>> i have no problem with b that concept is that - and we'll see we've got to deliberate. >> commissioner moore. >> i support the continuance for two reasons building when you have a complicated projects with the drawings someone said they've worked on it for 3 years it is for the department availability to point out what was working and not working the other point is the unit mix of market octavia is well known we've supported it with the oz who have worked on it for a number of years and thirdly, i believe that the issue of liveability is a very important one i like to the department to cloth that the clerk will take the roll and unit 3 the one that has the bedroom on the first floor and the lincoln the

basement is less than tenant housing we're going backwards we can't basically revert to what 3 tenant you housing we have to create and bring something to the market that is a minimum rather than two horn lincoln so i'd like to carefully have the department a long time and have a hard ti full set of drawings in a timely manner that is a great moment to support the project in its continuation and revisit tweaking it when it comes back. >> commissioner vice president richards.

>> i move to continue. >> second. >> commissioner vice president richards is there a specific date. >> as long as the project sponsor feels comfortable to come back and commissioner johnson are you amenable to commissioner vice president richards direction so. >> certainly the direction commissioner hillis gave is good some of the directions that commissioner moore gave as well needs to be addressed. >> okay commissioner antonini. >> no, i was just going to second it and try to find a date. >> commissioner, i imaginations he previously on the other continuance we're slammed through june and now. >> sorry to interrupt in this case it is clear good direction and maybe on the march 24 within a week. >> it is a little bit clearer than the last gentleman you didn't - >> that's fine march 24 is

available. >> that the drawings a week before i'm not going to accept the drawings you've given to me and does the project sponsor understand that. >> i'm sorry excuse me. >> you would need to sentiment your drawings to the planner within one week if today. >> not a problem. >> thank you. >> okay. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> nothing. >> very good commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to march 24 commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner wong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to one with commissioner johnson voting against commissioners. >> on the variance to continue to the dates. >> excuse me. mr. zoning administrator thank you. >> commissioners that places

you under your discretionary review calendars i'm pleased i received notice that your last dr 17 has been withdrawn so we're on the last item today item 1 ab dr man a mandatory discretionary review and zoning administrator will consider the variance. >> good afternoon, commissioners wayne planning department staff the item before you is mandatory discretionary review to legalize work that was consequences u done within the scope as tantamount to demolition the project began in 2010 when the department of building inspection issued a notice of

violation requiring repair of the subject building a detached garage that was partially collapsed at that point he obtained the necessary permit to repair it but the dry rot as present that requires replacement from the interior framing the planning department was not made aware and as a result, the work continues exceeded what was need it in the planning code on april 2015 it was suspended for sxooed the scope of work it has remained partially finished the department has one comment from the public specifically correcting want mistake the application and also the case report you've reviewed rewarding the subjective roll call staff it is a detached

single-family home exempted the rent control ordinances, however, the union clarified clarified the subject building is protest by the referencing as angle 8 unit residential building they don't objectivity but wants want commission to see it will be rehabbed housing which would exempt it from the controls and it is important to note that the disapproval the project will not restore the residential unit they've not received any public comment regarding the subject overall they find it appropriate that arrows a units uninhabitable for many years and other alternatively the structure that existed in that location for over one htdz years the rent-controlled is the needs for simple extensive repairs but that unit will be lost whether

this is pleased not take discretionary review that concludes my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> okay dr requester please. >> mandatory discretionary review sorry project sponsor. >> commissioners i bob i'm representing the levenson family at 336 pierce we have a picture showing the condition of the building prior to the construction i put it on the overhead illness how to operate the overhead it's under as you can see the condition prior to us taking out the building permit application we didn't know with we took it out more 50 percent it looks bad but it is waterways in worse shape

we thought up to 50 percent to save as much of the building as possible and incidentally everything is in with the same foundation and footing it is the same height and bulk everything is ideal to this except the work line here instead of as you can see this is a pitched roof my fingers is here it is a little bit pitched and evened off under the plans and even it has been lowered a capture of inches so going back ideally the same foot's as the old building the, height and bulk and we thought we could going do this under the repair permit i have with me an engineer and the project consultant to answer any questions you may have thank you

very much. >> thank you. >> yeah. i'm a consultant let me show you this is the exterior of the building show you this is the interior building as you can see so much delipidated to work over there you have to shore the building this is how we shored the building as you can see the foundation next door go is bending to the other properties we have an employee trying it fix the foundation fix the foundation and supporting the upper portion of the building it is so badly delipidated no way to hold the building are safe any portion of the building so that is what

seems to be the demolition beyond the scope of work as you can see from the first picture nothing to be saved and there is nothing, in fact, left in front of the building if you see the roof the amount of grass is greg on top of the roof and basically the weight of the grass and the rain and wood and stipulate all is very unsafe by no choice to save the building and during the crosswalks things happened when you know you open it and and a we tried tie save it but that is impossible you know let me show you this is a portion of the roof which we tried to a safe you see the portion of the roof is

basically eaten by termites and dry rot we tried to hold it what can we do how much can you save we tried our best unfortunately, it happened to be a little bit beyond the scope of work if you have me questions i'll be glad to answer them. >> okay. thank you. >> anything else from the project sponsor? okay. if not opening it up for public comment >> thank you, commissioners i'm david i am an owner of the property abutting the rear of pierce street we ask you deny the project on the on the grounds it is not a demolition in kind but an expansion of the existing building that was issued a repair permit but as

everyone has acknowledged the owner down the road the existing building and began constructing a new this and asking to replace a dr in in kind to have the structure as exactly as that was no expansion was proposed that is from the application were factual the building height would be the same the building the - is turn around the previous structure i have copies of that as well i can distribute obviously the shaping is changed between the years of the photos if you notice the roof line ohio

this building would never have been approved that is exactly the property without a setback this is a non-conforming use behind the fence but now a non-conforming on a mid block open space immediately on the property line on 3 sides the owner did that it is hidden from the street and can build a bigger building but visual to the people that abut the rear of the property i ask you not to approve that project thank you. >> okay>> next speaker. >> next item, please. >> good afternoon lauren i live on pierce street it is immediately next door to 336 pierce we oppose the variance because the building that is partially

constructed currently is a lot bigger than that currently was and completely contrary to what the gentleman said we also have photographs that is the view the back of our rear of our gardens it is directly into the new building i'll show you this. >> what what looked like before and (inaudible) that still exists as you can see (inaudible) that's quite discrepancy that looks at directly into my bedroom and my neighbors bedrooms now and then none that have that was there

before this is a completely different building than before we have major concerns about our privacy and we think are not being address we've spoken to the gentleman and explained to him about our concerns but absolutely nothing has been done from the interim from 2015 to now and in addition, we feel like our next door neighbor has done nothing to address our concerns or show respect in this process didn't approach us or anything else the neighbors 80 neighborhood to discuss this about the building and haven't done so since at the meeting last year, we also tell him we were concerned about the lead paint pealing that into our backyard we'll have 3 small children under the age of 5

living in our building yet nothing it done about that we feel the gentleman levenson the owner has been consistently ignored the orders that of this panel and the department of building inspection that was sited in flooding to 2015 to do if you go about that when we did he didn't glow the proper process and building a larger building it took us to complain to get it halted and now we have several misrepresentations to you today, this building is exactly the same as before not and the. >> your time is up. >> >> any additional speakers public comment.

>> good afternoon, commissioners i'm david lloyd i lois lane i live over pierce street across the street from the building that is being talked about and i lived in the neighborhoods and i'm a homeowners since 2004 and over that period of time i've seen the neighborhood from a renter neighborhood to homeowners neighborhood it is been a positive change the i believe that the section one 34 covered the backyard to the proposals o properties in that neighborhood that sounds like it a variance to remove and add on not just an existing building but actually you know remove that whole thing and build into that space i feel that is a negative move for the neighborhood that seems to be more of a move that brings in more transient renters, etc. and

i'm happy i like the neighborhood the way it is with more homeowners so i'll move to deny this. >> thank you. >> okay is there any additional public comment? >> - good afternoon. my name is a katie i live on pierce the top floor unit next door i wanted to basically repeat everything that lauren said my objections i've been the building since 2008 i was there when the side of the building collapsed and what was there before not four windows proposed not a front door the door is on the other side it is a completely different plan the only thing was there before a

sliding glass door 90 the middle and since i know the complainants since 2009 nothing was done we had a roof was sunken in and lots of mosquitos and rat problem the neighborhood so we're eagle in there i wanted to add additional things. >> can i add a question did the wall fall down in 2008, 2009 did you make a complaint. >> i did i believe that was opened and closed to gain rear assess that was closed at this point. >> what did the wall fall down you it was early 2009. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon. i live in

pierce rights next door to the promote building i'd like to block it being built i've only been living there for 4 months what i can tell the building the front is not maintained as katie and languishing said paint chip all over the place i have a picture from my window and as you can see all the rust and i know paint chip off a complete eyesore and before in front of the property building i have no doubt the building in the back be not quite up to standard. >> okay. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. and commissioner hillis.

>> so this is a new territory for us so i think two or 3 questions one along the lines you know we're losing and got rent-controlled unit and the project sponsor brought this up i'm confused how that works if you go and demo a unit without proper permits that allows you to get around - as you how does that work. >> give you a little bit of background on the rent-controlled with the roof deck they look at the entire lot with the single-family dwelling at the rear a single-family home at the rear not subject to rent control it looked at the entire lot even it is a single-family

they're exempt if rent control this will be subject to rent control now further to that what the implementation moving forward with the building that is up to the rear deck we don't make those detectors the permit bra is not a technically a demolition but under the planning code is an alteration permit ultimately up to the rear deck why the building is still subject to rent control going forward certainly an issue of something illegally door-to-door a rent control building but that is up to the richard ultimately. >> it - rerehabilitating

whatever the rear dent board t there's not much of a backyard. >> correct. >> that's a condition that exists in places but not one we've ever approved you know and new constructions i think i don't think we want to want to put in something like that this is now considered new construction i don't think we want to allow for a garage the back you have to drive through the building and actually losses our rear yard - if so a building with an excited units where the

garage is or the building coming down to one story you can help the neighbors and still get the unit but no garage i don't know that that you'll losses the rent control so i don't think we have the answers today so that may be one i'll want to get some of the answers and make an intelligent decision but those are the questions. >> there are many serious issues and concerns that were brought up today by the public comment may not have been fully aware of previously one of the reasons we have public hearings in regards to the rent control we have a great working relationship with the rent board they've been helpful and it's been my experience they maybe hesitant to make the determines to us about the rent control

status but the property owners or property owners can ask for as demonstratitermination on th can look at under the circumstances warned and under the planning code there are provisions to take the off-street parking and some of oscar spaces are required to replace the bicycle parking we could see rather than the second story a first story or to the commission desire there is nothing back there those are all things you can consider. >> right. >> okay. >> i am not those are good maybe a unit there but a second story unit and see the garage go

away but the ramifications but guidelines from the rent board on that that didn't does either way. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. a lot of carriage houses the back i know collins one street off of geary and a number of streets that has this type of situations that has been there a long, long time and would it seems to me that some of the pictures we're looking at this picture of the opponents before you get up but i think that staff has or dbi is looking at the newly constructed building based on what was there the same height or visually the same height not up for us to determine mr. sanchez you want to weigh in. >> yeah. sincerely certainly can be difficult to determine

that the bulk of the building is gone and it is important some of the photos look like they're taken from vantage points you can see that is taller there is some question about that and we can look at that further but it has it's challenges and largely rely on that testimony if neighborhoods but that's helpful. >> when they have to restore in kind ever windows nooes needs to be the same place. >> not necessarily the replacement will be generally the same envelope but is certainly as long as larger would be our concern. >> to the one commenter was concerned about privacy issues we have to know the amount of distance from that structure to the structure in question

because if it is thirty or 40 feet it is a link distance away and we're a lot closer with people in windows that look into our homes they put the shades down i'm not concerned about that but also at the beginning i think that was i forget of staff member said that one way or another not public school rent-controlled but if at the find the rebuild it so 13wu78 to involve more 50 percent it is a new structure that's the interpretation? >> i want to confer but to clarify staffs statement the denial of the application will not result in restoration of the rent-controlled unit because of the situation we're in that's what staff was saying and yeah. it looks like this you know it was a carriage house and

oftentimes those things are not occupied and deteriorate over the years but the thinking outside the box is trying to restore that whether there's a garage in there or isn't provide housing so to me sounds like a good idea i'm in charge as well as the caveats are answered as far as the proper height and being restored as much as possible to what was there before i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> okay commissioner vice president richards. >> i guess a couple of thoughts first to the zoning administrator there was nothing there today the back of the lot and the project sponsor promoted this building would it be approvalable under the code? i believe that is it in excess of the density currently so something that as a new building

new feature and unit here in. >> okay. >> and once the unit is down the road it is considered nothing there>> correct. and this is like building a brand new unit. >> there is a provision that allows for a construction of non-conforming unit that means that something is exceeds the density can be reconstructed that is a relatively new change the code from the last capture of years how to invest in a flexibility handing of those types of matters. >> the lag times because the building is falling down i mean, i wouldn't want to live next to a structure it is falling down with rats and raccoons and other things i have serious questions this this as exactly as the last

one no evidence to me you've heard the property line windows i do like where commissioner hillis is going to preserve a housing unit and get rid of of a funky situation people drive through a building to get to a small cottage whatever it approval would be a one-story building with no parking under the way things could go with the change the entryway you could put a unit there looks like it matches the building that would be a better win important you and the housing stock vietnamese. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you another confusing case i thought 4 61 valencia was it

i'll start off with a question for staff what happens if we don't approve i'm clear that building is already there; right? >> so, yes planning department staff my understanding is that if - so the the demolition has occurred if you just disapprove that then quietly have a violation respect because a demolition without planning commission approval then a planning code violation now go through dr which is what we're trying to do in terms of the item before you for the demolition that has happened the commission hands are kind of

tied in that disproval didn't do anything to what is there not for these them to put a building back arrest take a building down the action that needs to happen is about the demolition that's occurred. >> what then are we are doing here. >> we're looking for our direction how to move forward the denial is into moving into an unanimous circle we need to get off the merry go round but go back and questions about what it was was maybe having something smaller hoping to get our direction how to marred those are all things within our purview and looking at the

building permit application. >> i get that by that looks like the new construction is there in terms of options to configure not a driveway or make that smaller so no variance in the rear yard those are off the table. >> they're not there with prosecutor permits yeah here on behalf of the appellant. >> they've exceeded the scope of their permit it they've voirltd they were authorized to do. >> i'm disturbed i don't understand how dbi has a permit and even the pictures that can't be repair it is dry rot and the whole wall is not there that's a demolition i'm disturbed by

that. >> yeah. so if we disapprove it will they be forced to knock it done and clear the backyard and open space. >> that's porsche one of the options. >> thank you just to clarify it would be deemed and legal. >> the structure. >> yeah. the question how to move forward i mean the action is what the ultimately there this is a building permit one permit to make entertainment commission to this building from largely reconstruct that the hole project before you so, i mean your within your rights it can't say be constructed. >> commissioner moore. >> make a mistake and ask for forgiveness later this is extremely difficult that puts us

both a awkward situation what disturbs me aside from the moving forward the it's trusts between the adjoining neighbors has expanded quite a few years that's a condition of the existing building in the front it less than ideal the street a healthy neighborhood for people to take care of their homes and you'll expect that not contributing to any comfort with the building the rear looks at similar to the expression of the front building as a lot of mix and on top of that we're being asked to potentially continue by which continues i'll be more declined to take a position of the demolition ensue it sets perimeters of what is beyond

this commission to decide that is rear yard into the weeds needs to be restored and that might all find that appropriate for might want single-family dwellings in front of of the position number one and number 2 we'll probable brooebl proebl unit that causes problz more than are currently brought forward in today's decision let's more privacy and so forth but we should leave all those options open with additional guidance on its own merit which means if i understand both zoning administrator and staff

correctly that we need to do something so i'm prepared to move on the demolition with the caveat anything yoond that needs to go through the same legitimate set of approvals and dot all the i's and cross the t's with the planning department's with any other project we get get rid of the past and move into the future and not determining the property in the back with the interpretation what automotive instructed us to do. >> we need the entire action now this is an alteration permit we can't approve demolition at this point if we could i don't think we are ready for action today unfortunately so perhaps continue to june and get some understanding from the commission you want to see as

options come back in june or later with some different feedback some options for the commission to consider. >> i'm you couldn't ask if i may for the gentleman to inform us about mid block open space patterns and density around the heights and influence over the carriage homes if it is typical approximately to transit that supports a building without additional parking spaces all those things would be a complete disclosure of all things to leaving our minds up to feel what is in balance with the rest of the neighborhood that's the way pragmatically suggesting going forward.

>> i could provide some of the answers today, i don't have the transient information i could tell you that the there's not a pattern of mid block structures on that particular block, in fact, i'm liking intap no other structure mid block rear yard structures the block. >> and commissioner moore if i can add one other detail the lot pattern on this block is unique in that one parcel stretches deeper than the adjacent parcels so this structure is not

adjacent to either neighbors but it is adjacent to properties facing it's - oak street. >> more precinctly. >> on the other rear lot and the configuration can be changed. >> i had a question for the gentleman so actually, the question of you how long is the current owner on the property someone answer that, please. >> i'm sorry. >> how long has the current owner owned the property >> since 91 i mean any explanation about the condition the building the rear and not a proper response to the

deterioration of that building. >> to some decree the building was vacant for a going 10 years so and it was one condition the owner was working on the front of the building the front building i am sorry and they're putting in improvements to the front of the building and wanted to then program this improvement into the past into the back building i'm sorry at a later stage so they bought was in the front building had a lot of issues when they purposed they have been programming their money to completely rae do the back building. >> also, this is a permit it is ideal we took measurements and all of this before we went in it is the permit was repaired and shown on that the height

that's been built. >> in terms of parking ankle the parking was there. >> i understand the parking was there there is assess from the driveway from the front of the building no parking at the front only the driveway and the garage was removed you can have the tan dumb spaces within the. >> we can move the garage you can see the picture on the overhead you see height of the building exactly 20.9 20 foot 9 inches we have a 8 foot ceiling i'd like to have a units on the bottom because one more unit into the heart and souls of san francisco. >> yeah. >> no, no, no i'm not saying we can get the garage we can

definitely. >> thank you those are all the questions i have unless the commission has to the questions. >> commissioner antonini. >> i agree with commissioner moore i think that we have to continue this and give the project sponsor some options to come forward with i mean, i could see approval of this because you know it is basically, if it operationally is as a matter of fact, reconstructing charge was there this is the simplest thing but not to the sentiment and some things proposed could make the building lower and or make two units or perhaps doing this but those are possible things and whatever we have a demolition we need it in place a replacement structure it was, in fact, the

same building so, yeah i'll let you speak in agreeing mini have a question but if it is the sentiments of the commission they want some other options you'll have a couple of months the construction exactly as what was there or reconstruction of a new building that will you know include either two units or one smaller units or something along those lines will benefit everyone concerned he and have a clearer path it approval that will be my interest probable i mean, i'll move to continuance to june 24th is that our date marry. >> june 28th i believe. >> second. >> commissioner richards i guess personally i would like to see the building lowered and get

rid of the garage it solves the private and height and encourage you getting into the weeds of asphalt or driveway and create a green yard and consider which you come back maybe you could see if you can add another unit where the driveway is so there are two units everybody wins that's what i like to see. >> eject commissioner hillis. >> i'll support that i think that is a good direction to go and you know bringing the height of that building down and possibly adding two bedrooms. >> commissioner johnson. >> i wanted to make sure the project sponsor hears those

clear directives. >> staff have a comment is that clear. >> within piece comments that you have i'm the engineer the general contractor if you look at the projection front of the of the building the back has four board their 8 inch that means the back of the building is one inch turn around the front and we think the back of 20 feet and parts of it straight and . >> excuse me. >> you said it is a bigger project than before. >> no the foundation did not change we built even the existing foundation. >> hang on. >> commissioner johnson. >> all right. thanks

this actually, i agree with a lot of the comments just a quick question for staff would that be possible for the project to go through the accideresidential d team. >> yeah. david lindsey if we get an alter project we'll take a comment in the residential design team. >> it gets to commissioner moore's questions about what is prevailing the neighborhood and the design. >> yeah. we'll look at, of course. >> supervisor scott wiener. >> a consideration for another building in the rear i would last week that building to be smaller the lot is 27 foot 5 and it is a zero will the line to the property line i'd like to to be

setback in order to have two units or one units on the ground floor that still is large i like it to shape itself to be more sensitive to the property it will be part of your study an option to entertain. >> commissioner richards a clarify question what is it is not a complete dwelling unit only a construction project. >> it has a sheer wall. >> (inaudible). >> end up with the same thing. >> okay. thank you. >> if i may address the commission briefly he said to clarify the idea that was throne up about a second unit but the zone will not allow for a second unit in this case. >> could not allow for a

second. >> no, i don't believe so we can looked at the provisions by that is limited and i mriblt not citywide we'll look at it and see if there a postal and something the commission will consider. >> commissioner moore. >> if that's the story it changes the case mr. lindsey said no way of doing it anyway, i appreciate what is doable and what is the prevailing pattern both. >> well, two different things the pattern will be analyzed as part of the design review what is proposed and oats density question whether a second unit could be perhaps included the structure you in the rear is something that mr. sanchez i think just said we'll have to look at i don't think we can

answer that question here today. >> i understand i want to do make sure we are basic following your direction clear ideas what is doable and not. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> just a staff regarding the audi know one of the supervisors said he wanted to introduce the legislation citywide and perhaps by june we'll have a better idea that passes or passed. >> okay. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to june 16th on that motion commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> commissioners. >> i'll condition the variance to the dates specified thank

you. >> thank you. >> commissioners that places us on general public comment i have no speaker cards general public comment not seeing any, general public comment is closed. and the meeting is adjourned. >> parks and places of communicated and thanks to the mayor and the department of technology and supervisor farrell and google. we had a very very unique partnership that was able to bring wifi to our most heavily

used parks and squares. >> parks in particular are really important way of life and quality of life and so is connectivity. bringing those two things together in a project like this is right on target with what san francisco is and wants to be. >> it's all about breaking apart the divide. the people with expensive data plan can have access to information and economy. this is really breaking down the digital divide and giving people across the spectrum the opportunity to information and giving them mobility and freedom. >> particularly by investing in connectivity in park spaces we are also ensuring the connection to digital inclusion opportunities and parks are designed for all neighborhoods. >> people are on the move. they are no longer chained to their desk

tops at home. people can accomplish a lot and we prefer them being here an enjoying the outdoors and nature. given all the mobile community and mobile information that's available. we thought it was important to make it for our parks acceptable for everyone and give everyone the opportunity to live and to work and be at the parks at the same time. >> our full mission in life is to give them access to the internet, give them access to information. in san francisco you don't have to be bottled up in an office. you can be around and enjoy your work anywhere. it's great for the local community here and it means a lot to me. >> in the park, you are people that can teach you about the trees in the park and you can go to parks and recreation

.org and having wifi in our parks makes it more accessible. if you want more information about how to enjoy wifi in san francisco parks, go to for

order. would you call the roll, please, madam secretary.

>> for the record director kim is in route. director gee, here. directorisis, present. director nuru, present. director harper, present as well. mr. chairman, you do have a quorum. >> okay, we have -- next item. >> next item is communications and directors i'm not aware of any. >> and next item. >> item 4 is board of directors new and old business. >> no hands waving, next item. >> item 5 is public comment which is an opportunity for member s of the public to address the board on matters that are not on today's calendar and we have mr. robert, followed by mr. finebaum mr. robert? >> good morning, my name is steve roberts and i'm a member

of the rail passenger association of california, a public transportation advocacy group. i thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning. because of the benefits of reduced automobile usage, fully leveraging caltrains electrification project which thereby will increase caltrain ridership and its revenue performance and financial performance, also reducing green house gas misses, facilitating transit-oriented development, the extension of caltrain service to transbay terminal is one of our association's key priorities. any actions that delay this vital project and snarl it in endless planning reduce its operational flexibility or capacity are of a concern to our association. the rail passenger association of california recommends a focused effort to begin construction of the approved shovel ready extension to transbay terminal.

thank you. >> mr. finebaum >> good morning, i'm bob finebaum, i'm a member of the citizen's advisory council, but i am not speaking on behalf of the council, i am speaking only on behalf of myself. i'd like this disclaimer to be carried over to any other testimony i give this morning. the cac was supposed to have received a presentation from the planning department on the rail yard study on tuesday. that was abruptly taken off the agenda and i understand it was supposed to have been presented to you as well but is not on your agenda. this study is a feesibility study, it's part 1 of a 5-part study envisioned by the planning department. this part 1 is already 8 months overdue.

it was supposed to have been delivered in june of 2015 and it's february and it still has not been delivered fully. anticipating that this is going to be the time lag in producing the results of the other 4 parts of the study, we're looking at the possibility of applying for funding under their timetable of sometime in the middle of the second trump administration. now, as fiduciary duties of this board i think one of them is to see that the caltrain comes to the downtown terminal as quickly as possible. and i urge you to consider carefully what impact this protracted study is having on that goal. thank you. >> okay, that concludes

members of the public that wanted to address you on this item. >> closed session? >> go into closed session. pursuant to government (inaudible) scheduled for discussion in closed session so we can go ahead and . >> all right a, the tjpa board of directors of march 10, 2016 is back in open session and we will report on the announcement of closed session. i am pleased to report that the transbay joint powers authority board of directors has unanimously approved an agreement with f4 transbay partners for the tjpa sale of parcel f for 160 million in cash at closing and 115 in closing at f4 with the adjacent property at 540 howard and build on both parcels. f4 is a joint parcel, limited

partnership, and affiliate of heinz and broad street principle investments llc an affiliate of goldman sachs. urban and heinz own a combined 10 percent. par tell f generally with a height of 750 feet sat last height in san francisco for a super tall building and the last high rise with rights to connect to the transbay transit centers roof top park with a pedestrian bridge. the closing otd 160 million dollar sale will occur no later than the summer of this year. the proceeds of the sale of par tell f will be used for capital cost for phase i of the transbay project. the sale of parcel f is contingent on the oci board and *r giving f4 exclusive rights to negotiate a disposition and development agreement of fci for the purchase price of 4 million dollars. alternatively f4 may

attempt to negotiate a fair market price market price pars3 with oc would retain absolute and xwlet discretion over every term of a disposition and development agreement with f4, other than price and the outside closing date, including project design and a number and type of affordable housing units to be included in the development of block 4 so that the tjp and the city meet the requirements that 35 percent of the housing units built in the transbay district are affordable. parcel f is not entitled, f4 will be required to apply for entitlement from the san francisco planning commission. f4 currently plans to build up to 200 residential units in the parcel f tower in addition to two to three hundred hotel rooms apblds 250,000 to 425,000 square feet of office space. the number of affordable housing units in the parcel f

tower will be determined by the planning commission and ocii that concludes my report out. >> next item, please. >> moving into your regular calendar, eye 1010 is authorizing the executive droetor to execute an agreement for independent auditing services with varinek, trine, day and company for an amount not to exceed $144,000 for a period of 3 years. >> motion to approve and a second. >> are there member s of the public wanting to aye.isis, aye. director, five ayes, 10 is approved.

11 is approving an agreement with the california public employees retirement system to join the california employer's retiree benefit trust program. >> sarah is also here to answer any questions on this item. >> yeah, what i want to know is what's the legal requirement for us here? post retirement benefits is killing ac transit, so i want to make sure before we get involved this is something we have to do. >> yes, tjpa does promise a portion of retirement, we do not cover dental or vision for most employees because we purchase our health care for active employees from caliper we fall under the public

employees hospital care act, so under that we are required to pay the minimum towards retiree health care. right now that's $125 a month, it goes up a little bit every year based on the cpi, the medical portion of the cpi, so usually each year it's a 3 or 4 dollar a month increase. we don't currently have any retirees eligible for this benefit, but if we did, we would be contributing $125 per month for that retiree for their health care premium. >> health care benefits for them. >> yes. >> is there a tenure requirement before you are eligible from day one, am i eligible? >> yes, you are eligible from day one, there is no vesting requirement, but to be eligible you need to be retired from tjpa and you need to have health benefits at the time you retire. >> what governs this agreement between the tjpa and its

employees? >> individual employment agreements. >> i think the city a number of years ago in going to the voters changed its retiree health benefit vesting requirements such that i think it used to be immediate vesting then they changed it to 5 years you are partially vested and kind of work up, i think 20 years or something to get fully vested. it seems like at least for new employees something that we should adopt here. i think that's been becoming a best practice. >> remember, we are under calpers, we are not under the city's retirement. >> it's not a matter of city or -- other calpers have done the same. we should explore vesting, we should benchmark against other cities or districts in the state. i think the city found that its liability was much -- it could

manage the growth of its liabilities significantly by changing the vesting. obviously different for a 29,000 person organization than one that has a dozen people, but still a good practice. >> certainly, that's absolutely something we could look at for new agreements looking forward. we don't, because we are so small, tend to hire very often but we certainly can take a look at that. whether new employees have a vesting requirement or not we would certainly still recommend pre-funding the liability through this trust. >> can we thin item for a month while we figure that out? because i would figure more comfortable if kupb sifrt stepbt with the city. >> we can. i would say those that making a change to the template of the employment agreement wouldn't change the agreement with calpers and it wouldn't change our liability. the actuary who did the

valuation did so on a current basis, so only tjpa employees. employees hired within the next 10 years would be considerd on a new valuation. on a pay as you go basis is approximately $206,000 and on a pre-funded bases at 6 1/2 percent discount rate is $40,000 less than that, so we certainly can make changes to our employment agreement template moving forward, but that won't change the amount of the liability that we currently report. >> i would feel more comfortable with knowing that was in place before i approve this agreement, even if it doesn't impact the doesn't impact the pars3 agreement itself . >> this time sensitive?

>> we made to make the payment to calpers before june 30th. >> i'd say we can wait for that. >> continue this with that amendment. >> okay, next item. >> continuing item 11 to the april calendar. april 12 is approving the minutes of the february 11, 2016 meeting. >> move approval. >> first and second, all those in favor. >> aye. >> seeing none opposed the

special miplts -- minutes of the february 29 meeting are approved. 14 is a presentation on the operations study. >> in 2014, directors, ises corporation was hired to prepare an operations and maintenance report. now that we've issued on march 4 it's important for the public and members of the board to see the assumptions that went into preparing the operations and maintenance study report. to that end i'd like to ask john thomas of ises corporation to come up and give the presentation for our phase i study. >> thank you, maria, and thanks to the board for having me. it's an honor to be a part of this exciting project so i'm going to present the operations and maintenance reports.

again, my name is jonathan thomas, i work with ises corporation, i've been heading up the operations and maintenance planning operations for the past 15 years. ises is a consulting and management firm that works for several municipalities, corporations, we're based out of atlanta but we work a lot in the pacific northwest. today we'll discuss the design of the facility and the impacts on maintenance, the methodology behind the report, the basis for the cost estimates, we'll have a renewal estimating then we'll talk about funding. for the transit center's design for a hundred year operation, to that end, durable materials have been selected, these are low maintenance long

life cycle materials such as metal panel systems around the exterior, wear resistant surfaces sufrp as stainless steel on the interior, hard floor surfaces and high performance coating for steel which can withstand some flex. there's a relatively low maintenance hvac system per square foot that incorporates natural and low energy mechanical ventilation up on the bus deck. the use of water source heat pumps distributes maintenance out and cuts down on the need for central utilities generation. utilities are submeters so tenants can be billed for their usage.

we'll talk now a bit about the model in the report. these are the line items we estimated in the report. these came from some of them and we collected some of them as well. essentially the report is intended to present a total cost to the ownership model for the tjpa all estimates foertd report are in current year dlars, contract or overhead is included but please note that the retail and tenant space is excluded because that's envisioned to be covered by the tenant. for the maintenance , janitorial and ground estimates we applied cleaning standards to come up with our staffing estimate. we applied localized 75th percentile wage rates to come up with the costs and this wage rate is expected

to anticipate full union employment. driving the report are these service levels so this slide shows some quaul litative points on the service levels expected through the model in the report. maintenance activities are estimated to be based on a comprehensive preventative maintenance program. for the janitorial, the surfaces are expected to look clean to most of the users. it's not expected to be maintained to a showpiece facility level, but it is expected to be a welcoming environment for users. same thing with the grounds, up on the roof park in particular, the grounds will appear neat, plants appear vigorous and disease and pests will be

maintained upon observation. the security estimate, which denise will talk about in the second part of this presentation, is based on the 2015 conops report and anticipated a mix of employees and police department staff. we applied estimated loaded rates. this also excludes the submetered tenant spaces and includes utilities such as electricity, water, sewer, fuel oil for generators and trash. information technology services were also estimated, including the two-way radio das, the virtual network license, data network service and basic data and telecom service. external service contracts that could

potentially be managed directly by the tjpa were also estimated. this includes the phase i elevator and escalator maintenance, the mission square sculpture stability testing and the roof park landscaping which is going to be managed by the installing contractor for the first two years. multiple insurance products and policies were also estimated by the tjpa insurance carrier. facilities renewal was also estimated. this is also known as capital renewal. and we estimated this in a similar manner to the maintenance, janitorial and grounds where we measured and counted building components and we applied localized life cycles and costs then we annualized 50 year costs by year to come up with an average annual cost. administrative costs were also included. these are to account

for the normal operations of a facility such as this, so the tjpa management was estimated as well as an estimate for operations contingency and the operations contingency accounts for annual nruk waises in annual o and m costs. so the basis of the cost estimates, we estimated by program component so we've got separate estimates for the phase i of the transit center, the bus ramp, the roof top park and we also included operations contingency and tjpa management. on this slide you'll see the estimated staffing required for each line item. 108 total staff anticipated, 73 of those are anticipated to be security

and denise will expand upon that. so in the tjpa line agent item it is anticipated these services will be covered. these are normal services expected for an organization such as this managing a facility such as the transbay transit center. and i will talk a bit about facilities renewal. examples of facilities renewal costs are, these are the costs to renew the life of systems and components of the building. so when systems and components reach their, the ends of their economic life cycle, that means when it makes more sense to replace them than it does to maintain them, these are examples of those points such as interior lighting replacements, switch gear replacements, multiplex pump system replacements. in 2053 we have a big spike in supply

piping networks, park level skylights, for instance, then in 2058 we have a large spike when major systems are going to be smraited for renewal. this klus the hvac networks , the electrical networks and the drain pipe systems. the reality is these replacements aren't necessarily made on a one-time basis for the whole facility, they are typically phased in as needed so the costs are actually smoothed out a little bit more than we might model. we'll talk a little bit about funding at this point. though the confirmed operating revenue covered the operations and maintenance costs, 4.7 million from the legacy rm2 fund for the old transbay transit center, which will be covered over, also community benefits district will be putting in approximately 1.5

million, so currently around 6.2 million is confirmed annually. other anticipated operating revenue to close the gap from the master lessee retail rents will be coming in, the use of the promotional platform will generate some revenue for the tjpa as well for advertising, the master lessee will kupb tripbt to the operations and maintenance costs for certain portions of the facility which they will maintain such as the ampi theater and the grand hall. rents will also come in from greyhound and amtrak for spaces dedicated to their use. contributions are also anticipated to come in from the transit agencies that will be using the facility including ac

transit and sfmt, lastly it is an ticipated that the legacy rm2 fund can be increased to help cover the gap. does anybody have any questions about the operations and maintenance portion of this presentation? >> good. >> obviously we will wait and hear the security plan. looking at the staffing plan, i just wanted to get a better sense, i look forward to that presentation. the master lessee, have you run any numbers behind the scenes to get a sense of what that revenue will look like? >> he didn't do that but the consultant that put together the matter of facter lessee rfp did but that's for our information to look at when we get the responses. >> just to get a sense of wra -- what you think that revenue

will be. when you are talking about security on the sfpd, are we talking about actual police or a --. >> the security police, you will hear about that in a moment but working with the san francisco police department we looked at two models and denise will talk about that. one was all sfpd and one was a hybrid of sfpd and a security company. >> one of the things i think our master lessee has we are making payments to the master lessee for its efforts and i don't see that in here. >> mark will address that with our pmcp team. >> can you repeat the question? >> yeah, as i understand it, our rfp's assumed that the master lessee would be reimbursed. >> correct. >> for certain of its xwepbses. >> that's correct. >> and i see we've got revenue

in here anticipating coming from the master lessee or i don't know if it's real revenue or if it's in kind services, but con trib because for o and m for areas of responsibility. but it's a two-way thing here and do we have our part going to the master lessee in these numbers? >> no, these numbers, the deal, when the deal comes out from master lessee it will be structured in different ways so we're not sure what we will get back but it will all come out in the end. >> in our rfp as i understand it, the idea was to have the master lessee do a lot of the maintenance of the building and things like that. >> they are going to do all of it, yes. >> for which we were going to pay them. >> correct. >> reimburse a lot of what their expenses were. >> correct. >> so this, this is an all-in,

an all-in study, as i understand it. this is what operations and maintenance of the building p will be. >> most of this money is going to go in our payments to the master lessee, at least a lot of it. at least the o and m part. >> we anticipate owing some to them but we're not sure what that number will be. >> they're going to be doing a lot of this stuff. >> all the janitorial and maintenance estimates, yes, correct. i would just add that when we do get the then we start getting a sense of what the expenditure side is looking like, i think it's going to be not just looking at the revenue side but the expenditure side too. we're going to have to look at what we can afford and whether we can afford odor-free bathrooms. we may have to adjust. >> 108 people? >> right, the security side which is one of the big cost drivers. >> that's right. >> i think this is an

idealized state which we hope we can get to but we may have a budget that we have to live within. >> that's correct. thank you and now i'd like to ask denise heinz to yum in and present the security component. >> good morning. >> oh, i think you have to call it. i'm sorry, that's a separate item, even though they are pulled together in the presentation. >> item 15 --. >> that concludes item 14. >> sorry, mr. patrick. >> mr. patrick would like to comment on item 14, is that right? >> (inaudible). >> that's right, okay, go ahead, denise. >> okay, so we're talking today about the --. >> it will come back. >> about the security staffing plan. it obviously goes into your budget here. i'm talking about the benchmark, how you came up with it.

the benchmarks we used were transit authorities throughout the united states, also included chicago in the mix. it is designed to provide safe, secure, clean environment, welcoming environment, for visitors for the commuters and retail. we came up with two staffing models. one is primarily heavy with sfpd, you can see this is the heavier model that we have. the second model we are recommending is primarily staffed with contract security guard services, 8 hour shifts, three shifts per day. the transit agency going to operate primarily 5 am to 1:00 am, some areas will property 24 hours a day, busses coming in. operating dawn to dusk however there will be extended hours for any events scheduled for the park and certainly the dining.

we want to talk about the staffing plan now and how we came up with it so you understand. it was done in complete coordination with, informed by sfpd, they have bought into this so it's going to run by you now. train platform, phase i, we have no staffing in there. it's not going to be operational. lower concourse, the western half of this particular area will be accessible. the eastern portion of it is where the security operations center is. you'll have back up housed space there, o and m operators, et cetera. we have come up with a particular number of staff in there, sfc supervisor, sfc operators, shift supervisors will primarily be housed in the security center. shifts 1, 2, 3 is a little shifts 1, 2, 3 is a little

bit different ground level is heavy up front, sfpd asked us to do that, that we have a particular security presence there to help people provide wayfinding, help them find their way up to the park, commuters, retail, food court, et cetera. we expect this will be adjusted going forward and i'll talk about that in a minute. again, this is designed to provide a safe, secure and clean environment in a preventative manner as opposed to after the fact. the second lef -- level of the building, i suspect we will be moving a couple people around here. we have roving patrols, the food court may require you have some other individuals up there, mostly looking at conventional crimes, not looking at anything absolutely difficult here. the bus level has minimal personnel, this will be

primarily for commuters so you don't need a lot in here but you do need some staffing. the roof park, i suspect we'll be moving people from the ground level up to the roof park once you are operational and you can see what issues you need to address. that will probably happen after the fact. you've got a, i want to say after the fact, i mean after you are operational. you have your rolling patrol, bicycle, segue, what have you, we're not quite sure what that will be. the staffing model, the summary, it was designed so that the chief security officer, who will be coming on board in january 2017 and your security staffing, that will be put out for rfp in january, 2017, it can be adjusted up and down, back and forth. you can make adjustments where you need people. the cso will be able to do that once they determine choke places during commuter events, you will move have

roving patrol, this stationary here, here, you can move them difrplt levels. you can also increase or decrease level of staffing but we have given best practice throughout the united states and again with states and again with sfpd's buy-in it's preferred for all industry, you don't want them to work for the security guard company, has to do with a lot of conflict of interest. we can adjust this back and forth depending upon the mou's that are negotiated with the other transit entities if they provide more folks to come in and support this. again based on operational issues during your first six months. and that is all i have on this. are there any questions on this specifically? >> steve? >> yeah, i have a question on

this. who has detention powers? which of these people, your rovers, your stationary, i know sfpd has detention powers. >> yes, we call them. >> so you've got, of these 73 people here, you've got two that can actually detain somebody. >> arrest and detain, sfpd they have instructed us that should we have issues like that where you've got something that requires their presence, we call them immediately and they come in and arrest. >> uh-huh. >> they only provided us, initially the heavier model was to have additional sfpd, they say they can't afford additional sfpd, they don't have the resources. they asked us to lower the sfpd contribution to two individuals and the instruction is call them, they will come. remember we do have the sfpd kiosk there

so they will be nearby. >> well, what i'd like to see some notion of here is an idea of what incidents we expect, what are we doing? what stuff -- at some point, say okay, well, here's stuff that we -- and this is how we'd handle it and this is how we'd handle it. because i will tell you frankly some of these 73 people to do security in this building i find kind of overwhelming. >> we've got 33 per shift, 33 shift --. >> oh, i can read the chart. >> i can address that in the con ops i'll be addressing later this morning, the how, why, what, when, that's in the con ops i'll be addressing for you later today. >> okay. >> question on the benchmarks. i can understand benchmarking against stations, it seems like given that phase i is bus

terminal that bus terminal benchmarks might be more appropriate. i less understand large transit systems as benchmarks. can you explain how you chose the benchmarks and what you learned from the benchmarks? >> we looked at large transportation agencies. marta has a large transportation agency but what we looked at is their large transportation center in atlanta. for the rest of these port authority we looked at very specific main transit agencies for them, what those transit centers were. grand central station, the station, obviously, world trade center, what's there. what we did was we asked them a number of questions about how the transbay transit center would relate to their operations. i can share with you that they, each and every one of them uses a different mix of security. none of them

use security guard forces like hired guns, they all use dhs, they use viep err units with the canine units, the dogs, i think marta was the only one that said they had two security guards that were hired and that had to do with pac we talked about this earlier, this is draft to oranges, you have to find some middle ground. there isn't any transit center in the united states that uses security guard services as we're intending to do. we're the only ones who aren't licensed to carry weapons or to arrest. so we're using sfpd to do that. >> in your benchmarking did you account for the volume of people that flow through? >> yes. >> i don't think that what we're building in phase i is comparable to port authority bus terminal in that's what you mean by the entire port

authority is what you benchmarked on. i don't think it's equivalent to grand central or grand central is not -- you mentioned it but it's not on your list here. i'm trying to understand how you got from whatever you learned in the benchmarks how you applied it. i see the list here, still don't understand transit systems, how they are benchmarks and i don't understand how you then scaled for what we're building, which is a bus terminal much more modest than some of these which also has a very heavy retail component which is, not sure if any of these have. >> well, none of them have parks, in the furs place. none of them have an he will elevated park. each of these entities staff similar to how we've staffed. for phase ii for the transit center, we only go up by 10 positions, actually. only 41 as opposed

to 31, i believe. so sfpd looked at these numbers, sfpd said, no, this is what you need. they want a show of force initially. now, that said, we do have room to adjust once you are operational. if you don't need 33, then we back it off. your cso will determine that once you are operational. >> yeah, i find that kind of interesting. to me this is a whole different terminal when we get the rail in and do it in phase ii then it will be -- we do have some comparisons right now. we have a temporary terminal that's operating with a certain amount of security. >> doesn't have an elevated space, it doesn't have roof top --. >> i know, but you are going from 3 or 4 people in security to 73. >> uh-huh. >> yeah, you know, you're going to have to come and do that. to say we're going to start out big and then back off if we need to, i can understand

a certain amount of immediate presence but, you know, it's a shopping center and it happens to have a bus terminal and a park on the top of it and i think we need to analyze them from existing local things that happen around the area, you know, in terms of downtown san francisco in those 3 comments because i agree with director rifkin, it's over the moon. that handles more people than bart does in its entire system. those are huge passenger loads and eventually we're going to get some really big passenger loads but originally the passenger loads won't be that big and we will be trying to work with the security that the shopping center tenants bring in themselves. so, okay. >> it is best industry

practices. sfpd has endorsed it, has bought into it and approved it and basically said go and have a, make sure you have secured the place, you prevent, you prepared a safe welcoming environment that people feel safe in so that when you have phase ii, when you have the trains in, you still continue along. >> if i were sfpd i'd say the same thing. you know, i'd say, my gosh, you need 130 people around there and security guards all the time, don't bother us. so --. >> thank you, i appreciate it. >> thank you, chair. >> you started to answer the question i was going to ask with your last comments and as this moves forward, security means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. when you put this model together there were certain performance characteristics that you want to happen here,

safe and welcome. can you take a moment and expand what safe means, what welcome means, what kind of performance measurements or outcomes are desired from, you know, this vendor? other than providing 73 staff, 3 shifts, things like that, what are the more characteristics or outcomes desired by having a staffing model of this level? >> most of those are covered in the con ops i'll be addressing later this more than. there are performance measures in there for how, why, what, where, and the level that goes into it. i will be addressing that a little later this morning. >> i think that's an important part of the conversation that hasn't been touched on yet. >> absolutely, sir. >> thank you. >> just checking if we have member s of the public that wanted to comment on item 14.

we do have mr. patrick. >> thank you very much, jim patrick with patrick and company, san francisco. we made in the first report an allusion these would all be union workers and we would pay the highest price. as you know my position on that, we did that with the employees we built the transit center with. bart embraced the same notion and we see what we've got with the bart people. i suggest we want to find the best people, union or not union. and i think we're going in the wrong direction there. no. 2, relative to the funding, one thing we haven't talked about is a charge on each individual that passes through the terminal as part of the ticketing process. this is the way we really ought to be funding the dtx also, everyone who comes through the dtx

should pay $2. it wouldn't be a separate toll but would be built in the charge that caltrain or the bus operators would have. that's a great funding source and we seem to sweep that funding source under the carpet and we never talk about it but it's a funding source for the operations and it's a funding source also for the dtx last thought, you always look at the property owners, which is myself and the neighborhood, to do all this funding. and i'm saying, like the police department is backing off, hey, wait a minute, let's find another funding source to do some of these things and i think it's reasonable. they are the people also receiving the benefit of the transbay depot. thank you. >> you want to handle that? >> well, mr. patrick brings up a very good point on the passenger facility charges. absolutely when caltrain and high speed rail come into the center they will be paying a passenger facility fee or charge as ac transit and certainly greg if you'd like to address that.

>> i was going to say, good idea and it's already been done. >> when we meet with sfmta and golden gate transit we'll be asking the same. >> that was item 14, move into 15, safety and security operations for the transbay transit center. >> denise will also report on this item. >> here is the how, why, where and when on the concept of operations. the concept of operations is a large compendium of documents. they are designed to prevent, mitigate and respond to events regardless of the event that goes on, normal day-to-day as well as exceptional conditions. it is safety and security operational efforts to deter,

delay, prevent, detect before a bad event happens. so it would be normal as well as anything that comes in that's an exceptional event. what we have here is the components of these documents are very complicated and i'm not sure that we'll be able to answer all your questions today, we can do some of these in closed session a bit further. some of these documents include the training, how you will be trained to do, to respond, the security staff will be trained, what kind of exercises they will do, how they will do them, how often they will do them so they are prepared for any events. certainly the staffing, what we expect of the staffing, plans and any response actions and we'll talk about that in a little bit here. again, the concept of operations compendium is best practices for transit agencies throughout the united states with a little bit of additional support and we'll talk about that in a minute. the concept

of operations are informed by and have been shared with sfpd, sffd and other response agencies. there is considerable master-lessee coordination. we will have one of their individuals working with us in the security operations center should the building need to be shut down or portions thereof depending on the particular event. safety and security, clean environment, inviting for, again, the commuters, visitors, retail folks, park, any you can think of, the con ops are there to, they are in the background so that it doesn't look like a very, very heavy -- this isn't a military facility. this isn't a prison, it's a transit center, it's a public facility and the con ops are also reflective of that. i'd like to note the

situational awareness does not only include, it doesn't only include cameras, cctv, there's a certain amount of situational awareness that is required for let's say eyes on a situation. critical to the department of homeland security safety act certification and designation and any future federal funding for grants, state and local funding for grants, these documents were based on department of homeland security national security, the nims, without the organization of the documents in this manner you will not be able to achieve the safety act designation. the con ops itself provides a strategic framework. it is, again, the who, what, why, where, when, the level of details for anything that you can think of in terms of

day-to-day normal operations as well as extraordinary events. example would be off the top of my head, a lost package, a lost child, way finding, somebody who has gone into a place where they shouldn't be, there's a particular event there you need to evacuate the building, the con ops lays out every single thing for how you will do what you will do and the security guard force will have to comply with each and every one of these. the security officer will provide the oversight to make sure they do what they are supposed to do and they adhere to the con ops. again, con ops are supposed to delay, deter, and act accordingly. x happens you do y again, this is before the -- they are designed so you have

everything laid out before an event occurs. the chief security officer will have the flexibility to adjust the con ops one way or the other upon the operation of the facility. again, your chief security officer will come on board in january 2017 and the security guard service rfp will be out in january 2017. this is a list of all the documents that are in the con ops. you can see that, and this is just the initial con ops plan under the circumstances self, everything that would go into the details of who is involved, how are they involved, how do you coordinate and work with them. an example is the site-wide communications plan, section 2.1. it's not only for the site-wide communications plan for the ttc, it is also sfpd, any response agencies and any state emergency response should we have an event of proportion

and scale. the functional annexes, which are a part of the con ops plan, these are critical to that department of homeland security safety act and for grant funding. these are the nuts and bolts of what it is you will do in terms of an emergency response plan and an incident action plan. an incident action plan is what is the incident, how will you respond to it, what is the time, who will you call, how will you resolve this issue? so it's an incredibly complicated approach to organizational response and how you will do things. the support annexes are a little bit different. they obviously are supportive of the whole program. the functional annexes -- this is critical to the whole organization, to the document. when implemented the con ops will contribute to the plan the master lessee will take on for managing the

security, transit, retail, et cetera, and will also contribute to the tjpa application for safety act designation. it's a very comprehensive gutenberg bible, if you will, and while i'm going over this in broad, broad manner, should you wish to see the nuts and bolts of it, the documents of it, we can do that as long as it's not a public forum. >> why is that? >> because you don't want to tell people what you're uer going to do to defend something so they can figure out how to work around it. >> oh, okay. >> any questions? >> might, just for the record, if you could state who you are and what firm you are with. >> i'm sorry, i am denise heinz, with ae com, i conducted the risk and vulnerability

assessment and now i'm associated with the con ops that they are writing for. >> i hope you keep in mind this is san francisco. >> i got it, sir. >> i'm glad to hear you say all of this stuff is going to be essentially invisible but i'd like to see, like i say, i mentioned this a couple of meetings ago, you weren't at it, but at the time at least in the next -- ac transit can buy all the busses it possibly can to bring all the passengers that it possibly can here, this terminal is still going to not have as much flow through as just embarcadero. so the con ops for something at embarcadero station, just my opinion from events that would

be, you know, criminal in nature and fairly extensive, you don't pick on us. you don't pick on this. you've got much, much better targets. >> thank you. >> this is not a question for you but for staff, is there some sort of timeline on approval on the plan that's before us? >> this isn't, this is just an information item. >> i know, but that's why i'm asking, is there a timeline for approval? >> this is just a recommendation that will be put forth on the security team that will be brought on. you can implement it or not. >> when would that be? >> the rfq is january 2017. >> so we have some time to provide feedback on this. >> i think the first thing is hiring this first dude. will that happen before january 2017? >> which dude? i'm sorry. >> it would be early 2017.

>> early 2017, okay. >> i mean i have to concur with my board members, this is overly aggressive and ambitous. i couldn't support something like this so i hope we spend some time really tearing this down over the year before it goes out to rfp >> yes. >> i would also recommend you talk with the sheriff's department. the sheriff's department --. >> we have. >> and do you have any numbers from them? >> the sheriff's department said they really didn't want anything to do with this and to sfpd >> who from the sheriff's department doesn't want --. >> i'm sorry, i would have to go back to my notes but we sat down and talked with them. >> they seem to do a really good job with buildings, city hall, our hospitals. >> understood, but they said this was not their jurisdiction, it was under sfpd's jurisdiction and they would go with whatever sfpd said. >> whatever the supervisors say. >> don't sound right to me.

>> just to clarify to director kim's point, will this board have an opportunity to review the rfp before it goes out? >> yes, yes, the security rfp, yes. >> i think we'll want -- i think what i'm hearing and speaking for myself, if the rfp comes to us for approval and it has this level of staffing we're probably not going to be ready to approve so we probably want some time between now and whenever you are going to bring it --. >> absolutely. >> something more comfortable. >> all we can do as staff is provide a recommendation. all the security experts can do a provide a recommendation. we certainly don't agree this is not a target, we think it could be, it will be iconic and even in phase i with the busses there will be a lot of people coming in because of the beautiful park, remember the park is 5.4 acres, the station is a million square feet. we

have the tallest high rise in the city that will be connected to it in addition to two other towers. all we can do is make recommendations and the board can decide what it wants to do. we will bring the security rfp before and give ample time. >> i'm not, this is not my area of subject matter expertise. i'm very cognizant of the different viewpoints. is there an opportunity to convene a peer review panel like we did for the master lessee to look at this and advise us rather than having us weigh in. >> that's a great idea. >> i don't know who would be involved with that, but i would feel more comfortable with peer review rather than us trying to dictate staffing levels on security. >> that's a great idea and what we would recommend is the emergency responders, sheriff's department, police department, fire department, the city's own

home land emergency management service agency, certainly the transit agencies have security chiefs that they would want to provide us as part of peer review, the various consultants that work with denise and others, maybe we can have other people. i think it's a great idea. >> i just have to, we are already reaching out to all of these people via this. the peer review committee should be other entities similar to a terminal. the security shouldn't be the peer review team, it should be other securities like this that are providing peer review on how they do security. as director harper already mentioned, of course sfpd is going to tell us to do the maximum security. that's in their interest, also they want to make sure that they are providing the most careful advice. we should be asking other entities that have similar facilities to advise us on what they do. >> we could do that, that's also a good suggestion. the heads of grand central