plan and protected bike lanes. when you talk about the equity part of this study, how did you go about with the equity? what department did you talk to? what groups of people did you talk to when you studied the equity? thank you. >> so, i will preface my response by saying it was ten years ago and i wasn't here. so, i wasn't -- i wasn't rattle off a list of community groups that my predecessors talked to. i don't know whether tilly can. but i do know that they talked with a wide range of groups from across the city. some of the same groups that are still very involved now. obviously the bike coalition, walk s.f. and transit riders. but i should really turn it over to tilly to give more response on specifics. >> thank you for that question. we had an extensive working

groups and they were comprised mostly in this topic area of the transit organizations. we had the cbos active in each of those communities of concern and folks like the cdcd and colemans and folks who are on the ground working with communities. we had transform. i think we met with power, which has since transformed into another organization. we also talked with neighborhood groups. just neighborhood groups and to talk to the leaders and the members of neighborhood associations from haze valley all the way out to the avenues and to the bayview and the mission. we just talked to folks on the ground and one of the feedback we heard was the idea of a $3 charge can add up. my household makes multiple trips and that's where the idea

of the cap came up where you would not charge i don't know two trips. we have also heard, for example, that certain neighborhoods were fine with the idea of a border say, the western border at laguna. but they didn't prefer the 18th street. they felt like it was going to divide their neighborhood and we absolutely understand that and that's why we would need to come back and really reconsider some of those types of design issues. at the time, 16th street we wanted to make sure we were sort of keeping that within the zone because of the big job centers that were being developed in mission bay. >> supervisor brown: if we moved forward, would you have another equity study? >> absolutely. >> supervisor brown: i would also suggest that you involve the human rights commission because that is one of their priorities that they have set forth is equity as you are

moving forward. >> absolutely. great suggestion. >> chairman peskin: so, maybe you can also share with us, mr. hobson, what the actual infrastructure entails, what the cost of installing the infrastructure is and what the experience is to the good or the bad in other cities around the world, whether it's singapore or stockholm have had. have there been glitches? how much does it cost? what's the backend look like? >> there have been a variety different types of infrastructure installed in different places. some places have gone with the transresponder approach as is used with fastrack and the toll bridges in the bay area. others have gone with license plate recognition and there seems to be a move towards that

over the past couple of decades, 15 years that cities have been doing this. so, that seems to be the more recent use. so, that simply involves having cameras. my understanding is you can usually do that on existing infrastructure. there may be some needs for new poles and wiring and such. but you are just putting cameras up. there's also been talk of using other kinds of technology. at this point, those are not yet in widespread use, but there are people who have talked about whether you could do a cell phone based technology if you have ubiquitous, enough cell phones. but that is as yet unproving and that's the sort of thing -- unproven and that's the sort of thing we would need to look into in a study of this sort. >> again i will respond to the question of costs and benefits.

early on in london which was one of the first meter cities, the operating cost was about 50% of the revenues and that's because the license plate survey was expensive and they had to check it and double check it. their program design was a zone where any time you drove within the zone you would be priced. not just pricing folks over the cordon. we have learned from that and since that time the accuracy and cost of processing has gone way down to the point where the golden state bridge doesn't rely on it. it is all license plate and fastrack. now the cost profile i think would be around the 30% range, sort of international best practice. no longer in the 50% range. and in terms of the efficacy, we saw in london there was a 15-20% reduction in trips and stockholm similar. over time, london's traffic built up for two reasons.

number one, that's the tendency how we drive and behave. such a strong tendency to drive. but the other reason was because london actually locked in the benefit of that 20% trip reduction by using the revenues to expand bicycle lanes, sidewalks and transit lanes. that's a way to say we still have benefit in the first generation. we know there's this tendency for traffic to rise to fill up the available space again, but what we wanted to do at the time, london, was lock in the gains physically. they took road space and dedicated that right-of-way to those other modes to promote the more efficient modes. >> chairman peskin: commissioner cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much. i think this is all incredibly ambitious and as a representative, i think there's a lot of nervousness and

consternation. supervisor kim mentioned it was a hot topic when she ran for office. i too remember when i ran nine years ago that it was also a hot topic, congestion pricing. so, my question really has to do with what are the realistic time lines we are talking about? when is it going to be studied in a meaningful way? when are we going to start to see toll roads if at all? i think there's been light touches in terms of community neighborhood meetings that we have held. but what can i tell people that will be watching this and email me and ask me some follow-up questions? i just wanted to know what are the take-aways i should be relaying in talking to people about it? >> we don't have an active study yet. so, we haven't even developed a timeline yet. we are at a very early stage in this. i was going to make a dating

analogy. maybe i won't. [laughter] >> we are just having coffee stage. and so, when the map study concluded and asked the board in december 2010 whether to go forward, the timeline at that point was a five-year timeline from there to turning on the system. and including confirming the design and going through getting state authorizing legislation and going through environmental clearance. it is hard for me to imagine that we would do it much faster than that now and there are lots of things that could make it take more time. so, this is not something that is imminent. but it is something that if we were to eventually be able to do, we do need to start at some point. >> supervisor cohen: one thing that i also wanted to echo. i read in the article that supervisor kim had made these particular remarks about being

in favor of congestion parking but not in a specific targeted neighborhood -- or district that you were interested in. is that correct, supervisor? >> supervisor kim: we are currently working on a mobility management plan for treasure island into the downtown area. my biggest criticism of the plan, although i support the concepts of the plan, is that we are singling out one neighborhood to pay into a mobility management scheme in order to pay for like the ferry and bus services and we are not doing this to all neighborhoods. what i support at the cta is presenting today which is a cordon of all of the downtown area so that anyone going into the downtown area is equally impacted driving into the core and not just treasure island. i think it's just odd that one neighborhood in san francisco has to pay revenue to get better

public transit and other neighborhoods don't. i want to address the equity issue. it is true that we should study how mobility management pricing will impact our lower-income consumers because it is a flat rate. but we also have to evaluate the equity of our lower income residents most impacted by bad air quality and environmental injustice and they are overwhelming impacted by cars driving but their neighborhoods more than other residents are and less likely to be able to afford nice air filters like i have in my house in the south of market. when you talk about inequity, you can't talk about how it is going to impact the driver but how it impacts all the residents that live with the congestion and bad air quality that exists here in san francisco. >> supervisor cohen: it further

accentuates the point i was going to make. i think about two freewares that bisect the community. and it has the residual effect of having particulate matter from the cars and soot on the windows and window sills which forced me then to offer other pieces of legislation that would require new construction to have certain filtering systems inside a home. the point i'm trying to make really has to do with transportation and i'm thinking about also the southeastern part of district ten and 101 tail that goes into the -- down the south bay. and where are our regional partners, transportation partners, where are they in discussion about congestion pricing. because the challenges san

francisco is facing, not so much -- the responsibility rests on their shoulders but the regional issues. our friends refusal to build affordable housing is having an adverse effect on us in san francisco. i think about homeless issues. something we need to be able to address multiple boards of supervisors and county councils need to come to the table and start to think about this. can you talk to me a little about where our folks south of san francisco, where they are in the congestion pricing conversation? thank you. >> so, we haven't had specific conversations elected officials or transportation officials in san mateo county about congestion pricing per se. however, i do know that since the map study was done and san francisco said this is something

that we should do at some point, and we put it into our county wide transportation plan that we updated in 2013 and again in 2017 and we put it into san francisco's submissions for the regional transportation plans that were updated in also 2013 and '17. the region took those submissions and included them into our regional transportation plan and i though that, in fact, they actually play a key role in those regional transportation plans because if congestion pricing is in place in the horizon year of those plans, it will -- it would cause a reduction in car use and a reduction in ghgs that is actually essential for the region being able to meet its goals. so, from a regional policy perspective, the bay area needs san francisco to do congestion pricing at some point as part of helping the whole region manage

our congestion and our global warming -- >> supervisor cohen: you said the bay area. that includes i'm thinking of san josé. >> that's the nine county. >> supervisor cohen: okay. thank you. >> chairman peskin: commissioner mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, chair peskin and i want to thank the t.a. staff for this presentation. i guess from my perspective as i hear from my kconstituents wheni hear about their frustration, the notion of a potential plan that is going to take five years plus to institute is not great news. i know there's a lot that needs to get thought through and what needs to happen here. i would urge transportation authority staff to move as quickly as possible to set this up for conversations at this board.

i do think as i'm thinking about folks from district eight trying to get downtown, we have tremendous train service. but the trains remain also a tremendous frustration for folks who rely on them. so, as this conversation goes forward, i think we are going to need to be having a parallel conversation about how to get the j and the k and the l and the m and n all carrying people -- and the t, carrying people into the core. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you. colleagues, before i open it up to public comment, am i gauging us all correctly that we would like to have our staff update this decade-long plan and then based on that, march forward with congestion pricing? all right. i'm seeing nobody freaking out. we will open this up to public comment and ask staff to do that. i have one speaker card, mr.

finebaum and if there are any other individuals that would like to testify on item number nine, please come forward. thank you for your presentation, jeff. first speaker, please. >> public: good morning. jim bob, the president at save muni. on september 29th, together with the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods, we sponsored a conference in an auditoriorum on the future of transportation in san francisco. and as part of that conference, we had presentations on congestion pricing. i'm not going to reprize that, but -- , i would point out on our website, we have a very interesting video featuring jonas elias, who is the director of transportation for the city of stockholm and he talks about the stockholm experience.

it is about eight minutes long. you might be interested in that. one of the things that jonas pointed out in his talk is that they brought in -- stockholm brought together a whole bunch of stakeholders throughout the region to develop the plan that they were talking about. and i think supervisor cohen put a very good point on the table, and that is we really need the best minds in the region to be participating. i support a study by the c.t.a. i think jeff should be updating this. but i think also he might value an advisory committee of regional experts and political leaders who can provide input into his study. thanks. >> chairman peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> public: good morning,

commissioners. i'm from san josé but before moving to san josé, i used to live in london. i would like to share a couple of my experiences with congestion pricing and i extremely like it that you are starting the conversation in san francisco. it is unclear if you can have congestion pricing over the weekend. in london, we didn't. it is only monday through friday and it is from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. it is a flat fee. it is actually $15 and you are found anywhere in the zone, you pay the fee. other fee, we have the gateways and the cash license plate at that point. but if any car is detected anywhere in the zone. the only exception is street parking. these cars will be picked up that are similar to the

[indiscernible] that take discreet pictures. in closing, buses. the reason they use buses in london is because it is so congested and i believe a lot of people do the same thing. they use the buses so they can breathe. it has become lack -- a real rat hole. and i think we will know one way or the other whether this is a fact when they open cross rail next year. see whether people move on to that instead of using buses. the last point, uber in london, by 2025 they will be fully electric. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> public: good morning. jim -- i'm jim patrick, patrick and company. i'm not until favor of congestion pricing. if you take a look at uber,

stand on a corner of knew montgomery and market street, uber is about 50% of the vehicles. congestion pricing? 10-year-old study. uber. come on. this is not rocket science. so, are you surprised? i'm not. around the border, i recently rode a muni bus and saw people not paying. i ask the bus driver how many people they on your route and he said 50%. i said 50%? that's astounding. i personally don't think it's that high. but collection is a big problem. we will have congestion around the perimeter as was referred to. it will be a big problem. nobody wants to park because they don't want to pay whatever

that price happens to be. you are moving the problem out. you are not solving the problem inside. i'm definitely against moving the problem around. i think there are better solutions. i didn't come prepared to talk about this, but i will put my mind on it. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> public: hello commissioners. ian williams. i have been spending a lot of time lately on the streets in the downtown cordon. but in all seriousness, we have about 9,000 members who work within this zone and we are quite open to the idea of congestion pricing. i just want to urge that in further study we pay especially attention to the large and growing section of our service industry that works late nights and early morning. especially without 24-hour train

service and jobs that people, 2,300 workers are out on strike right now to change that fact, but jobs that are leading people to work multiple jobs, work late into the night. it just isn't practical to get to a job at a hotel as a cook at 5:00 or 6:00 a.m. on fisherman's wharf without driving. and it is going to make that even more difficult. likewise, there are janitors and other service sector workers who are working more and more into the late night hours and having to commute further and further away. we should very much take those folks into account and assess whether there's a way to structure this so it doesn't land dispropositionally on people who don't have a choice but to park there. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you, mr. lewis, for those comments. next speaker. >> public: hi. i live in couperty no.

i took a car and train to get here today. i would have preferred to take my bicycle but i have done it before and it is not safe. i'm excited you are talking about protected bicycle lanes. my question around congestion pricing, how is that going to impact or what do we already know about how that impacts neighborhoods in terms of people parking or stopping and then entering. i didn't hear anything about that yet. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> public: congestion pricing. you are going to charge people to go to work in an area where their work is because that's their population where their employment situation is. that's outrageous. how are you going to charge a person for being in a congested area because that's the job site location where they work in order to support themselves? then you flip-flop and you never

charge our tax the high-tech companies. twitter and five other high-tech companies have gotten over $300 billion of tax free money. you are always picking on people who don't have nothing to do with the god damn problem. it is disgusting. you over supervise. what is the logic? you are going to charge people for being congested? how about we charge you because you are congesting the chamber. why don't we charge you? your job here is at city hall and city hall is congested. all your officers is taking up too much space in city hall is congested so we need to put a tax on that and charge you because you are taking up too much space where your job site is located. you over supervise all the time. all the time. all the time.

you want to charge people for going to work and supporting themselves. [bell] >> public: how come you don't use that towards twitter? come in here and plea and testify how they get along with m.t.a. and they should be exempted for not paying payroll taxes. then you tell cherry company because they are nice and get along with m.t.a. they can't be exempted from payroll taxes? how come you don't use that philosophy for twitter and other companies that has got a minimum of $300 billion of tax free money? [bell] >> chairman peskin: seeing no other members of the public on this item, public comment is closed. commissioner safai. >> supervisor safai: i want to be clear on what we are authorizing and what we are not authorizing. >> chairman peskin: this is an information item. >> supervisor safai: they are going to come back to present what would be studies? >> chairman peskin: mr. hobson gave us a list of alternatives

and ways -- paths forward. the bottom line this study is now a decade old and what i was suggesting is that staff bring that into the dawn of -- the later dawn of the 21st century and update that. ms. chang or mr. hobson if you would like to respond to that. >> we will gladly come back with a proposed scope and budget with a refreshed feasibility study. >> supervisor safai: okay. i'm okay with that. >> chairman peskin: all right. the congestion pricing discussion has begun again. commissioner kim. >> supervisor kim: when will that be done, director chang? >> we will get it to you as soon as possible. [indiscernible]. >> chairman peskin: your mic was off. >> we will endeavor to bring that back to you as soon as

possible. [indiscernible] >> supervisor kim: we heard you will endeavor to bring it back as soon as possible. i think it is important to right size the scope and i hope this commission doesn't over study this issue because it has been studied so much and i would hate to see this get killed by too many studies because we have to implement something. the current state is just not acceptable. and we have to really move forward with making our city greener. and i think we should look at this less as a congestion pricing study and more making the air quality of our city improved for all of our residents. and i think we are really accountable to the health needs of our residents and certainly for our city reaching a carbon neutral goal which we have all talked about. this is a key piece of that and i think this is as much of an environment policy as it is about us managing traffic. i hope that we can right size that scope and move forward on this as quickly as possible.

>> chairman peskin: all right. could you please call items ten and 11 together. [reading agenda item] >> chairman peskin: so, i want to thank mark from the transbay joint powers authority for joining us today. he was not able to join us when i wanted to schedule this at our last meeting. and let me preface these two items by saying that we all realize the transbay terminal is in a tough spot right now and it

is not happy for anybody whether members of the tjpa from alameda county and from san mateo county as well as here in the city and county of san francisco. we are aware, obviously, of the cracked beams and painfully aware of the huge cost overruns and delays associated with transbay. and the reason item 11 is on the calendar is because i think we need to learn from our past practices and really have a strong vision going forward for what is actually a much more complicated, much more costly project. and that is bringing cal train and eventually high speed rail into that box that is 80 feet below the surface underneath what is now or hopefully in the

months ahead will again become a bus station, but hopefully will be an intermodial transit hub for the entire bay area. i want to make sure we get phase two right and i think that conversation begins with an analysis of what the oversight structure ought to be for phase two and i'm far from convinced, no offense to the staff and many of whom were not here when many of those cost overruns and delays were incurred. but i am dubious that the current structure is the right one going forward for phase two, which we know is going to be north of a $6 billion project. having said that, i know we are all committed to bringing rail into the transbay terminal. and we have some challenges i think we should also be having robust conversation about, including occupying that building, what can be done with

that train box in the interim. i have heard some great suggestions ranging from a homeless facility to city office space. you name it. but i think we need to figure that out because right now that building is hemorrhaging money on the operating side. with that, i thought we should all have the opportunity to hear from mark about what the current challenges are and how they are going to be fixed and how it came to be passed. with that, i will turn it over to the executive director of the transbay joint powers. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for your patience. i could not join you last meeting for a very good reason i shared with you and we are here today. i would like to start by giving you an update on the >> translato transit center and jump into the prop k funding. i have with me our senior construction manager, dennis.

he will do presentation and myself and ron, which is the director of construction and engineering will be here to answer questions on number ten and we can jump in on number 11 afterwards. we would also like to give you a quick briefing on the recent loss filed by our contractor. we have two or three slides if you don't mind we could share that with you. >> chairman peskin: please. >> okay. let's start then. dennis. >> good morning, commissioners. construction manager. i appreciate the opportunity to give you a presentation on what has happened out there with the transit center related to the fissures and the shoring, the timeline of issues and where we are moving as we relate to the fix. this is a presentation that has been shown to our tjpa board and

this is -- i will provide the up dated information but i want to provide some of the information that shows what there is out there. so, with the -- at fremont street, there are the two girders that we have heard. in red there are the two girders. if you are on bus deck, those would be at the ceiling. you see two outer two columns are supporting and an important element to this is the middle one is a support of the bus deck below it so the weight of those two girders is carrying not only the park above it, but also the bus deck as well. as you zoom in, some of you have seen this picture with the cracks that have been identified at fremont street. this is identified in this

picture. you will see that it's the upper left portion is one side and the lower right you can see the other crack. this is -- i would say it is on the flam section. these girders, if you think of the letter i, there's the bottom portion is a flange, the top portion is a flange and the vertical portion is a web. sometimes i will reference that terminology. these cracks are only in the flange. they don't go up into the vertical section of the web. so, they are only this those two spots on this girder and the southern, the other girder there is only one crack, only one on the other half of the side. what we did fairly immediately after september 25th, we did have to get an initial stabilization. this was the jacks. this was something that was put up. it was readily available and we knew the strength of those, the

engineer of record for the building was engaged and also readily available material from contractors were found and were put in place on fremont street to ensure the stabilization of that area. that was really just an initial start because when the cracks were found, we didn't realize what the stability of the building was. so that's why these were put in place to ensure that stability. this then allowed us while that was getting in place the design of the actual shoring system was being done. what we see here as we are looking at the very top is -- would be where the park is. the top of the transit center. there's two round or rectangular circles. those are where the cracks are located on the girders and then you have got the ground level of fremont street right in the middle there and then what this is also depicting is the train box below it.

what we had to do is transfer in the process here we know we have to transfer the majority of the load off those two girders to do the fix and it has required a four-level shoring system. so what you see on the street level is not all that's there as part of the whole system. it actually goes from where the cracks are at the top of the transit center all the way down to the mass train platform level. that has been put in place. multiple columns that have been including a significant amount of engineering to get it into place, from street level this is what it looks like today. and that was implemented about a week and a half ago. what you saw at street level, but also there's a similar type of system down below and also up on the bus deck level as well.

there is more than what you just see at the street level. this is a view as if you were driving on fremont street looking north from natoma street. it is in the middle. there's a very important reason why it is in the middle. one is that's right where the cracks are. that's where the two girders span over fremont street so that's the large here's moment right there. and also there happens to be -- for the actual train box, there's a support concrete beam right below that that we are able to put the supports on. so, that allows us to transfer that load continuely all the way down on to the slab. a similar system is also up on the bus deck to handle that. this is what we call a hanger beam that also is what is supporting the bus deck. all that weight has been put -- taken off of the two girders and now has been transferred over to

the temporary support four-level system. what was very important is that when we did reopen fremont street is three lanes and we were able to maintain those three lanes working with m.t.a. to ensure that when we reopened and with the -- we have k-rail which is concrete barriers protecting the shoring system all in place to ensure there's a full protection of the system from the travelling public that are standard for the speeds. so, at fremont street we did our initial stabilization at the beginning of the month. we went through a final design and a peer review. we had a shoring peer review that was brought this as well. not just the engineer of record of the shoring system to get that. so, it was not only checked by the engineer of record internally, but then a peer review. fabrication was done based on a readily available material,

installation was as soon as the material was available. it started to be installed. remembering we had four levels of steel that are in there. and then we proposed -- we were projecting to open on october 17th and we opened early on the evening of sunday night. i believe that was the 14th opening for monday morning's commute on the 15th. i referenced here at the bottom next steps. i will get to -- i have a whole slide that will reference what our next steps are after the point here. we are basically in the middle of those next steps now, which include the testing, the sampling that everybody is trying to get to. at first street, there are no cracks there. there was no issues found over there, but it is a similar design. it was determined that due to -- to ensure a redundancy and

precautionary, we are proceeding with the same item of work over there as well. we did a similar -- before you can put the shoring up, you have to clear out the ceiling and clear the mechanical and electrical plumbing and drainage. this had to be cleared away and we ended up using those same jacks that we had that became available at fremont street when we didn't need them any longer. they were moved over to first street to ensure that we had stability over there as well at first street in preparation for the redundancy installation. this was just some of the first steps that were getting first street ready. similar from fremont street, first street also has three lanes and we had a similar structural set-up where the supports had to be in the middle

of the street and a similar traffic control was put in place. also over at first street, there will be a multi-level shoring system. those yellow jacks are on first street. you can see those as you drive by. right now. those will eventually be replaced with other steel girders similar to fremont. and similar to fremont we have the two lower levels of the train box that are also shored to ensure that the load path when we take -- offload some of the weight from those two girders when we do the redundancy over there that they can properly be engaged. and as i noted, first street is similar. three lanes at first street and working with m.t.a. again, we were able to maintain those three lanes over the period of time we have seen no issues with impacts to traffic at either one, once we were opened. now, the next steps for both of them. we are in the middle of that right now.

i do want to note at this point that mtc has engaged a peer review panel and they are important. they are engaged all along the way. the peer review has been in place for about a week and a half now. a good portion of the first week was getting up to speed but they are now fully involved in all issues, including our sampling and testing protocol. we are ready to start our sampling and testing protocol. we have a sampling company independently chosen by all the experts including the mtc peer review panel out of the midwest and testing company from the east coast who specializes in those studies. they are ready, on site waiting and we anticipate hopefully a green light from the mtc peer review hopefully in the next few

days as we have got the team waiting out there. what that is important is, once we get the sampling started, it will take them five days. they are using a wire saw that will remove where the cracks were and all the steel around it so that can all be taken to a lab to determine exactly what the root cause was. that's what we have been trying to get to at this point. we needed all that weight off those girders so we could actually destructively take the girder tracks away so then we could take the samples which have all been agreed to by all levels, proposed by the project team and also agreed to by the mtc peer review team. it will take them about a week once they get started with that sampling. take them actually five days. all that peer review panel members and the experts will ensure it is what they need. then they get shipped up, go to

the east coast and about two weeks of sampling to get us to where the root cause will be determined. and then that will allow -- because to get to the fix, you really need to know what the root cause is. we need to determine is it design? is it fabrication? is it installation or is it the material itself? only the testing can determine that. there's many speculations out in, but real -- out there, but only the tersing which has been identifieddy the -- testing which can be identified to determine what happened out there. once they know that, then a fix will be confirmed and then it can be implemented in the field at both fremont street and first street. and at that point it will be determined all that was found for the peer review that the facility can be opened. and then a continuation of a peer review looking at the rest of the facility will be as well too. but the most important part is starting with the first and

fremont because of their similar design. as i referenced, it is called the 2018 mtc peer review panel because there are other peer review panels that have already been on the project. it is six members chosen. they will be included in the fix as well we have engaged the construction and seismic review committee. they have been on as well and a couple of the pertinent experts from that committee are still engaged with that process and that's some of the members here. just referencing to ensure there are multiple levels of peer review outside of the actual project team looking at our process as we move forward. as i have stated, we are not moving forward until our mtc peer review gives us the blessing. i don't want to know that there has always been a significant

robust quality control and quality assurance program on this project. we took the combination of the very robust fta and army corps of engineer quality control plans that have been implemented, fabricator installers at every level. there's a quality control level but also we have had inspectors in every fabrication site. there was many, many special inspections done throughout that were related to this to the point where even in this picture if you look closely, you can see a lot. we have removed the fireproofing from around that crook and you can see at least a lot of marks to show there was quality control and quality assurance because all those white marks that are underneath are welding inspections. so, i go back to that.

we will be able to determine design, fabrication, installation or materials after the testing is complete. at that time, it will be determined whether it is on a contractor side or design side whether it becomes a warranty or insurance issue. >> chairman peskin: so, in terms of a date that the terminal will be in use again, do you have any hypothesis on that? >> supervisor, by mid-november we should get the test results back and at that point in time we will be able to share with you what type of -- what will be done and how long it will take to do. >> chairman peskin: and relative to working theories around fabrication, were the welding access holes done on site or was that part of the fabrication specifications? >> i'm not sure. do you know?

>> the holes were done at the fabrication site. they were not done on site. >> chairman peskin: and were those specs in the original design? >> they were not in the original drawings because something like that is more what would come out of a shop drawing. >> chairman peskin: and is there any speculations that the welding access holes were the cause of the cracked beams? >> we will need to get to the testing to confirm that. that's where the crack is. part of it is at the notch. but really, we will be able to tell how that steel cracked. if it was the notch or if it was the material itself. we have to wait until the testing is completed. >> chairman peskin: had this not been detected, what was the chance of a structural failure above fremont street? >> can you repeat that question again, supervisor. >> chairman peskin: i'm asking you to speculate on whether or not this building would have collapsed had these cracks not been found? >> i don't want to speculate,

supervisor. it is a very unfortunate incident. we are very disappointed it happened. as dennis mentioned we had quality at four levels. it didn't work. i think the best thing for us to do is wait for the test results to come out to determine the causization and from there hold the party responsible. >> chairman peskin: while we have you up here, can you tell us how many square feet of occupied and unoccupied space in that building which is the size of the empire state building? >> about 1.1 million square feet for all levels. >> chairman peskin: and how much of it is available for lease? >> we have 100,000 square feet available for phase one. we have another 30,000 square feet or 40,000 square feet on

the lower concourse that will be available. >> chairman peskin: how about the train box itself? >> how many square feet is the train box? each level is about 250,000 square feet. about 500,000 or 600,000 square feet. >> chairman peskin: what efforts are being made to lease any or all of that space? >> i have been told they are working on finding a short-term use for the train box. there were some conversations i'm having right now on potential uses. but they are confidential discussions. >> chairman peskin: as to the other 100,000 unoccupied square feet, what is that being marketed as? >> right now, 47% of the retail space has been leased. and interest is very strong in the remaining spaces. we have two to three prospective tenants for each space. so far the incident with the

beams has not impacted the beams in the transit center. >> chairman peskin: what are those costs now? >> a total operation cost is about $30 million. so, security is about $8 million of that. we are hope to generate more than 50% of that or 60% of that from revenues and look for subsidies for the rest. >> chairman peskin: so, in other words, the building is running at about a $15 million per year operating deficit. >> i have to go back and really look at the numbers. but close to that. >> chairman peskin: and the city and county of san francisco loaned your agency $260 million on a ten to one vote. how's the repayment plan on that money going?

>> the repayment plan we are working with the controller's office. the repayment plan is based on the sale of the bonds by the city for the community service district and we are in the process of -- i think the city has another sale coming up. as that sale takes place, we will be able to repay back the city. >> chairman peskin: all right. are there any questions from members of this commission? commissioner cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i find it interesting you are not able to recall the figure, what your indebtedness when commissioner peskin asked for that. that is your purpose. your practice. i'm the chair of the budget committee and i have numbers. >> i'm sorry. i don't have it but i will funnish it. >> supervisor cohen: just seems like you would bring all the

information. [please stand by].

>> it was delayed until the 25th, which is two days from now. >> right, and do you understand why it was delayed? >> concerns about the transit center. >> yes. and has anyone reached out to the chair of the budget committee? >> i'm not sure. >> you're not sure, thank you. >> thank you, commissioner cohen. it's questions like that and responses like that, that is precisely why item 11 is on the calendar. it's time for a time-out. why don't we open this up for public comment. i have a number of speaker cards here on this matters. rowan, david, james, thank you for your comments in this morning's paper, mr. mcgill. james patrick, peter strauss, and bob finebaum. >> hello again, commissioners. now, to your question,

supervisor peskin, i think it was four years ago i brought up the fact that a similar amount in new york, the world trade transit center generated a billion and a half for a 99-year lease and i'm not sure what happened in san francisco. the top priority is to restore public confidence in the structural integrity of the transit center before we resume bus operations. the best way to manage the structures is acoustic monitoring, because steel and the stress emits low frequency sound waves before cracks can be detected like conventional methods. structural acoustic monitoring is implemented by the installation of microphones on a steel elements of a structure

and then later triangulation was used to warn of the formation of multiple cracks in the bridge and was recommended by the bay bridge peer review group to monitor rods and cables in the new bay bridge three years ago. please ask m.t.c. to direct the peer review group to implement for transit center and consider requesting limited proposals for implementation system. in closing, with regards to phase two, i strongly support the motion, but i also believe that the new transbay connection to the east bay has to take priority over high proceed rail and lightrail and as soon as you start studying this, the sooner you'll realize that you have some serious issues about the way that you're approaching the train box by the second street alignment. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you.

next speaker, please. >> thank you, chairman peskin and commissioners. i'm david sung, an architect, we're a small san francisco design architectural firm. in the interest of full disclosure and transparency, we are part of the d.t.x. design team and -- but the reason i'm speaking up is not so much that we're part of this team, but i'm speaking up as a citizen and as a daily commuter on caltrain, and i've seen plans for the d.t.x. extension, setting aside my personal involvement that, you know, this extension is critical infrastructure transit project that we all know is needed here in san francisco and in the region, and that you all

discussed earlier today, you know, about the congestion that's, you know, part of the problem of this area. and i think this project will go a long way to alleviate that, and it's my opinion that, you know, the merits and the goals that you're trying to achieve in this resolution can be achieved, you know, without the draconian pressure of actually suspending funding to the d.t.x. project, which only further delays the critical infrastructure project. so, i urge the board to reconsider this resolution and that we're, you know, opposed to it. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm jim patrick with patrick and company of san francisco. i believe the goals we have are to bring the trains to the transit center as soon as we

can. that is a key goal. you've supported the r.a.v. report, you felt that was an important issue. by delaying this, we run the risk of having a very expensive bus terminal. we need to position ourselves to be moving on to oakland and across the bay, and we're not even thinking about that. what's the effect of letting this design work, which is what's being proposed here? we delay the trains to the transit center maybe by a year, maybe by three years, maybe never. that's what we've achieved for the last 100 years, never. we haven't gotten the trains downtown. we delay our housing. we're going to put housing on the railroad yards. is that going to be delayed another year or two or three years? we delay this issue of crossing at 16th street. a big permanent problem. we increase the total plans of

whatever we end up doing with the inflation increase and construction cost. we delay the integration of mission bay with portrero hills, bringing that area together, which is one of the great things the study will achieve. we delay the funding sources. we don't have the e.i.r. in place, we can't go out and get funding. it's a great idea to be mad at a problem, but the implement and solution we're proposing here is not a good one. we need to continue the process, analyze the problem, and make a fix. the fix is not delay, and i'm going to withhold money and i don't like it. vote no on this resolution. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, ron miguel. the last time i came before you was chairt