time residents of the neighborhood have often referred to as a brat house the developers need to demolish the highway as part of the history of the fabricated and build a 3 story meg mansion of the home that which finished hold the triple the square footage the home size on the 17 hundred block of noah street it will go for to destroy the character the neighborhood that has been written up in the chronicle and the online version the new york times refer to it as an earthquake shacks and modern homes and might have had

cottages and by a 19 century mansions owned by the san francisco's madam's barbary coast era i'd like to point out i support i'm not against redo so or refurbishment this is the first time i've spoken before you as regards to the project but i would like to note if if this project is built it will be out of scale and character and completely out of sync with the neighborhood that we current live in. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public commenters? >> good evening. i'm georgia i live on duncan street i know shawn my boys played sports with his nephews and i know the other

folks my sons played with their boys i'm here because i i did not read the planning commission on friday i forgot about that i read socket fight and say a monster home in upper noah valley and golden gate park it is one neighborhood there is a really p nc the letter was written to you i hope you got did there are 2 hundred people i've been to meetings they're out there it is interesting the house they want to demolish is 4 bedrooms and this house is 4 bedrooms on stoirldz and i think that the whole issue of the affordability number is existing the numbers are due to go up

and that is something to be looked at the comparisons for the appraisal it is interesting one of them i showed you that is the 1 on chavez street that is now got the big facade and the other than on the street they're remodeling it and going within the footprint i have a another couple of questions about the slope i stood for years on noah valley and 30th when we boys were at bus stop it seems like if should be greater than 20 percent slope i question that my biggest question is about zoning bulletin ms. knight made a big deal about a 40 foot lot in rh1 if i'm not mistaken and this is a question he have for all ever you i don't see anyone anyone

here it goes to mr. sanchez it says the lots for the width of 40 feet or more but two side yards each of 40 feet that a critical factor people like their side yards they make this property the side yards are a marketable thing so i hope that i support all those 3 dr people and i hope you'll take the advice this should go back to the staff and the neighbors and the project sponsor and staff should work to come up with something much, much more fitting for this area thank you. >> thank you. >> okay project sponsor your team has 10 minutes.

>> good evening not morning good evening, commissioners marking are reuben, junius & rose here on behalf of the project sponsor and i'm actually glad that we have an opportunity to walk us through the project there may be some marketplaces of the scowling scope of the project before i get into walking through what we've done after the 311 was filed to address the concerns of neighborhood capability i want to briefly talk about the demolition issue until today, we had seen nothing or heard anything that there was an appraisal that had been filled the appraisal that is at issue that was attached to our

response brief was filed done in 2014 and the building permit was you filed a month later when you looking at the graph look at if you're to take that as an accurate representation of the affordability threshold you should look at it the way the code works what was the affordability threshold at the time the demolition permit was filed and we haven't had a chance to look at this new appraisal it has to be done by a qualified appraisal i'm not sure they did it the dr briefs the had the prints out and in fact, the print for that the home now is above the 80 percent affordability threshold so, now i want to walk you

through briefly introduce the design development of the property and talk about the changes that have been made since the dr requests were filed this is important because it looked like from the graphics that some of the dr requesters provided it looked like they're still looking at a building that is longer than what was current prototype there are 5 major design changes there is now a 3 feet setback on all floors that extends to the majority of the southern property line so that's the property line shared by mr. ray disposal it owns the cottage and mr. harrington uphill there's been on the second floor in the southeast corner the rear facade it is also facing the dr

requesters there's been a notch mass reduction that was implemented to allow loyalty to combo into mr. ray disposals rear cottage and also into the backyard of mr. harrington the third change there was a stair that was outside on the southern upper part of the property leading to the rooftop that stairwell has been moved and no penthouse and a sliding door to get into the roof deck and the idea behind that to further reduce the amount of building mass that is near the southern uphill property line in terms of the front setback i've heard a few members of the

public talk about the dine design on the front there is a 5 foot setback on the northwest facade story and the third floor has been setback as well by an additional 5 feet i wanted to run introduce 40 graphics that are included in the dr packet this is a view looking north as you can see there's a 3 foot setback starting right here this is mr. harassing tons property and this is the other gentleman the stairwell has been removed with a significant notch feature in the south west corner this is another view of the same changes that have been made as you can see more clearly the extent of the notch on the second floor

and on the 3 foot setback and the stairwell has been moved to the inside right in case it wasn't clear the yellow has been removed and so, now we're going looking at the front of the building as you can see right here the first setback is on the second floor which is designed do benefit the property that is down sloping and seconds on the third floor the setback on the entitle of the building i want to move briefly to talking about this idea of scale and compatibility i think there been many mpg you heard this building thousand square feet or 5 thousand 5 hundred square feet is less than

45 hundred square feet this lot is an ab normally wide lot for this area most lots of as you may know in san francisco are 25 this is 45 and if this, were on a 25 foot lot based on the ratio it is 28 square feet which is compatible to the homes uphill the property i'd like to point out that the building lot coverage is only 50 percent that the compatible to 2 of the 3 dr requesters on the top floor a reverse floor plan the third floor has the businessmen's and the third floor on occupies 32 percent of

the total size of the protein lot the project is completely code compliant we're not asking for variances that includes the front and rear setback doubt is the rear is larger than required and the project also compiles with the relevance design guidelines i want to walk through those quickly i think that there was a maybe many misinformation about what the design guidelines call for it is important to walk through those points first one is the most important if i could get the overhead is rear yard cottage it is applicable to some of the comments that mr. ray psychological said as you can see in the image here the residential design guidelines recognize a rear cottage the

design the building to respect that rear cottage it asks for a side setback that is sdaem exactly what we're providing and also providing an additional notch on the second floor that allows the light and air into this area and moved the deck the outside light can wish - those impacts are minimizing upper floor setbacks and shared lightwell and roof all of which

are incorporated into the new project design just briefly looking at the front of the building and how it is compatible with the design guidelines forefront setback they transition from the height of the adjacent buildings which we do here the i'm sorry not the height the setback of the adjacent buildings the building to the south uphill has inform set back setback and the north has 38 setback it is 15 feet building scale which is what i was talking about the taller buildings can be designed to address building depth which we do here there are features and articulates that are incorporated into the design that are meant to transition between 9 larger buildings to the south and the smaller building to the north

thank you for your time. >> thank you. any members of the public in support of project sponsor? >> okay. we'll move on to rebuttals each dr requester has a two minute rebuttal. >> the gentleman what too busy to meet with us and made the statement to me many times guaranteeing the high-priced legal representation and instead of speaking on thaip their own

behalf it speaks volumes how they'll try to fit into the neighborhood it amounts moumsz to theirs shaking their money fists like an economic bully they come from a world where money is mitigate is mitigate this is character it didn't matter they've bought the property this is how people go about those organize as a corporation to skirt the issues and have silent partners why is it person going to build a silent house a partner that is a great question you know, i could go on and on about the issues i've had with that communication moving forward through mr. jeff gibson

one of the things that speaks volumes he's forfeited the graphics and basically in the preapplication meeting had the schematics this is what we're going to do what do you think about that are how do you feel this is what we're going to do this guess what is characterized the action. >> next dr requester. >> just again noah commissioners a couple of responses the department building to the right of the project is 3 units but it is 22 hundred square feet for all 3 units so i think i should point out the attorney is talking about three or four thousand square feet houses are built up against the hill they don't block people

lands if you look at the renderings this house is humongous and that's what i look at just the render to tell you the story you took the top floor off the duncan street august of last year you took the whole top floor off i watched the video so i want to remind you of duncan august 2014 there was a monster house proposed similar to this you took the top floor off i was impressed as you can see today they have no support for anybody i talked to and - >> thank you dr requester.

>> i'm not sure exactly what they're proposing but it the discretionary review submittal i'm made modifications to the lines and this risks the foundation failure and eliminate the code violation for light actual light into my living room this is what i propose for the first floor if you look at the area bottom the building a grade a 3 foot setback and a notch on the office the floor above that

3 foot setback and a notch out of master bedroom terrace and at the top floor another 3 foot setback and it indicates that there will extend all the way across a 3 foot setback in a terrace below. >> those are the only changes i indicated that will make the impacts on 74a harper street reduce the reduction reduce the eliminate the code violation for light and ventilation to the living room and minimize the risk for foundation failure thank you. >> thank you. >> with that, the public sorry

two imaginations for project sponsor. >> thanks just quickly the issues this is what you say tonight and if we can so the one of the concrete suggestions in the dr request so this is the second floor you saw that as well the 3 feet setback lightwell we are providing and providing a setback right here cutting a chunk out of may or may not bedroom to the extent we received any actual suggestions from the dr request we did our best to accommodate those within the perimeters i am want to run

introduce a few things in terms of the setback under the memorandum i believe that what that is talking about for a different zoning district for rh1 d if so in the zoning district we're in rh1471 duncan had a party room we have a kitchen and it is the living space like comparing apples and oranges and i also think that you can see from the project we've done a lot to address light and air what i think you may be hearing when you hear privacy and when someone across the street is pub u talking about loiltd someone maybe losing their view this project is designed to provide alignment to the properties that are effected by a new houses and

the property is designed to e multiply others verify. >> with that, the public hearing portions is closed. >> commissioner richards. >> so can i ask a procedural question two building permits or one permit. >> staff please. there are two briment a demolition permit and i want to talk about the building permit first i'll be honest with you, we have a 2015 appraisal by the dr requester against 2014 standard that is worse you know you, you are have an inflated market under the numbers on the demolition department my thought your permit appraisal for 2014 we sat here last week and did a water

permit for howard street luxury condos $2,000 per foot your appraisal is $2,000 per square feet i can't support demolishing this house it didn't reach the criteria and when i tell you when see this i'll see the board of supervisors and try to change 317 i'm going to make a motion to deny the demolition permit. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, i disagree i looked at both the appraisals the appraisal that was done last year was done by a certified public appraisal by the first republic bank banks are conservative that is supplying what their lend their money based on the appraisal i had one done on my house it was

conservative memo son bought a house done the street and i know the value on my place was much more conservative it is one .704 and everything acknowledges the prices have religion even though the lower barrier it is far above the barrier and that's staffs position and my guess, of course, i'm voting against the measure to not allow the demolition it is a wide lot 40 feet widest you're paying for the size of the lot you can build a house of this size with notifications i'll agree to but make an inappropriate house and big enough with 4 bedrooms on the upper floor it make sense a

master and bedrooms for the three children and you've got the appropriated bathrooms and things and that's on the middle floor and then you've got the living room and dining room and the other spaces on the upper floor and down below a garage the square footage is sometimes a little bit overstayed i agree with 45 hundred it maybe less than that in accident old days with you talked about square footage you don't count bathrooms or hallways and did that and garages so people who are representing the square footage on the orderly homes i'm used to the lower figures that is the case being wrought up on this one this is in terms of the demolition situation when i will go with the prevail that is submitted and acceptedcy first republic bank secondly, they've

done the stairs they're gone and the southeast corner is gone, they've now cargo to what i've been told 16 plus square feet from the wall i don't any - they have a 3 foot separation from mr. harassing tons house i'm invited my house is 3 feet from the property line and the next it is 3 feet from the property line and a detached neighborhood the setbacks are 3 feet from the line on each house that is more than accurate, however, i'll propose a couple of things to help to needs needed the concerns the neighborhood i know there is plenty of room to drop two or three feet as used excavates the present feet is 36

feet 10 inches in height what give me the height sir, if you could are sorry 34. >> 34 now okay. so if we knockoff two or three two to three feet come down to 31 or 31 to the place where some of the doctor have asked for not they necessarily need it the loiltd with the changes you've made and the views and the separation from the proposals o property that adequate that there make the house appear to follow the slope completely even more so i did came back easily done the other things if you'll look at our plans plan a .21 and a .22 and a .3 those are the 3 floors

you've got to bottom that an office space that be will be incorporated for the recreation room or made a little bit smaller i suggest taking two feet off the south aspect of that and 2 feet off the i guess the east aspect where the smaller pop outs still remains according what will happen you have a terrace you'll have a terrace that is a little bit smaller it will have 2 feet on the lessen the south and east it will be a nice sized terrace and on the top floor the setback a complete there but have to 2 feet on the area that comes off the living room minor changes that creates more operation for the neighborhood on that area

they should be absolutely in questions with those things being done i'm neutrality on the deck on the top having a trapdoor you've done it the rights way hover from the commissioners see fit to eliminate the upper deck it has quite a few of the terraces on the different leveled that serve the same purpose as the top deck it is okay with me to get rid of that those are the main suggestions i have to make a good project even better and you know i'm not one of those people that says just because my his or her how is it small you have to it is appropriate for the lot and has to have minimum impacts on the neighbors which it will when we make the changes and if it happens to be more square

footage then you know there aren't a lot of sites in eastern san francisco to build a complete will family home so if there are is one in noah valley then it should be built to the extent it can support the house being proposed so i'm in favor of the project and opposed- in favor the demolition and i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner moore. >> the problem with this particular building is not necessarily it is oversized size but it's under drawn sameness is completely unspectacular building and it bothers me it and had show you they neighborness it is our separation this building remind me very much the state street wood discussion were there was a

building after which the neighbors came out and asked the supervisor to have interim controls which helped with buildings at a minimum would show a sense of neighborlyness that's what i obtain to it is personally hard for a attorney to speak about an automatic i haven't seen them illustrated our making bullet points i said that to you won before that's the level of discussion you bring into the chamber that has drawings that have befores and after oh, yeah, we took the notches out by i'll approve something i see in sects

and a 3 dimensional to the changes you've discussed and what i hear today, i i did not see any reasonable ambulance that is represented by the architect you're aware of or represented to me the drawings changes were made in under or on the tenth of february we're in september are those the changes in the drawings which i've never seen you don't have to answer that i'm telling you my frustration i'll proposed or prepared to see a building and it didn't meet the musters you can do a building that is more than scale and bulk and fits and patterns it's itself within an envelope that is more jermaine to the situation this could be designed anywhere i can't support it as it is i support

the development and change but you'll probably have to go braurdz and come up with something better i have a hard times we're struggling to descend, if any, the city than that's not only done by making a super large building without adding a small in-law unit or studio apartment somewhere in the building and the last question i recycle to get clarity about the situation if you're renters will project representative please address that. >> there are no renters only guests staying in the home. >> airbnb. >> they're not airbnb people are saying they're not making any money to the owners. >> how long have they been. >> i don't know that.

>> you don't. >> how long have the neighbors observed the people being in there particular. >> come to the microphone and give us an answer. >> at least a couple of months there's probably been six or eight people they're receiving garbage service at the house and having parties their occupying the intersection at the top of noah at last hours doing i don't know some kind of rut july dancers there are plenty of people. >> thank you. >> i don't want to comment but that remind me of an application nobody lives there and somebody was living there. >> okay commissioner hillis. >> so i agree with look what

commissioner moore said not tweak around the edges to make it work it is more responding to kind of taking advantage the view to the size and scale felt, you know, vanity homes in the neighborhood in you know, i think that it would be a bigger home here than what's here clearly it is a big lot can take additional size and massing there are homes up the street and people have extend into the back but i don't think this what we're seeing got to go broward backward and forward i'm not clear about the responded we run

into in a bit when more developer sponsored project someone lives there with the neighbors in the future there is more discussion in that generally when you have that i courage that here we've seen it when it is a developer doing it but there's not much indication that is happening here on the issue i agree our rules are odd on the rules of demolition it is a lot with a single-family home on top of noah street it exceeds the threshold level of if didn't we're talking about a dr by demolition or you know a major expansion in the south that leads to more expansion in the back than the neighbors want or the expansion in the front you get here you have a big lot and more you can do with ma'am,

missing on all sides so i'll support sending this back and get more decision with the neighbors and project sponsor but i don't think this one is there. >> i agree with our sentiment i want to requirement of us of the elizabeth length of hearings i wanted to indication the continuance means putting it on another calendar. >> commissioner johnson. >> yeah. thanks. >> i was going to ask a couple of questions i can't support that i don't feel the renderings of the plan in our documents don't reflect the plan the rerpdz that were done take down e at the end there are supervisor scott weiner so many changes to be made commissioner hillis talked about others i

can't begin to say we'll spend time redesign the project to the question maybe to the commission secretary or staff i 1st district what happens with the continuance are questioning we not allowed to do that or pick a date. >> you can continue this matter indefinitely the only difference when you continue it inindefinite it has to be readvertised so when you put the date certain basically the advisements stay in place and track when the item is before you as part of the agenda you pick a time certain and their for the ready continue it again. >> the second question maybe to you or staff if we were to deny either permit today would the project sponsor cowboy come back with a substantial different

project. >> if you deny it i don't know how it could be difficult win a years time. >> can we reverse the demo. >> excuse me. >> allow the demo in the next hearing they cannot demo it. >> we generally don't approve demolition permits. >> we can withdraw that and continue it. >> it will sfurp seedy withdraw my motion. >> okay. back to the issue the continuance i want to make a motion for continuance the reason i think this needs to go back to the draurd and 8 we don't got out favorite than eight or ten weeks look at this lot we need to have conversations with the neighborhoods i don't want to

hear there was a meeting nobody got to go to it i want alp opportunity not forever but alp opportunity for that discussion so i guess if is there sort of we put it out three to four months is that, too along for the noticing. >> it is relevant to the noticing i think the interested party are here and present but 2 months is something that is adequate that's entirely up to you, you the architect that is not here would have to also weigh in terms of the workload and everything else the building is back to square one and somewhat modify the approach. >> when you came up before the timing commissioner moore the reason why i was speaking without asking architect fairs

because because two months is pushed into november i'm more thinking about the dialogue so 2 most is probably not enough time for the architect but i don't want to hear i was in brazil for two weeks at thanksgiving and i don't know what's going on. >> go ahead sorry. >> two months is more than enough time as long as the neighborhoods are willing to meet in good faith without long details that put us here for months as long as i know they're on board with spending time with me we'll work quickly. >> thank you commissioner richards. >> i support a continuance i was playing with the demolition to try to incorporate the house a half hour with the section 317

we may be hear months from now and supposed to say and all of a sudden it whole thing is down again, i know but part of the section 317 for all the things huffing we will have a list of people we assign and sell to the project sponsor you have to choose one introduce the appraisalers parts of that a list of approved profilerers i'm frustrated we have a 2014 and 2015 profiler. >> commissioner antonini. >> i've a few questions for project sponsor if you could come up and answer the questions please i think during our meager it was told this was a family perhaps mr. murray relays family

that is mr. murray relay very good i heard they're planning on occupying it they have to children possible a third on the way and they have some aging parents that will be occupying the lower floor; is that correct or not. >> one child possible a second on the way and, yes aging parents and the intention to occupy the house. >> thank you that answers a lot of questions that have been brought up and a reason to have the elevators i was going to bring up okay. thank you there are a couple of other things i'm interested in continuing this i am interested in finding a date in november or early december noted loaded with a lot of stuff not having a long hearing like last week and let me ask one the dr requesters is that late

november and a or early december to work in good faith is that long enough. >> commissioner in the quiz. >> why donna you don't want to talk with him and based on the conversation and calendar that we have available that he need that time i will be traveling i have matched in the uk. >> that is amenable what do we have in december. >> your dates is december 3, '10 and 13. >> december 10th i'll make a motion to continue until december 10th. >> commissioner moore. >> through i'm sorry. i'm done. >> in this case throwback to

continue this to december 10th. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> commissioners, that places you under your under general public comment i have no more speaker cards is there any general public comment general public comment is closed. meeting adjourned. >> it seems like everyone in san francisco is talking about

housing san francisco housing prizes are among the highest it tops anyone million dollars and rent rise unfortunately, this is not the first time housing has been in the news thought california the cost of a home has made headline the medium prices for a house in the the $207,000 in california it is more than twice that amount and the laura u bay area is higher it's more than doubled the states so while more than half of the americans can afford the medium fewer in california and quarter in the bayer and now fewer than a 6th of san franciscans can afford it so why it housing in san francisco so go cheven condition tharz the obviously a high demand to live

here the city is known for cultural diversities that attacks new residents and the credible opportunity our city diverse and will daytime committee grows jobs as a result we estimate the number of jobs is at ann an all-time 0 hive of 6 hundred thousand in the 80 the population was 6 hundred and 75 thousand now, it's grown steadily and quickly the recent estimate is 8 hundred and 40 thousand the highest in the city's history and it's not only san francisco it is greek the bay area has $2 million for residents and jobs then in the 80 and the growth is expected to continue by the year 20403.9

million people unfortunately, our housing supply does not keep up with the demand i might not realize the majority of construction is housing that's been suspended for years due to the 2008 recession while population is increasing the housing is only increasing that i 9 percent if we don't pursues housing the cost of housing about only increase how do we plan the regional allocation identifies the total number of housing unit by affordable level to support the new residents san francisco incorporates it into the housing elements that guides the housing policies the arena data places it in the investment plans for the growth throughout san francisco those plans developed by years

of community planning laid the ground work for the construction so the city he e sets the goals in broad terms the private sectors builds market rate housing and non-built affordability housing that majority of housing in san francisco as well as throughout the country market rate houses built by private developers within guidelines of the city some below market rate you howls paid pie public and private dollars and prized to be variable to certain population housing is considered affordable if it costs less than 1/3rd the medium income for a 2 percent householder is $70,000 this householder will have to pay no more than $7,150 to be affordable san francisco has see long applied federal, state and

local money often built and nonprofit tint for individual families the news cities in california what the inclusive program requires that 10 or ottawa more units to certain blow income levels or contribute to the fund that supports the blow market rate unit almost 25 thousand have been supported by city funds and more than 6 nous thousand of the unit were built between 2000 and 2012 what you can't afford a million will home you're not alone in response san francisco mayor ed lee has set a goal of creating thirty thousand now e-mails homes by the year 2020 most will be in outreach of

the san franciscan with federal and state funds drying up the san francisco ethics commission is, taking an iv i of actually roll is providing housing across all levels we're working diligently for everyone to live here and mr. chair protect the housing semiand strengthen goals against evictions we're commented for housing needs for all san franciscans to learn more visit highway

>> i call this meeting of the transbay joint powers authority meeting to order for september 10, 2015. would you call the roll, please, madam secretary. >> director kim. kim present, lee present. vice chair nuru, present. president and chair harper, present. mr. chairman, you do have a quorum. >> communications? any in particular? >> none that i am aware of. >> board of directors new and old business.

we have a lot to conduct today so it's just as well. how about the executive director's report. >> good morning, everyone. so i did want to report that since may when we last reported on jobs across the united states, we've added 4 states. so now we have work going on at 25 states across the united states for quite a substantial number of jobs. so i did want to report that and i think you see that there, so we added 4, now we have 25. so 11,300 jobs to date and we have copies here for you directors so we're halfway there before we hit the entire country. speaking of construction, i'd like to have steve give an update on where we have with our construction. >> good morning, director, steve rule with turner construction, construction

manager oversight for the tgpa the last reported update was in july. since then we have had a lot of progress, a few milestones hit and one of the things over 120,000 craft hours in the last two months. you might recall that typically we run about 40,000 craft hours a month, so we're up in the numbers of workers on the job. this is an update picture of the site. you can see and we'll talk more about the light fallen and the progression. steel in a moment. two milestones were met this period in july, one, we finished all the undergroundwork associated with the bus ramp and bridge project. the other is the trade package 6.0, the blow grade concrete was essentially finished. they have to pick-up work throughout the project filling some holes but they poured their last third lift wall on august 10 and that was ahead of where we were

projecting them in september or later. that's that milestone there. the steel, we are doing better now with the steel. all the steel is available for erection in the west end and they are working 12 hour shifts as of this week to put that up. the light column was completed and more fabrication is occurring now for the east project so less than a third is in fabrication in the east end. the overall map there you can see the layout of the steel, all that solid blue line across the top there indicates the third lift wall is being completed, we're well underway with the fourth lift wall so great progress is being made in that area. this is a contingency slide. just the major -- there was a couple spans, including the board awards at the last board meeting in july which show up on this as well as some various change orders. as far as safety, we did have a couple of recordable

incidents in july and august. we had 4 actually those have been investigated and corrective measures have been put in place and web core has redoubled their efforts on safety. it's a matter of adjusting to the new trades that are coming on board and the size of the work force, the multiple shifts and we're watching that closely. as i said before, over 1.6 million craft hours have been completed to date, we're up 120,000 from last presentation. as far as in the western zone, a lot of time was spent on structural steel welding, the first couple grid lines and lines 7 to 10, that welding and decking has been completed. also on the vehicle and bike ramps in the central zone mep is in the milds of rough in, a lot of concrete got placed, we placed our first 2 roof deck pours in the 17 section. in the eastern zone, the steel

erection has been progressing but the big effort there was on the light column which now is fully err reted since you last saw the update and stands out quite notably in the project. and rebracing, we actually started in the central section, i apologize, we started removing the final braces from the project in several areas so we -- once the train box lid gets poured we can take out those internal braces. that was another milestone. we started removing these in the last period. and in the eastern zone we completed the third lift walls and they are well underway with the fourth lift walls working from fremont to beal street. those lift walls are now 100 percent so we will remove those from cali in the future and we will start on other milestones including the fourth drek walls. picture the activity in the western zone, in the upper left that's the structure steel err rektsed on one line and we are now progressing from that period to the steel over to the

right you can barely see in the pictures next to the remains of the tres he will. in the upper right and lower right are the bus and bicycle ramps prepour and now poured, just note the effort that gets put into making that all fit together. those vertical steel columns are the false work for the future cable stay bridge so it's an intricate dance at best to get all that in. stairs, central zone, concrete pour central zone and removing, some of the highlights in those pictures show that. in the eastern zone of course the steel, you see that heavy strip there in the center of that picture in the upper left, that's the expansion joint that separates the central from the eastern. we had just hung that first piece of steel of that back in july. now we've progressed several bays and into the light column area, at the light call em. here's some shots of the light column going

up the last couple months starting with the base on the train platform level and on up through the roof deck and up to its full height and that's what it looks like now, now that it's in place completely from an aerial view. again in the eastern zone, shots of the third lift wall getting prepared there, rebracing being done, foerlgt liflt wall under fremont street and that sort of progress we will see in the next couple months as we finish up that fourth lift wall concrete as welcoming up. on the bus ramp, lots of false work in place. you can see the entire route so howard street has been fully decked and crossed with false work to support the construction of the cable stay bridge and further areas up all the way to 80 in the bay bridge off ramp area, just some shots of the work going up, the abuttments up at harrison street, the false work over howard street and a shot

of the deck. as far as what's coming up, fourth lift walls in the east end is critical completing the steel erection in the west end will happen through september and early october with that being completely welded off with decking on it and stuff most likely by the end of october/early november, then we'll be able to turn over lines 1 all the way through 24, 25 line out of 33 to the follow on trades. continue be with mep, coordination and installation, continue with stairs, start up some of the other trades, more and more getting closer and closer to the start of the exterior wall systems, we have embeds already in place and items like that. labor still looking great, i think we're over 64 percent local out of the counties that most affect the project. apprentices the same. and we have now had 3,000 craft people on the project, individual

craft people on the project, since the start of the transit center. happy to answer any questions. >> one question, you mentioned that you are making good progress on the structural steel, still showing about 7 months behind --. >> it's been the fabrication issue. web core the joint venture has been working closely with scansa, they are meeting almost every day. they are working on bringing back that completion date but we are pretty solid within the second quarter of next year, could be the end of the second quartder but we're hoping to move it back up to april and get back on track or closer to where we were. the fabrication is doing well. i would expect the fabrication to be completed by the end of the year and that would just be those remaining 5 or 8 bays on the other side of fremont street. >> and does a june finish versus an april finish impact

the overall price? >> it would significantly help the overall schedule, obviously, and what they are doing right now is try to get ahead as much as they can with deck pours obviously and preping for follow on trades in the rest of the area. the slight adjustment in the logistics and the way it that they are proceeding in the project, if we can fill in the gap in the western zone which is the plan and that's why scansa has gone overtime to do that, that's why we have done that to create more of a flow from west to east. as those areas get xwleted by the follow on trades the steel folks will be out there completing their portion. >> thanks. >> sure. >> anyone else? >> thank you, now sarah deboard p update us on the

quarterly financials. >> good morning, director, sarah deboard, these are your standard quarterly financial reports. this is unaudited but this is the budget actual report for the full fiscal year. we spent approximately $305 1/2 million on the capital side and on the operations side spent about 3.6 million on operating expenses for the temporary terminal and contributed just over 400,000 to the operating reserve with the revenues from lease and advertising at the temporary terminal. the second report is the contract status report and because it is timely to another item on your agenda i did just want to recognize mr. rule and turner. the construction management oversight contract had a 35 percent sbe goal, they are at 49 percent and 39 percent of that is

disadvantaged business enterprise participation. the third report is the investment report. there is approximately 220 million in various trust accounts in land sales and bridge loan proceeds. the vast majority of it invested in u.s. treasuries and commercial paper. anything that you see that had a maturity date in july on the report has since been reinvested largely in treasuries or commercial paper as well. the fourth and fifth reports are the usual inception to date showing funding sources and expenditures over the life of the program on the capital side, does not include operations, and the final report shows the contingency draw downs. it's a summary of the same report that you get from mr. rule each month and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> the transbay transit center cost review, who's going to cover that?

>> that's a separate --. >> that's under the regular calendar. >> okay. >> well, thank you. that concludes my report. >> next item is item 6, advisery committee updates and i believe ted olson is here. >> ted olson, chair of cac thank you, directors, for allowing us to speak. we were very happy at our meeting this week to hear the construction progress that steve has just shared with you, especially to see that oculus coming to completion. i also wanted to particularly thank supervisor kim for her advocacy and now the fact that the cvd has been achieved. this is great progress and i think something that we can all be proud of.

i also commend the team for the outreach to the community that has been representative of the entire project, but he is sfetionly for the steel crossing of the streets, how we've done it with minimal disruption. i think that's very impressive. similarly as a result of the leadership of the project the cac is very impressed with how central subway has come to us to see how we are proceeding. i think this is particularly relevant now that supervisor wiener is proposing a master subway plan so it's -- for the city. also happy to learn that dpw has also visited us to learn more about the, our means

of working with the community. finally, following our october meeting -- following your october meeting we were very interested to resume contact with vision zero to see how the city and we can coordinate to make the project site a model for the city of safety for traffic, transit and transport. so i think there's great possibilities here and i hope that indeed we are a model and if we can do it here, the city can do it elsewhere. thank you. >> thank you, ted. go ahead and move into your next item. >> yes, please. >> item 7 is public comment, opportunity for the member s of the public to address us on items. jim patrick.

>> morning, board members, jim patrick, patrick and company, san francisco. i make reference to an article in the newspaper recently about scott wiener talking about, quote, a second line across the bay bridge or a second tunnel. and i believe we have been grossly negligent in not looking at phase iii. we know about phase ii, we decided to do nothing about phase iii as a bay strategy for this board. he's now making reference to what i call phase iii or you can call whatever you want, is this something under the purview of this board or are we going to wash our hands of it? if we wash our hands of phase iii, we're building buildings in the way, we're making decisions that will affect how phase iii ultimately is implemented if the transbay terminal is to stay in its same place, which i believe it will. so i believe phase iii should be in our thinking and in our policy decisions as we make property deals and as we go out and

market the product because if there is a tunnel to the bay bridge -- i'm sorry -- under the bay, it will clearly bring a higher value in rental, clearly bring a higher value in retail and for some reason we've chosen to do nothing and i think we should get on the train and get phase iii rolling as a conceptual study and take the lead. otherwise people will roll over us. thank you. >> that concludes members of the public that wanted to address you under that item. with that we can go ahead and move on. >> next item, please. >> we are scheduled to go into closed session at this time pursuant to government code section 5495698 and i have not severd any indication that a member of the public wishes to address you on the items listed. they have an opportunity to do that now or we will go ahead and clear the room.

. >> the tjba board is now back in session. >> as to the item conference with real property negotiaters for the portion of state partial 75natoma, 568 howard and 7779natoma collectively

parcel f to the price in terms of payment for that property there is no action to report. >> next item. >> your consent calendar, all matters listed are considered to be routine and there will be no single discussion of the items unless a member of the board requests and we have not received notifiation that anyone wishes an item severed. your items are federal advocacy services with mnanatt, phelps and phillips and khail bers for 1 year year and additional compensation of $155 thous 500 each. >> we have a motion and second from director nuru, any objections? you want to call the roll? >> i will note no members of the public wanted to address

that. with that, director kim, aye. director lee, aye. director riskin, aye. vice chair nuru, aye. chair harper aye. the consent calendar is approved. ready to move --. >> regular calendar item 13 is presentation of phase i program budget update. >> good morning, directors. today's presentation includes an update on the phase i budget status, including the remaining work to be awarded and contingencies required. it also includes a draft, the results of a draft ntc cost review. on july 19th you made a request of mtc for partial release of quit claim deeds related to parcel f as a

result of the quit claim we were asked to update the full commission on july 22 on the status of the budget. we did so at that meeting and attended a presentation. some mtc commissioners were concerned about the level of funding for our budget with 20 percent confidence and as a result they asked mtc staff to perform a cost analysis of our revised budget and get back to them. and so this presentation will include the draft results of that. the cost analysis was completed last friday and we provided our input on monday and it was presented to the policy allocation commission yesterday. i have some slides from that meeting that i'll share with you and we'll go over it. we have not had a chance to dive into the details of it but i can give you an overview today. we also, this presentation also includes funding options

for the revised budget as well as our next steps. the board awarded to date 1,141,000, 000 of direct costs. this is a package that the cmc identified as the most critical to keep construction on schedule. with that award, the total award will become 1,106,900,000. what's shown in yellow are changes in costs between what we presented to you in july and now. the very top one is the underrank, the top one is the most critical according to the cmgc you will see that the metal comp covers, the price went up approximately

$80,000. in negotiations with the subcontractor they requested additional money to hire a quality control person. that was done after we completed our negotiation but we agreed to it because for this kind of work we do need a full-time quality control person. for the metal ceilings the price did not really change but we issued a change order for 1.9 million dollars in order to keep the metal ceiling on schedule. with the metal ceiling contractor needs to do, they need to put in the embeds before the concrete support in order to hang the ceiling versus doing it after the concrete support they would have to drill on bond so we felt compelled this would be cheaper and much better construction if we issued a change order for 1.9 million dollars. they are putting in the embeds right now before they pour the concrete. the third one is the floors. we held the price for 10 million dollars in july, we will continue negotiating with

the contractor on that. the initial request was $20 million, they brought it down to 18 and now they brought it down to 16.8 million dollars. i think we're very close to the final number here. for the roof top park we show the lowest was 33.28 million dollars, the lowest includes 1 million dollars for deduct alternate. we recommended to the board to accept that deduct alternate and that would bring the price to 32 million dollars for the roof top mechanical electrical the initial price we received from the contractor was 27 million dollars. we continue to negotiate with them and the price we're at right now is 22 million dollars, the final price will be very close to it or a little bit less. for the signage there is no change and the ip network and the art work there is no change. so the total cost to complete is $sun 65 million dollars. we

have remaining 11.6 million dollars in the budget so we would need an additional 153 million dollars to award the additional trade packages, that's direct cost, does not include cngc this is snapshot of the total budget. you will see that we need an additional $179 million dollars for total construction cost. that would include the direct fee, 3.9 million dollars for the bus storage and 29.86 dollars for the cngc cost. we have the contingency 58.5 million dollars for a total (inaudible) risk model for 30 percent confidence level. the reason we recommended the 30 percent fta confidence level, this is an fda funded project, we use the fda model on that and we base our decisions on the fact

construction is 50 percent complete. the foundation work, steel and foundation work and excavation has been completed, field work is on-going and the (inaudible) on that is quantified therefore a lot of our risk is behind us. the biggest risk is bidding risk. we don't see that as a major risk going forward and that's why the third percent was recommended. this is the result of the cost review by mtc again, these are draft results, we haven't had a chance to sit down and talk to them. we will be doing that in the next, the remainder of this week and next week. again, the emphasis for the cost review was when we updated them on the budget at the july 22nd meeting and so forth. the cost review took two approaches. it was for phase i and phase ii. phase ii has not

started yet but we have already given the information we have on phase ii to mtc, they will start the analysis soon. mtc took two approaches. one was to do a cost review looking at expenditures to date and based on that project what we need forward and the other one was to review our risk analysis. for the cost for the first approach, for the cost review their findings is that the engineer's estimate, that the cost increases were attributable to several factors. they includedest matds as one of them, complex design was another part that they listed as contributing to the increase in cost, optimistic or low escalation rate used in our budget, lack of comparative s due to improving economy, higher margins due to large number of similar projects competing for

the materials and labor in the same area and they also mentioned rv as one of the factors. we did remind them that the rva costs were incorporated in our budget. the recommendations based on the cost review itself, not the risk analysis, is that we need to augment our reserves by $48 million dollars. we arrived at that number by aprying 30 percent contingency for the remaining work we have not awarded yet, assuming 180 percent increase in the ip network package and applying 5 percent contingency for the soft costs. additionally they recommended we implement the funding partner process to implement and review change orders and we definitely can do that, we can expand our existing meeting with sfcta, we meet with sfcta

on a biweekly basis to share our cost reports as well as twepbd trends. we can include mtca with that or the city. the only recommendation we want to make sure if they are involved in approving the change orders that that process itself does not increase the amount of time that we need to approve change orders so we have to work with them to make sure that the process is streamlined. the other recommendation they came up with the cost approach again was for the tbpa to look into the gmp option. peterson is here today and he can speak to his options thus far, i know they continue to work on it and after this presentation he is available to discuss that. the second approach was to look at our risk management practices and to review our

risk models. their findings are that we are following best practices for risk management. however, they thought that the way we're not quantifying some of our cost risks and that's, according to them and again we haven't had a chance to sit down and talk to the risk manager, we are using the fda top down model to do our risk management, that's something that is used for all fta projects. their recommendation is to use a different approach and different approach yields different results. we do both approaches but we do the bottom up approach as well as top down. we use the bottom up approach relative to top down approach that's required by fta, so their recommendation is that we use the bottom up approach and to increase the confidence level to 80 percent

versus our recommended 30 percent. their recommendation also basically says we should not be relying on the fta model, we use more robust bottom up approach, consider a contingency of higher than 50 percent. according to their analysis, and we haven't had a chance to look at their analysis, their analysis shows we need additional reserve between 105 and 200 million. in summary the preliminary recommendation is that the 30 percent is not sufficient and they are recommending to carry between 48 million dollars to 248 million dollars in additional reserves. what that does is our current kupb 10 jipbs si is $118 million dollars. with their recommendation our contingency will increase to between $166 million dollars to $322 million

dollars. our remaining work to be performed is approximately $650 million dollars. the next step is they received something from the committee yesterday. our next step is to continue to work with them on finishing phase ii and most importantly to continue to work with them, sfcta as well as the city to fund the outcome of the cost review and our need to fully fund the project. moving forward i will turn this over to sarah for the next couple slides to talk about the funding options. >> mark, i have one question. i presume that the $244 million was at the 80 percent level of confidence? 244 million extra contingency that they would recommend, additional exposure, is that at 80 percent or 50 percent?

>> their 50 percent. if you look at the table it shows 50 percent level, 244 million for bottom up plus register, that's where the number came from. again, director harper, we haven't had a chance to sit down and touk to them in detail to see how these numbers are arrived at but they are using a different model than the fta model. >> so the $244 contingency is at the 50 percent level. >> that's correct. >> are you planning to seek permission to go beyond this level? >> we plan to have additional discussions with mtc and possibly hold a joint risk management meeting, refresh our risk management. our risk management meetings currently are attended by fta as well as fra, we will bring in mtc and their consultants as well as

their partners. maybe that would be best, to do a joint refresh, sit down and agree on what the range should be and then concurrently, more importantly is to work on funding whatever range we come up with. but again we just received this last friday. >> i understand. when do you think you would have a recommendation with regard to what the right level is? >> i'm hoping to do it before the october board meeting. i just need to rally up our consultants and have discussions with mtc >> and with respect to the cost review recommendations, the recommendations seem on their face at least to be good recommendations. do you have an implementation schedule for when you would put those into place? >> for the gmp and for the (inaudible) control. >> funding partner oversight. >> we can start that any time. i need to talk to them. it's not -- we already have biweekly

meeting with the san francisco contract transportation authority, we share with them our change order list, potential trends, as well as our budget. we can expand that to include mtc and other partners and we can expand and provide more details, we can go over every change order. the only concern i have if there's an approval process included, i want to make sure it's not slowing down the approval of change orders. that's all. >> gmp >> gmp will have peterson speak to it. we can do it now. we will ask web core to look into it and they are exploring it. >> director riskin, having had a chance to talk with the entire tgpa team, there's been a request for an effort to go ahead and pursue the gmp route, so we were going to look to do that kind of start thinking

about the strategies behind that and then try to develop those to come up with a process and ultimately a timeline. >> we have any sense what that timeline roughly might look like? >> yeah, i mean it's not normal to do this midstream, it's more often do it at the very beginning of a job or sometimes closer to the end. i would say probably something in the first quarter of next year would be a timeline that, you know, we'd be able to go ahead and have discussions regarding where we stood relative to having that gmp >> okay. >> having that what? >> the gmp >> oh, the guaranteed maximum price, okay. >> why so long to -- we're getting ready to go through an extensive review of the rest of the budget has been quite a bit of negotiations and so can it

be done sooner? >> the risk, the way we would analyze the risk is on a trade by trade basis. i think less in the way that has been done from kind of an owner's perspective because we want to be able to go through the trades to the design to date and then kind of look at the balance of what has yet to be done in their scope of work. some trades, you know, are fairly far along and almost complete. other trades haven't even started so there's going to be kind of a different analysis that we need to do, director, nuru, relative to where they are and those that have the most work will take the most time the most time to review . >> directors, we need to approve the phase i budget by november so if director nuru

needs it by then we need to approve it before then. >> i'm not sure of the likelihood of being able to get there, but knowing there is a desired deadline we can go back and look at that what efforts it would take to try to come up with something like that. >> i think it's important because, you know, with the type of escalations we are seeing we need to lock the prices down as much as we can now to get a firm budget. we really need to do that. the last few months have been very rocky financially. >> i have a question for mark. to me, the $247 million dollar deficit was a number i associated with july 2015 costs and the chart you just gave indicates that there's another 13 million dollars or so beyond

the july 15 cost. so is it now more like 260 deficit? >> which slide --. >> i'm looking on page 2 here, remaining construction work to be awarded, and then you had the july 15 coming up with total to complete 153 and then current costs, total to complete 165. >> yeah. the 247 includes the current costs. what we were negotiating in july so we accounted for the difference between like for the changes between the, like for the glass ceiling and for the other packages. we accounted for the change in our program reserves. so the 247 is a 30 percent confidence level based on the current costs. >> okay, all right. >> i guess that -- just something to maybe consider going into the risk management workshop and i think it would be helpful to have all the various folks who seem to have

opinions on the risk levels of the program in the room. it would be helpful to know to what extent having the maximum price guarantee in place, having additional of these contracts awarded, we're going to award one today, possibly, and i don't know if there's more planned for october, as well as having a strengthened change management process, if that would then impact the recommendation from mtc in terms of how much additional contingency we need. >> i think once we have a joint risk management meeting to refresh i think mtc will see how the process works, they will be engaged in the process, they may have a better comfort level. i think the 244 on top of our 247 based on the remaining work that has to be

completed is almost, you know, 362 is almost 50 percent of the remaining work to be completed. that's a very high level, obviously gives us a very high confidence level that we will get there but i'm not sure if that's --. >> i think director nuru's point if having the maximum price guarantee in place before we adopt the budget means it's less of a problem we have to solve for, that will be helpful. >> it also depends on what jess comes up with. if he comes up with a guaranteed maximum amount that's within these numbers, that's one thing. you want to come up with a number right now, come up with a different number it will all be different. >> that's why it would be helpful to understand from the risk stand point how much does that help? if having that in place really knocks down the amount of contingency we need to recommend we have that's something that would be relevant for us to know and consider. >> that's a very point point, director riskin. also we have

not accounted for in our risk management practices how the gmcc contingency is utilized. it also caps our exposure for omissions in design or additional scope, web core is responsible to resolve conflicts in the field that aren't a result of design changes and so forth and they are capped there and do we have to use their fee for things not related to design or scope. our risk analysis does not take that into account. if it were to do that, it would reduce exposure and it does not take that into account. we will discuss it at the joint meeting, i haven't told them about the joint meeting, it was just something we were discussing this morning to move forward. >> for my knowledge, do you foresee any other major design changes as we go down to --. >> no, i know randy is here,

we don't see any design changes right now at all. we don't see -- you know, a lot of the bic risks are behind us. structural steel erection is one risk that we're dealing with right now. the next biggest risk would be the plumbing map's but we're doing a lot of 3-d modeling already with the contractors so we expect minor issues. besides that, i don't see major risks. let me ask again steve humphries to explore that. >> hi, steve humprhies, web core. i agree with mark, we are nearing the completion of the buy out where we've had the significant cost overruns and so the remaining risks on the

project are really getting it built and there certainly will be change orders but i don't think the risk that we're looking at going forward are as significant as the cost increases we have seen here recently. >> i want to get on -- the 48 million additional contingency, what you seem to be saying is that that's also a 50 percent number but it's at a different methodology. >> they arrived at the 48 million by taking the trade packages we have and applying the contingency to that number and also applying the contingency to the it network. it just so happens that the 48 brings us to the, consistent with the 50 percent fta model. >> coincident that it's 50

percent --. >> yeah. >> i mean, when -- i mean at some point, i don't know how successful we're going to be job owning with mtc on this very long. i don't know that we're, they're going to change their mind very much this is the range it is. to me i think my sense is that something like accepting the 48 million additional contingency is something of a no-brainer for us because mtc is mtc >> yeah. >> fapbd that's the low end of the range and it's something that the fta has already said, well, this would be our number if we had to do it, how much more guidance do you need from this board? maybe we should go with that low end of their range. >> i'd like the opportunity to sit down with mtc and go through a risk review and then come back to the board. the reason i want to do that, the

mtc, it was a very short period of time for mtc to do their review so they arrived at their conclusions in a 4 to 6 week period. we gave them a lot of information, director harper, a lot of packages to go through to figure out what the award amount is, how much change orders for each trade package. it's a lot of information for them to digest and on top of that the risk manager has not seen or used or known about the fta model before so he needs time to review the model, understand that -- and maybe through the joint cost risk management exercise they will be more comfortable and we can arrive at a range that is more rational, maybe, and then come to the board with whatever recommendation. >> my sense of this report from mtc is there's nothing in here that really changes our

numbers from 247 except that one in terms of the program budget, a new program budget. >> what they came up with is the same information we have had all along, the same information that the report informed us is the reason we are having high s is for the following reasons so they came to the same conclusion, exempt they do have concerns about us choosing the 30 percent confidence level versus a higher confidence level and they need to understand the fta model, they don't have understanding how the fta risk model is done. >> what i don't understand is why can't we then take the lower range of mtc, put together finally a program budget and have it ready for the october meeting as a new program budget? >> we can but i think it's more -- better for us to have another discussion with them with a joint, a risk management exercise so the whole region is comfortable with what we're doing, moving forward with the

regions understanding versus just on our own. >> but aren't we running out of time? >> let me jump to the last slide and then i'll bring sarah back. >> right, we can't bring a budget without commensurate funding, director. we need to have committed funding before we bring your revised budget. sarah is going to talk about, let her talk about the funding slide. let's go to the first slide. okay. >> so this is the funding table that you've seen many times before, it shows the identified funding for the 1899 current budget and shows what the potential sources are for a new budget. of course there would be proceeds from parcel f, at least 160 million we've talked about. transit center district plan, those are the

mela russ funds along with our surplus tax increment, those would be repayment for some sort of financing to cover the additional budget and we are still looking at sponsorship opportunities. there are of course possibilities on the operation side as well as the capital side for sponsorship and i xektd that we would be able to report more to the board in the coming months about what those opportunities may be. >> one question about the tax increment. i know that is a contingency of the mela russ that is pledged to the program. is the same the case for the tax increment? >> i may call our financial advisor up, but the overall tax increment from the state parcels is divided up in several ways and i don't want to misquote percentages but there are certain path that is go to the city, the school district, some goes

district, some goes to ocii. the portion that goes to tbpa goes to it alone and is far in excess of what's needed for repayment. >> these are some of the ideas we've thrown out for potential financing options. could be an unsecured loan to be paid with surplus net tax increment, it would be secured, it would be subordinate or on par with tifia, also repaid with net tax increment. it could be a secured loan from one of the funders, could be repaid with the melarusse funding, that

might be a more attractive perspective because it is a much shorter repayment time. the net tax increment would really be considered long-term debt. in the past mtc has, it was a completely different project, completely different purpose, completely different scale, but mtc has purchased a privately placed security from another project that was going to be repaid with future grant funds. that particular project had a cash flow issue and mtc was able to work out a financing solution with them. and then another option, and this is accounted for in our tifia loan, would be for any one of these funders, city, mtc, ti, somebody with strong credit rating and the ability to raise revenue to provide a credit guarantee so that tgpa could

perhaps do a loan with private financing rather than a loan from the city or a loan from mtc, could perhaps go down the bridge loan type route again where we had another agreement with goldman saches and wells fargo. but we would be looking for some sort of credit guarantee from some of the funders. these are some of the ideas we have been sharing with the funders, we are of course looking for their feedback and their ideas as well but we did want to share those with you. >> but my understanding is you have had those put out for months now, with the city at least and some of the others, and i don't know that they are that warm on any of them. and so we can continue beating our head against the wall there if that's what it is, but what happens if, you know, the city sticks to its position that, wait a minute, no, we're not prepared to do anything in the

amounts that you are talking about? we have to start planing on that possibility, that the city just is not going to be there or mtc may not be there to a great extent. at some point we have to start planning for that and i'm afraid that we'll just continue this rolling in until it becomes for -- or that planning process gets really jep jep dietzd jeopardized because we have to plan on what we can build on the basis of committed funds. we need to do that. we can't continue out there with a begging bowl thinking that somebody is going to fill it at some point because we've been out there and it hasn't happened and we don't even have a lot of warm ogt out there as far as i can tell. >> i think director riskin --. >> i did yesterday speak both to the city controller and to mtc and i don't think it's the right characterization that the city has a position that it's

not willing or mtc to help try to find a solution. it seems that it's largely a financing challenge, not a funding challenge, which is obviously much easier. in other words it's really a matter of timing of the funds because we do have these funds that are pledged to the program, they just come in later than we need them. i'm not sure what planning for an alternative would look like because i don't know that there's much opportunity to reduce costs at this point, unfortunately. i think we're, for all the reasons we discussed previously, i think we somewhat are where we are so i think we do need to continue working with all of the funding partners to try to figure out ways that we can bridge this. and it has to happen soon because we need to be able to increase the budget so that we can award the remaining

contracts and to meet our tifia loan commitments. so i think it's the right path. i think it's probably not -- i think it's been complicated for the funding partners to try to understand exactly what the needs are, exactly what the future cash flows are because it's estimating on building development and housing development that has not yet happened and is not yet entitled. so i think that's what's been the challenge so i don't think there's been a lack of willingness from the funding partners, they just haven't arrived at the solution yet. but in my skuptions with them they are aware of the time pressures that we have as a board to adopt an approved budget by november or at the november meeting. >> i mean at some point we have to have a decision tree. we have no know at this point in time we need to know this, at this point in time we need somewhere else because this is something that is closing in on

us and we're playing with fire here when we talk about a construction project that we're in the midst of. it's all fine, i think, but we need to discipline ourselves and say, okay, we've got to know this. otherwise the question will come down to, okay, this is what we've got, what can we build? what can we do? how do we handle the amount of money that we actually have? and that's what i'm -- that's also a phase that we need to start toying with as well as just the other things, because i don't know where it goes if our funding partners, you know, continue to be confused. and i think one of our big problems is that we don't have an up to date program budget. that was my sense, particularly the mtc meetings, they're not sure where the numbers are, particularly yesterday where it was okay, now we have a new

kupb continue sdwrepbs si range that we haven't heard about before and the city said that's new information. so we kind of have to bring these numbers down to ground in a hurry and say these are the numbers that we need and i don't necessarily hear that as really definitively we're going to be doing that. >> the mtc risk review or cost review has definitely changed and complicated the picture. folks were working based on one set of numbers, the 247 number, up until friday and now it's a larger number. the sooner that mark and company can get that risk workshop done and get the region consensus on what the right number is, then they can finish solving for it. and i agree with mark that it's important to get that consensus because the region is going to be part of, is going to be part of the solution for this, not to mention phase ii. so i think we want the region's

confidence in whatever budget we adopt here at this board. >> mark, by what date or sarah does that consensus have to be reached? >> to that end we were going to talk about next steps. as we were saying we need to adopt -- i got it -- we need to adopt a program budget, an updated program budget, by november. if we are moving beyond november we are looking at schedule delays and commensurate cost increases on the back end of the project. so this month, today mark will be going over the details of awarding the toping slab trade package and the importance of that trade package in the overall scheme of things. we also this month would execute a change order for metal column covers. this is work that was out as part of a trade package but the particular subcontractor that was part of that is already under contract to us so we can execute a change order with that subcontractor and save the mark

up that would have been included as part of the other package. also today i'll be presenting to you the adoption of a fiscal year budget. we had done interim one-month budgets for july, august and september, but we would go ahead and recommend that adopting a fiscal year budget today for the remainder of the fiscal year can always be maeblded -- amended in the future and this is what we did in 2015 for the fiscal year 14 budget when we were in the midst of updating the budged in 2013. also on your agenda today is an amending to the construction management oversight contract to bring them through this fiscal year. then in october, as we've been talking about, this month as well as into october we would continue to work with the local and regional funding partners to come up with a funding plan, continue to work with mtc, have the joint risk management workshop, et cetera, and then in november we would be coming to you with the final program

budget and any awards that needed to be done by the end of the year. there are of course two awards that would not occur until 2016 in any case and that would be bus storage and the ip network and mark can come up if i've missed anything that he wanted to cover on this slide. >> i just have one other question on this. one of the things mtc's cost review said was recent s have been 179 percent over estimates. that's -- my own mental thing was more like 45 percent. really, is that accurate? it's 179 percent over? >> you know, i haven't checked their numbers. we gave them our numbers and they sliced and diced the way they did it. i don't know how they arrived at the 179 but the fact of the matter is, you know, we've had several packages that came in more than double our budget,

especially recently. so it could be --. >> they are right. >> it could be. i have to see how they calculated the numbers. again, we didn't see this presentation until yesterday morning and we didn't see the cost review until friday, last friday, so we haven't had a chance to --. >> i guess i just -- one question that i want to ask is are we still on schedule for 2017? >> my understanding, i'll bring in jess and steve here, if we were to award all the trade packages between now and november we should be able to hit the opening of december 2017 but we're running very close. yes? no? >> so as was mentioned earlier

we have had some delays in structural steel manufacturing that have affected the schedule. we are currently looking for substantial completion of the bus portion of the facility at the end of 2017, very close to that right now on schedule and then the roof park is currently pushing out into early 2018. >> thank you. >> maybe you can educate me a little bit. is there a regular pattern for the tjpa to get mtc cost reviews on is this like an annual thing or is this a new thing for tjpa >> this was a result, we had a parcel that mtc had interest in, had interest in 13 square feet of it. and when we went to the board to ask them to release that interest because it was associated with parts that were left, the board

requested that we do a budget update to them. so we went and did a budget update to the full commission and as a result of the budget update they were concerned about us using a 30 percent confidence level for the risk contingency and they asked their staff to do a cost review. so it's not a regular occurrence and hopefully doesn't happen again, but it was a result of us asking them to release an interest of 13 square feet. >> so what sparked it was their concern about the contingency in the presentation. >> the 30 percent confidence level that risk management is proposing. >> so you have a federal oversight agency that have their thoughts about contingency level so is that part of the discussion you will be having with both a federal agency as well as mtc >> yes, we have discussions with fta when we decided to recommend the 30 percent level. initially fta did want a 50 percent level. we talked to

them about the rationale for using 30 percent at this stage of the project, given that we're 50 percent complete and so forth, and there is no objection to our approach. so we proceeded with the board at a 30 percent level. now mtc is looking at it differently we will have discussions with them and arrive at a mutual solution. >> who was the team at mtc that did the cost --. >> it was a combination of ty lynn and cal traup. ty lynn about the cost review and cal traup did the risk review. >> you said they took approximately 4 to 6 months? >> no, no, no. it was july 22nd is when the commission asked staff for the cost review, the week after we provided them all the data that we have and they have been working on it ever since. last friday they provided us with a draft report so last friday was

--. >> it's a few weeks. >> yeah, it was weeks, it was not months. i think it was like 4 weeks by the time the interim contract and so forth to the consultants. >> and then on the recommendation where there's approval of the change orders by the funding partners, what has sparked, what was the genesis for that recommendation? where does that come from? >> i don't know, we haven't had discussions with them to understand why they wanted -- i think it's just because they are going to be a funding partner, they are a funding partner, they are going to be part of the solution and they wanted to see firsthand the change orders that we're issuing. >> but this is just seeing it, this is approving. >> and this is our concern. approving it means another step in the approval process that would delay the final approval so we would like them to be able to review and comment but

not approve it. but we do share our change orders with the san francisco county already so it's not unusual for a cost funding partner to ask to look at change orders. >> my last question is at one of our board meetings ac transit did a presentation about the need for the bus storage site and i think we had concerns about their ability to pay for the lease if it was put into place. i wasn't clear as to how that issue was closed or not closed. >> my understanding is that issue, they have agreed to fund the lease. that issue i think is closed. and we're, our budget assumes that the bus storage facility is included. proposed budget, i should say, (inaudible) budget. >> thank you.

>> that's our informational item? >> yeah. >> it is but you do have a member of the public who wants to address you on it. >> good afternoon, directors. here's my two cents, it's not necessarily what you are going to want to hear but here it goes any way. i don't think we are in a position to argue with mtc it's counter productive. we should not do that. basically go along with them, they are our partner, this is what they are telling us to do which is basically to toe the line. the second thing i want to say is that we have been in the habit of pointing a gun at someone else's head and telling them, you better cough up or else. that backfired in our faces big time. we should

never ever do that again. so where does that leave us? well, basically we know the money is coming in from all sorts of sources so what we need is a line of credit or some kind of loan that's going to get us through this very difficult period we are going through. i think it's 171 million, no one wants to go there again. what i would say right now is you want to look at risk. belaruss, last time i checked they were 30 billion dollars. you probably have the billion dollars in house there, you should be able to get half a billion out of that and i will basically leave that with you for now. thank you. >> thank you, roland. >> go ahead and call your next item. >> oh, another speaker? >> patrick? >> thank you, jim patrick with patrick and company. as i study that financial report and

as i remember the high speed rail, the argument was what's the business plan? where is your business plan? how is it going to work? i don't see any reference to the projected income that we should make from our tenants from the bus operators, from the train operators, and that is an asset. presumably you have those leases in place, if i were to build a building i get a lease that enhances the value of that building. therefore you can certainly borrow on that future revenue. i think we have discounted the revenue unless we are planning to give this structure to those tenants for nothing, i think we're planning to charge something. quite frankly i don't know what it is. i think that's an important asset we haven't considered in this calculation. >> thank you, mister patrick. >> i think that concludes member s of the public who wish to address on you that item. >> 14 is adoption of the fiscal year budget in an amount

not to exceed $35 thundershower,341,200. >> the board will report on this. >> good morning again, directors. this is the proposed fiscal year budget for the remainder of the fiscal year through june 30th, 2016. it would in whole replace the interim budgets that were adopted for july, august and september. it would not be in addition to those interim budgets. you do have a budget policy in place that does state that you will adopt a fiscal year budget. typically it's done before the beginning of the fiscal year. we had planned to update the program budget by september so we had consequently planned to do the fiscal year budget at the same time and base the fiscal year budget on the updated budget. however, as we've just been discussing, since the program budget will not be brought to you until the october-november

time frame, we feel it's prudent to go ahead and adopt a fiscal year budget now exactly as we did in 2015. it's based on the budget that is in place now, the 1899, and would be amended as necessary. we did this in fiscal year 14 and in that particular year there were four amendments, subsequent amendments, to the fiscal year budget, all within the budget policy. this past year, fiscal year 15, we have had three amendments to the fiscal year budget all within the budget policy, so there would not be an issue with doing the same for fiscal year 16. this proposed capital budget is just over 354 million. the vast majority of it is for construction, 98 percent of the budget is for what we call professional and specialized services and 302 million of that is for construction specifically. there are also, there's a very small amount budgeted for closing out the right of way acquisition

process, a very small amount as well for administration but again the vast majority is for construction and i'd be happy to answer any questions but it is a balanced budget with revenue -- or funding sources, i should say, identified to cover the planned expenditures and it is just a slice, a one-year slice, of the overall program budget. >> questions? >> what is it that necessitates we do this? why is it that we have to do this? >> we have a budged policy that states that you will do it and it's always best practice to follow your board-approved financial policies. >> and that's it? our own policy that we -- we haven't done this for the last few months, we've just done monthly budgets. >> we've done monthly budgets, yes. >> why aren't we doing another monthly budget. >> for one it takes staff time

to do this every month along with preparing the item for the board. we are a liplgts short-staffed right now, we had a staff member move on to another agency so along with getting ready to produce financial statements and try to close the books for the year it would be one less thing to do to be adopting a monthly budget every month. also in addition to just being financial best practice and following your own policy, it does serve as appropriation control for the administrative items in the budget, those items identified by italics. most of our authorization control comes when you authorize award of a contract and we issue notices to proceed with a contract but there are certain line items that are not approved by contract so that comes through adoption of this fiscal year budget. >> so that's the control in there. you can make payroll if we do not do this?

>> we can make payroll if you do. >> but you can't pay people if you don't do this? >> if we don't have budget appropriated, no, we would not be able to legally pay people. >> legally pay people in september. >> we have a one-month budget for september but beyond september we do not have --. >> my problem with that is it's the 1.89 billion and we've been talking for 6 or 7 months about how that is not the number any more. you know, we're depending on, you know, which week we're meeting it's anywhere from 250 to 400 million dollars short and i just don't like the idea of the board coming in and doing a document and setting a budget based upon something that there's so much of a record on is not accurate numbers. that's my problem and i'd like to do something that satisfies

the need without putting the board on record for going back to a budget that's over two years old and saying, well, we're going to just kind of pretend that that's still a real budget when it's just a budget in the sense that, yeah, that's what we did back in july 2013 that seemed to be a balanced budget for us so it's still balanced. >> well, -- sorry, i lost my train of thought. i've really lost my train of thought, i apologize. a budget is a planning tool and it's in the record of the staff report what this budget is based on and it does state in the staff report that it can be amended in the future if changes and circumstances warrant change. i was flipping through, we have what we call the blue book, it's sort of our bible

for governmental accounting. it's the governmental accounting auditing and financial reporting book, it's about this thick and we look at it all the time. and i was flipping through it the other day and was struck by similarity in language they have about budgeting through what i had written in the staff report before i had read this, but it states in the blue book that in most cases the original budget will have to be amended during the period to make adjustments for changes in estimates and circumstances. and so that is exactly what we're proposing to do here. i don't think that adopting this fiscal year budget is making a statement that the board thinks the project budget is going to remain at 1.899. i think all of the public discussion on the previous item is an accurate reflection of the board's understanding of our budget situation and of course i defer to the board and what you would like to do, but i would recommend adopting the fiscal year budget. >> you think there's no other way to do it but go on the

record for adopting this as the next year's budget based on the 1.899 number? >> you can continue to do one month interim budgets which are based on last year's interim budget or you can adopt a budget for the entire fiscal year. it's the board's discretion to choose. >> it doesn't look like anyone else is bothered by the discrepancy but at least we're on the record that it is a discrepancy. i think that's important because i don't want it to look later on like the board was not being cognizant of the changes we have had. >> i think the process is once we have a real budget with these negotiations then we would make the amendments that are needed. >> that's right. >> in november, if we get a program budget in november, then this would automatically change, right? >> we would take a look at what the updated cash flow for the remainder of the fiscal

year was and if there were categories that needed to be increased we could go ahead and do that at that time. typically we would have done budget amendments throughout the year as the need arose but we certainly could prepare it in november. >> well, all right. is there a motion for approval? >> motion. >> motion and a second. roll call. >> first and second and no members of the public waiting to address you on that item, key, aye. director riskin, aye. nuru, aye. five eyes and the budget is approved. >> authorizing web core/obayashi joint venture to execute a trade work

subcontract with concrete north as the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsive thereby increasing authorized direct costs. >> mark will report on this item. >> this trade package is concrete toping slabs, concrete on the bus deck and seismic joints for the transit center. pretty basic work. this is one of the most critical packages at this point and that's why we're coming to be awarded at this time and we'll be using some of the contingencies in the reserves to award it because we don't have enough budget in the trade packages to award it. so we received a may 7th, we had 7 qualified bidders, we received 3 bidders

ranging to 32 million dollars, all s were significantly above our budget and the gngc estimate. we did share with the board some of the reasons behind that at the july board meeting. we did ask the contractor to extend their to end of september. their bid expires 30 days after bid opening. it came in at 30 million dollars and uron came in at 32 million dollars. even though they are above our budget, they are come ted -- competitive and within 10 percent of each other. as we shared with you at the july board meeting, the difference between the estimate our budget and the bids was

attributed to some of the scope in the trade packages and not accounted for, the estimate and market conditions and logistics. so we're recommending that this package be awarded to concrete north for 27,677,000, we believe the s are competitive and this is a schedule critical package. recommendation is to award it by utilizing 11 million dollars from the budget for the remaining trade packages, the budget for the remaining trade packages is 11.6 million dollars, utilizing 6 million dollars of program reserves which are currently 8.45 million dollars and utilizing the current construction contingency which is 34 million dollars. after the award the remaining balances would be

614,000 in the funded budget for the remaining trade packages, 1.5 million dollars in the program reserves and 23.3 million dollars for the construction contingency. any questions? >> do we know why four of the 7 rr prequalified bidders did not snit a ? -- submit a bid >> let plea ask steve humphries. >> yeah, i'm not sure i can tell you right at the moment exactly why they did not bid the project. they were all engaged earlier and the four bidders during the bid phrase

we were aware well prior to bi d-day that they were not going to be bidding the project for a variety of reasons. we do extensive outreach efforts to keep the bidders engaged but it is not unusual to have several bidders drop out before the phase. i don't recall the exact reasons why they did drop. >> this issue has come up several times so i think you can expect to be asked why if not all bidders submitted a bid, so i'm curious as to why we don't have the answer to that at this board meeting. it comes up every single time, we have asked every single time we have the rfp process reviewed how we can have as many of our qualified bidders so we get the best price. i feel like we're a broken record on this issue

and we should be able to reach out when people aren't bidding during the rfp process and find out exactly what those reasons are. >> i think we have records for the reasons. i know there's communication between web core, we just don't have them with us right now, supervisor kim. i think we will have the details with us. >> i think we should always have that information at these meetings. >> one of the things that i notice over and over again, we see these overs are the other factors included for them to be higher, a large project consumes much of the bidder's capacity and limiting its opportunity, inefficiencies and low productivity rates and perceived increased risk of large public works projects. this is a large project. i think we can start getting our estimators to realize it's a large project. and the same

thing about the risk, it's a public project. that really shouldn't be, that's really not a reason to say that's why they -- it's something that was known to us long before it was known to the bidder, it's large and it's public. the question i have on the other one, inefficiency and low productivity rates assumed by bidder, does that have something to do with our job site or is that something that is just generic to --. >> it's lay down area, it's logistics. there's no place for where we're at is the middle of downtown, there's no place to them for lay down area, there's no place to be able to work. it's not like any other project where you have a lot of work, you can park your trucks, you can bring in your concrete pumps anywhere you want to. so that difficulty was not accurately accounted for in our estimates. >> that would make --. >> i understand the part that we have 7 bidders, we did not expect to get 7 s but we should

have gotten more than three bids but the fact we got three bids and they are close to each other, for what it's worth even though our budget is off and the estimate is off. if these bids were far off but they were close to each other. within 10 percent, that's a good result. granted way above estimate. i think we came up, rebidding them is not going to give us better results and the scope is pretty simple. >> any further discussion? >> member s of the public? >> no. >> yes, mr. patrick. >> sorry, i made this comment before but this goes back to the joint labor agreement. i believe there are lots of companies that don't pay the highest labor rate by a matter of good policy. our wages, our company, we don't always pay

the highest wages. therefore we wouldn't be eligible to on this because i don't want to pay the highest wages. this board has made a policy that they will pay always the highest wages regardless of who they hire on this joint labor agreement. therefore we should not be surprised at the results. >> thank you. >> that's it. >> is there a motion to approve on the award? all right. okay, ed, our movers and seconders of the day. >> first and second, director kim, aye. director lee, yes. director riskin, aye. vice chair nuru, aye. harper aye, that's five ayes. >> 16 is authorizing the

executive director to execute amendment 3 to the professional services agreement with turner construction company to provide construction management oversight services by increasing the maximum computation from 45,980,000 to $57,180,000. >> i am here to report on amendment 3, which is funded through the soft cost savings through other portions of the program. the cmo contract scope has 11 specific items to it. it addressed that. they cover anywhere from any quality items to inspection, source inspections testing to technical support, source inspections are covered by isi mostly where we reference them and technical touch on waterproofing experts as we move forward. background on the contract

itself, the contract was awarded in june, 2010, had a 6 year term and it started and goes through june of next year so we still have over, almost a year left with it. the original contract amount was 38.5 million and as part of the budget, july 2013 budget, had 35.8 million dollars and back in july we amended the contract up to the budgeted amount of 45.8 million. there have been many facilities that we have been utilizing specifically for isi and the source inspection, mainly welding from fabricators throughout the west coast. originally scanska identified they were going to use 4 major facilities and they added had a minor one, added also additional facilities on top of

those original ones to cover the workload which needed isi inspection and actually an a fund was added that also required some inspections. that added to the costs for the cmo contract. cmo contract had additional spending basically broken down in three areas, the isi code inspection, which is the major one, then other essential work that has been requested of turner such as an additional set of eyes and ears during the second shift, waterproofing quality assurance and partnering and then also, which will come up as well is when the contract is amended, recommended for an additional two years through 2018 there would be those extra two years that also will be a source of additional spending by the cmo so at this time i recommend to

amend the professional services agreement with the cmo for the 11.2 million dollars as an interim basis to cover the fiscal year so there's uninterrupted services from the cmo to cover source inspections and increasing their contract total to 57.18 million dollars. if there's any questions? >> so the contract currently goes through 16? >> it goes through the end of june of 2016 so this is an amendment only for dollars, not time yet. >> and the amendment is happening because we don't foresee having enough funds now? >> the current contract, the contract halves back in july, that was only financing through the end of september. that was at the time was assuming we would have a budget at the time. now the budget process has modified since then actually proposing to go through amending their contract for the whole fiscal year at

this point, which can be covered by other soft costs. >> one. questions i asked steve, this is always modified contract as a fixed fee contract that has gone from 38 million to 45 million last july, now proposed to 57 million and we're being forewarned that it will soon go to 72 million. what's fixed about that? >> the source inspection is the important one that, that is basically, it's time and material. the fixed fee is what we've covered up to a certain point, but it does change based on the workload that's been required of the cmo with the changes that's required for code and for contract for the cmo's subcontractor isa to cover. so the fixed fee is just what has been covered at that point. but it does change

as we increase it. >> so when the staff report says that it is estimated that the current fixed fee amount will be expended approximately by the end of september, 2015, are they talking about the 45.9 that we did in july or are you talking about the 57.1? >> that would be the approved current under amendment 2 would be exhausted by the end of september. so we need to add the additional 11.8 million ?oo ?roo so that takes us to june 2016. >> that takes up to contract time at this point. at that time we would anticipate coming back in june up to the 72.7 million dollars and the addition of two years of time through june of 2018. >> so the 72.7 takes us

through what, the end of the current term? when that comes? >> it would be through june of 2018, basically the year of construction and the required support from turner. >> i mean i'm going to vote against this just because i think there needs to be more back-up. there's not much back-up in terms of this thin and we have lots more coming in. i suppose i could vote for it and just say when the 72 comes to do that, but that's not for another year that we're going to see that, right? >> as part of the back-up, actually, and it's referenced in the staff report that to refer back to the previous staff report amendment 2 goes through a very strong back-up to where specifically isi's

duration is in lieu of repeating about two to three pages of the isi support, which that's the majority of the dollars that are in this change. i just referenced it in the amendment 3 staff report to go back to amendment 2. >> it's just big jumps for just that one change. really big jumps. you are talking 38 million to 57 million, that change for isi >> the entire cmo contract, fortunately we have hit a peak. last month was probably our peak at 1.6 million. all the fabricators such as oregon iron works is now off-line. herrick stockton is now off-line. so the substantial amount, we're past the hump on the isi inspection at this point and

that's why you see a large jump now but the burn rate is going to dramatically reduce after the first of the year. >> you absolutely need an inspection service for a project of this side and magnitude. it would be irresponsible not to have these inspectors. >> oh, i agree with that. i'm just talking about the proportion that changes as compared to the original contract. turner has a lot to do. that wasn't the only thing and it seems like this has been latched on in a way that i don't know, it may be justified, maybe not, but it would be good to at least when we see something like this in the future to get some real numerical documentation as to what those hours were and how it works. otherwise let's stop calling it a fixed fee contract because it's anything but. >> did you want to say anything, steve? you want to

come to the microphone. >> i think the fixed fee contract is actually a misnomer. these are change orders to a fixed fee contract. it happens. it happens on the construction side as well as the oversight side. we have probably in addition to increased construction costs, the original budget or fixed fee of 38.5 had 8 million dollars for special inspection. we are now projecting through the full 8 year run that special inspections will top out at about 26, i think. don't quote me on that. but through the end of 2016 it's close to 23 or 24, so three times an increase in that. but in addition to that we've added 5 fte's over the last 3 or 4 years. the original budget did not contemplate

second and third shift superintendents. it did not contemplate a full-time claims manager. it did not contemplate a full-time change manager. each of those have been requested as a result of the increase in the volume of the workload. that's the increase. it's a change order, it's additional scope that was added that we were requested to perform at the request of the tjpa, so it's not saying -- it is a fixed fee contract when you establish that fee, but there's change orders to fixed fee contracts. i don't know if that helps. >> it does, it's just that -- i mean there's risk the contractor undertakes as well. >> yes. >> and when something is this big it would be very nice if our legal department or somebody said, here's the risk analysis and this is why they didn't assume the risk and you did, or we did. because i just, when you see numbers like this, it's just -- mainly the thing i want to do is say,

well, what risk did they bear? just assume that the tjpa bears all the risk of any possible change in the wind whatsoever and i just don't know, i haven't seen the analysis but they are big numbers. >> in a professional services agreement that's the type of risk that the client, the owner, typically takes. we can outline a scope of work but it's very difficult to define the exact number of hours that are going to be applied to that exact scope of work and then when the scope of work changes there are more hours applied to that changed scope of work. >> so really it's not a fixed fee contract from the beginning. it's really time and materials from the beginning. >> yes, with a guaranteed maximum price at the time pending change orders, very similar to a gmp --. >> can't get a cap out of web core, maybe somewhere we can begin to get some caps out of these things. going up and

saying you're going to be 60, wait a minute you're going to be 72 before you know it. >> 72 is the projection through 8 years is the two added years. >> you going to cap it there? >> are you asking me for a guaranteed maximum price? >> i don't know but i'm saying at some point people need to say -- we're coming to an end. >> given the scope we are seeing for the remaining whatever that is, three years, yes. the point is that i'm asked to do additional scope. if we -- i mean and that, as we talked about gmp opportunities, changes are above the gmp, right? so changes guaranteing a scope for professional scope.

>> is this typical that you see on large jobs that the contractor does? >> i would somewhat echo what steve says. if we ask in a professional services contract for additional scope we're going to expect to have to pay additionally. we have had building projects where we end up doing more inspection where we an advertise paitdd, that usually is a cost for -- it's hard to compare. we don't usually do a general construction management oversight contract like this on our contracts but if you agree to a scope and a fixed fee and the fees often kind of applies to the amount of profit and i think in the last expansion turner might have even agreed to a smaller profit, but if you ask them to do more scope you have to compensate them. >> is it because we tend to do construction management in

house? is that why we don't normally have the contracts on other city projects? >> typically for smaller projects we do the oversight, we do it with our own employees. >> so certain types of inspection services like the steel inspection we also would contract. >> but i also think there might have been oversight in terms of what the needs are, the inspection needs, so that's why we see the escalation. >> i assume it's related in large part to what was part of the conclusion of the cost and risk analysis report that we got, which is that, you know, with inaccurate engineer estimates early on and really optimistic production rates that we then also had a smaller sense of what the construction management oversight services would look like. is that based on earliest -- early estimates

that were optimistic and not realistic in terms of what the scope of this project would be? >> the assumption at the very beginning of the cmo contract with steel was thinking there would be two facilities, one shift and that's the kind of assumptions that were built into the original budget. and then as we actually got the design of the steel was actually come to fruition, it went out to and we got a contractor on board then we were able to see the full bredth of what the amount of fabrication that they were going to be doing. >> often involved more sites and more shifts than we had estimates. >> in the original estimate. >> i think this is yet another outfall of the delay in getting the design complete. perhaps the complexity of the design which is now compressed our production and construction schedule. we've been holding that 2017 date while we've had

many, many delays on the design side and so when you squeeze it down into a tighter window it's more facilities, it's second and third shifts and that's what we're now paying for. just another of many compounding increases hitting the market at a higher time, compressing the schedule, the complexity of design that are driving up the costs of this program, i think. >> do we have any member s of the public? >> no members of the public want to address you on this item. >> i will move approval. >> i have a question. what happens if we don't approve it today? do you have enough to carry a month or what is --. >> if we don't approve this today the cmo will pretty much have to stop work at the end of september, which essentially stops all inspections on welding, which stops the

project. >> there's not a stop work period that we have to go through there before that happens? >> there would probably be an additional cost because of that. that would not be helpful. >> notice. >> if i can just comment, the scope sounds, it's reasonable. it explains what it is by using -- i think we're in a position where we can't not approve it, but i think there is valuable comment in that it is a big increase and so i think for the staff i think there needs to be a substantial attachment that explains the justification for the large increase beyond a general descriptor in the staff report. i really do think that's necessary because it's a big leap and the general story

makes sense, the scope makes sense, i'm not questioning what work is to be done but i think for our records and to justify our action i think for future board items we do need a substantial attachment. >> so i definitely will add back everything when we do come for amendment 4 everything that was in amendment 2 so it's all in the same package. >> is there a second to my motion to approve? >> second. >> call roll. >> first and second and director riskin, aye. lee, aye. director riskin, chair harper, 5 ayes and item 16 is approved. >> 17, authorizing the executive director to sign and execute the block 5 easement graepltd and declaration of covenants and the agreement retemporary license for use of parcel m3 in substantially the

form as provided in the block 5 owner participation disposition and development agreement, ma west, the developer of the tjpa's block 5 property. >> bill white will report on this item. >> good morning, directors, bill white. i worked with tjpa staff on the negotiations between ocii and ma west, the developer on block 5, the dda, the disposition and development agreement. that included two agreements that were needed between tjpa and the developer, the easement agreement and the license agreement which are before you today. these have to be executed by the tjpa before the parties can close on the sale of block 5, which is, which would bring $172 million

to the tjpa for transit center construction. just by way of a little bit of background here, if you are not familiar with transpay block 5, it's on your screen. it's a little bit of an unusually configured parcel, in general it's the block between beal street and main street and then between mission and howard. as you can see, however, it's bisected by a private property called 201 mission street that's actually where the tjpa has its offices. the portion that is to be sold to the developer is actually the portion in the bottom left corner marked the teller parcel. back in april of last year, ocii put out an rfp soliciting s for block 5. the

winning bid came in, the d.b.a. provides for a 43 story office tower but it also requires open space to be provided, 15,000 square feet of open space, and it also requires the developer to make certain improvements to the future natoma street, which is also shown in the milds left on the diagram. those properties are to be retained by the tjpa for various reasons, and so in order to give the developer access to those properties and to be able to provide the open space and to do the streetscape improvements the agreements before you are necessary. tjpa is actually currently

using those properties for construction staging. there's trailers on the properties today and in the future if and when the tjpa moves forward with the train box expansion, which would be right in the middle of that block, it's going to need the open space properties and the natoma street property for construction staging as well. so it was important that the tjpa maintain control over those properties so the result was an easement agreement by which the developer would have certain easement rights to build the open space and to allow the public to come on to the property, but subject to the tjpa's right to, for one, stay on the property now until the transit center is complete and then also to suspend the easements at such time that the tjpa will need the property to build the train box extension.

and so i can, i think the agreements are summarized in your staff report and i think were provided in full in your terms. i'm happy to go over some of the details of the agreements if you'd like or if you have questions i'm happy to answer any questions. but the closing on block 5 is scheduled at this point to happen september 23, so -- and as i said these agreements must be executed prior to that time for the sale to close. >> who maintains the easements? >> the developer will have sole maintenance responsibilities during the time, of course, of the open space where the streetscape construction. obviously that's just back to tjpa during staging, any staging period.

>> okay, comments, whatever? any questions? >> you have one member -- two -- scott roland and looks like mr. patrick is following him. >> thank you, first of all i want to make my position very clear. i fully understand the significance of 175.5 million dollars. this was precisely earlier why i suggested you go for a line of credit for half a billion, not 300 million. i also believe we should be building a beautiful tower there at the corner of beal and howard and i'm glad staff finally posted this easement, it wasn't posted last weekend for some reason so people could go through it, it was a hand full of pages, i haven't had time to go through it. i can tell you there is not a single mention of a tunnel anywhere in

that easement. that's a problem because as far as i recall the tjpa has a legal mandate at some point in time to provide some kind of rail facility between the transbay terminal and the east bay. so i am asking that you defer this until mtc has had time to go through this and do some kind of engineering. trust me, this can be done but not the way it's specified in the easement. in closing i'm going to tell you exactly why i'm asking you to do this. i'm going to wind the clock back 15 years ago and it's happened with the tower. when the mayor's office went to the planning department and said you know that building there, you will be okay, 80 foot piles, knowing fully well at some point we are going to be digging right next door to it, the end result of that is that we ended up so far with an 88 million dollar buttress inside the transbay terminal

box. this will (inaudible) down the line because we have to rise over it as we rise out ftd tunnel instead of being half day down and start diving because we want to go under the bay. i'm just going to leave it at that. >> thank you. >> i apologize you are seeing so much of me but i guess i feel serious about that. we talk about phase iii. if there is a phase iii, and i think, base ds on the newspaper article and everything there will be a phase iii, that phase iii will go through this property in some manner. we should have an easement in some manner under that property. i also read the easement instructions and they have nothing to do with anything under the property, they are only having to do with where this train box extension is. a big mistake. why not save lots of money now than spend it 4 years from now when we need to

go underneath that property to get across the bay? this is the phase iii argument where we seem to refuse to talk about the gorilla in the room. phase iii needs to be dealt with, it needs to be planned for and it needs to be implemented. thank you. >> i believe that concludes members of the public that want to address you on that item. >> can we ask staff to speak to whatever extent this building, if built, would preclude an extension to the east? >> certainly. >> the building which i should point out has been now approved by ocii, it's been approved by the board of supervisors, it's been in redevelopment plan for over 10 years. there's going to be a basement to the building so i can't speak, i'm not an engineer, i can't speak to whether it's even feasible

to build something --. >> (inaudible). >> we're building, we're extending the train box in phase ii adjacent to the building. we're not going underneath it and we've worked out an easement with the developer to provide us with access to provide two locations so that we make sure that we're not disrupting their operations in the future when we extend the train box. but it does not go underneath the building, it just extends to main street. >> my understanding is that this alignment is not being considered at all so it's just a hypothetical situation. we can't answer hypothetically what you could do but this office tower is part of the redevelopment plan so it's going to be -- move forward. >> the mention was just to make sure that in the future

when we build the train box that there is no impact from this building to our train box. it's not making our construction more difficult than it needs to be, so we've got some rights and some easements from the developer through this agreement to ensure that. but we don't have any -- we are not going underneath the building, current alignment. >> marilyn murphy is on the dtx design team and she's an engineer that is not with us today but she had provided some insight that the team does have feesible alternative designs that would be available and that wouldn't be impacted by the box 5 development. there are ideas in the works that would allow for extension and taking into consideration the extension of the train box and the box 5 development. >> that's good to know. now this is way down the road for us, way, way down the road just in terms of anything we can do about it now. i think that's

everybody's point. go ahead, mary. >> can i just restate it? i got -- so there's always long-term planning. so what i heard you say coupled with what mark said is the way this agreement is written it's okay for the purposes of our train box and extension that it does not preclude some type of an underground tunnel over to the east bay because there's multiple --. >> that's right. >> -- conceptual alignments, but it would preclude if there was one particular one going through this block beyond what's necessary for our train box. so the long-term concept is not, it doesn't die or it's not precluded because of how we've set up this agreement. >> i think all of that is correct, director lee. i think there is one alternative that

may be precluded as a result of the box 5 development. >> there are other alignments that can get us over to the east bay in the future. >> that is correct. >> studied by mtc and the various partners or the city, i don't know who's studying what. >> the tjpa has certainly studied those. i don't know the expect that mtc has weighed in on those at this point. >> the conceptual alignments, who are they being proposed by? >> i think there are a variety of folks who have proposed conceptual alignments but the tjpa team certainly has looked at them. >> i will move approval. >> second. >> i will go ahead and note that director kim is absent. with that, director lee, yes. director riskin, aye.