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 chair of the r.a.v. study, and i appreciate your acceptance of it. i'm here to speak strictly on the resolution of item 11. it's my understanding that what has to be done or should be done in the process would be for the comptroller's office to conduct an evaluation of the tjpa's management delivery, star perform a review of alternative oversight and governance models, and that those studies be put before you in order to go forward. chronicle was nice enough to quote me at the end of the article in today's paper, and

basically what i said is, i would not like to see this project derailed. that's an understatement. and i like to see it start up again in at least six months, but not three years. the previous makers have mentioned the fact that we have to move ahead and not delay it any longer than necessary. that necessary is very true, and i thank president peskin for considering that. you don't go ahead with the same people who are under question until those questions have been decided. and, again, please not three years. >> chairman peskin: thank you, mr. miguel. next speaker. >> first of all, best way to take care of this confusion were documents haven't been presented to you pretending to both

negative and cash flow of the project. i believe it would be ideal if this board, when calling a hearing, not only pertaining to this matter, but any other matter, is to instruct the respondents to supply documents pertaining to both positive and negative cash flow, so you can pinpoint exactly how much progress is being made and how much debt is being made. and as far as this overrun extension and more time to complete the project, the developers got nobody to blame but themselves for that. the developer knows how long it's going to take to complete a project, and it should be a protection clause in there to protect the city if the debt line is not met by the developer, any additional expenses must be paid by the developer. now, about this beam, this might

be an exception on the grounds that the organization that fabricated this beam might have used materials that didn't meet the american society of testing materials is concerned. that's probably why that beam is defective. but the developers got nobody but themselves to blame when they don't meet a deadline that was targeted on a contract that they bid for and claimed that they would have the project completed at a specific date. you got nobody but to blame but yourself for that. now you want to spend more money, and as a result the city's supposed to pay for it. and you're getting a $260 million loan on top of that, plus interest, you got nobody to blame but yourselves for that. >> chairman peskin: next speaker. >> good morning, chair peskin, commissioners. my name is bruce agad, chair of the tjpacac, member of the

community working groups and board member and transportation rep of the south beach recognition bay association. first i'd like to thank chair peskin for moving this resolution forward. this is an example of good governance, which is so much appreciated. with that said, until the d.t.x. is completed, both caltrain and high-speed rail will use 4th and king as their northern terminus. with additional ridership associated with caltrain e lin 2 and high-speed rail in 2027, the station and neighborhood won't be able to safely and efficiently handle the anticipated volume of passengers, residents, workers, and visitors without major infrastructure and station improvements. this is problematic from both a passenger and community

perspective, and a basis for this it recommendation. to have the d.t.x. completed by 2027, i would recommend that we move forward with the items identified in the resolution in parallel with continuing the 30% design. if it's determined a different oversight and governance model is identified and preferred, plans could be made at that time to transition this work to the new structure. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, i'm peter strauss, i'm on the board of the san francisco transit riders and also working with the friends of d.t.x. there are a number of us down here on item 11, and i think you'll hear some differences in the particulars we're recommending, but what we're all saying, i think, is that we recognize we acknowledge the need for you to exercise your due diligence over this project, but at the same time we all agree that the schedule and momentum for completing the downtown extension must be

maintained. one month ago i stood here and tried to remind you that we all bemoan the latest projects at their completion, but whether it is housing or transportation, it is at the beginning of the project that we have the most control, the most ability to exercise delays in project momentum and ultimately project delivery. i would urge you to consider alternatives to a shutdown, such as you did with construction management of the transbay transit center, for instance, you might consider asking mohammed to have his department review invoices and task orders while you conduct your due diligence rather than shutting down the process at this point. at any rate, i very much urge you to consider how best to maintain the momentum of this project as your due diligence proceeds with minimal impact on

the critical path for project delivery. thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you, mr. strauss. next speaker. >> commissioners, i'm jim haas, i was a member of the r.a.b. working group, and as some of you recall, i appeared a number of times over the last decade about this project. and, of course, we were reaping what has -- what we sowed long ago by not paying attention to it. the basic problem was that the first executive director kept the project and the agency under wraps. she asserted it was not a city agency, and she did her best to keep the city out of the project, as some of you are well aware. including the mayor at the time. and so, you know, a lot of what went on occurred because nobody knew what was going on. there's an old expression that says, a power deserves scrutiny, not gratitude, and i think that

your desire to change the bureaucracy around is not as important as developing a way to scrutinize what is going on. to open it up to the largest extent with technical and public involvement. so along with my colleagues worried about the time frame, i, too, would like to see some of the work continued and would rather than six months, 90 days to figure out if you're going to change the bureaucracy around, and please don't try to construct something that needs new state legislation and all that sort of thing that would take years, because it's important that we have a finished plan with the engineering and the environmental work done, even if we don't have the money to build it, because if we have that in place, then we're going to have a better chance to get the money to build it. so scrutiny, in my view, is the most important thing that should be looked at in the next several weeks. >> chairman peskin: thank you, mr. haas. next speaker, please. if there are any other members

of the public on this item, if you line up to my left, your right. >> i'm bob finebaum, the president of save muni. we are very definitely supporters of the downtown extension of caltrain. we agree with the r.a.b. study, which had a timeline that showed this project could be delivered with caltrain coming to the transbay center at the end of 2026 or beginning of 2027. but it cannot be delivered if you halt the funding. this is a separable matter, ladies and gentlemen. on the one hand is the governance side of it, which the comptroller and the t.a. staff and others can weigh in on, but on the other side is a strictly

technical matter, which are the engineering drawings for the 30% design of the d.t.x. that should go forward in parallel with your discussion about the govern, and i think that if you adopt the resolution as it's stated, you should add one other organization to the review, and that would be the coroner's office, because clearly you will be killing the d.t.x., thank you. >> chairman peskin: thank you, seeing no other members of the public, we'll close public comment. let me ask you a question relative to some of the speakers. phase two, downtown extension, estimated cost is?

>> $4 billion. >> chairman peskin: and that does not include grade separations? >> does not include grade separations. that's based on a 2016 cost estimate, supervisor, and we've been working with staff on funding to update the cost estimate after we do the 30% design. >> chairman peskin: and grade separations are worth over a billion dollars, $2 billion? >> based on the r.a.b. study. >> chairman peskin: so we're looking at a project that's north of $6 billion. is that a fair statement? >> as we currentliest mate. we would need to do some more assessments and establish a program based on that, and that's the allocated previously for us and discussion today. our focus is the $4 billion, not the $6 billion.

we have a billion dollars in starts and another billion in local and other funding, and we're looking to have discussions with high-speed rail and caltrain on passing a facilities charge for folks that would use the trains from the 4th and king station and to a transit center that would also generate approximately $2 billion over time that we can -- >> supervisor, the reason i'm asking these questions, i want to make it clear that this project is not fully funded. we're all committed to getting it fully funded, but i'm saying that by virtue of the fact that -- and let me associate myself with some of the comments, which is one commenter said the right time to get it right is at the very beginning, and so this kind of is the very beginning, albeit we've already allocated over $50 million. and the whole notion that this is just engineering work

actually engineers work as instructed, so transbay was designed -- the terminal was designed by engineers, but we could have given them very different instructions and had a building that cost a lot less money and didn't crack, so i agree that this is -- let me also associate myself with the comments of the individual who said that the agency was not very transparent, didn't work with the city and county of san francisco, and that's precisely why having a governance structure that is willing to stand up to that kind of a culture, i think, makes imminent sense at the front end. this is not designed to be -- by the way, the only tool that we have to fix this is money, and my fear is, if we give them continued money, then they will continue down their same old path. i realize that, again, this didn't happen on his watch or not entirely, but the notion of

having the city comptroller conduct an evaluation of tjpa's management and delivery of phase one and having our own staff come up with governance models that would be ant thetical to that kind of veil of secrecy and lack of oversight is precisely what we will get if we withhold money, and i hope that we can do it in a handful of months, but we finally have their attention, and i think it would be fool hardy to not use that leverage while we've got it. with that. >> i want to clarify a couple of things, there is a change of leadership at the tjpa, and you're aware of that. i started two years ago, i've been transparent with all our stakeholders, including executive director chang and her staff. they are embedded in our team. we have biweekly meetings with them, we have peer reviews together. for me, it's been a matter of

oversight, a matter of importance resource that i have available for me that i've been using. so, just to, you know, just to be fair, the organization has changed and is changing and i've mentioned before in front of this board that moving forward with phase two, this would be a collaborative effort with all the stakeholders, including m.t.c. and caltrain. i do support your call for the san francisco city comptroller's office to conduct an evaluation of the management and delivery of the transit center. i think that's fair. i think it's valuable to have that, because it will give us valuable lessons learned that we can incorporate for phase two. i also support the efforts to review alternative oversights and governance structure. we welcome that effort. we welcome any effort to strengthen the t.g.p. organization, but we recently added high-speed rail to provide us the strategic leadership that

we need to deliver phase two, so currently we have numbers from the city and county of san francisco, two members on the board from the state of california, one is high-speed rail and one is caltrans. we also have caltrain and transit. having said that, i'm sure my board will welcome any ideas to enhance the leadership of the board. having said that, i think we can all do these things in parallel with moving the 30% design so that we're not incurring any delays. and more importantly, not losing any opportunities for funding. we are losing funding opportunities. we had a very good funding opportunity with s.b. 1. however, we did not have the environmental document approved in time, so we lost that opportunity. so i think moving forward in parallel, in cooperation, will enable us to stay on schedule and capture any funding opportunities that may arise, as well as satisfy your concerns on the project. thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this.

>> chairman peskin: thank you. any comments from commissioners? commissioner tang. >> commissioner tang: thank you. and i definitely hear your comments, but i think from this board at least, or this body, you know, i think that there has been a lack of confidence on a wider scale, and so i think that at this time we would feel -- i would feel comfortable moving forward with such a resolution in terms of this authorization until, i think, that all of us can feel more confident in how it is that we move forward. there has been a lot that's happened in the past, and so if there are future updates where you can restore that level of commitment to us, i think then we would be more than happy to move forward more funds. so, i will be supportive of this resolution. >> chairman peskin: thank you, commissioner. are there any other questions or comments from commissioners? seeing none on item 11, a roll call, please. >> clerk: motion?

>> chairman peskin: is there a motion to move item 11, seconded by commissioner brown? colleagues on that motion made and seconded, a roll call, please. [ roll call ] we have final approval. >> chairman peskin: thank you for that, colleagues, and is there any introduction of new items? seeing none, is there any general public comment? mr. wright. >> yeah, i want to speak up about the matter close to

millions of dollars that's being spent on bicycle paths that's located on treasure island. i believe some of that money should be spent on testing the soil materials that the youth and lessons and adults, as well, that's going to be using this path to test the soil, which i believe is contaminated because a lot of that soil comes from the hunter's point naval shipyard. and also, this demonstration pertaining to contracts and taxes, you've got a differential treatment that you're applying to taxes. you want to tax certain organizations, and then you turn around and don't tax the corporations that's a multitrillion, billion dollar organization and you're applying taxes to companies that's head

is nowhere as far in their area of profit as the high-tech companies. it's not fair. you can't have a situation about one company but not enjoyed by another. i spoke about that company called chariot, where they just have an employee that was killed by a negligent driver. they came in here and made pleas to be excused from paying payroll taxes and highlighted by the m.t.a., and yet they cannot be exempt from payroll taxes, because they get along with the m.t.a., but yet you turn around and exempt the high-tech companies from payroll taxes, giving them a break. they don't need a break. since when does a mul multi trillion, billion dollar corporation need a break? the people that need a break is the people that's most vulnerable, who you campaign and say that you want to help get situated in the city.

>> bob finebaum from save muni. well, you've done the wrong thing, but i hope you realize that what you've also done is criticized and commented about the tjpa board. the tjpa board is controlled by the city of san francisco -- >> chairman peskin: so, i don't want to interrupt you, but in as far as item 11 has been discussed, this is general public comment, so if you want to make general public comment, you can, but you can't talk about something already on the agenda and we had public comment on. >> this is general public comment, because the tjpa board is controlled by the city of san francisco and by adopting that resolution, you are also adopting a vote of no confidence on the tjpa board. you should realize that.

>> chairman peskin: thank you for those comments. seeing no other public comment, public comment is closed, and the t.a. is adjourned, but please stick around, because we're going to reconvene as timma for one item. >> clerk: timma board meeting will start in five minutes. [ five-minute break ] good afternoon, colleagues, and welcome to the most exciting part of our day today, the board meeting of the treasure island mobility management agency.

please contain your excitement. our clerk today is alberto quintanilla, and i'd like to take a moment to thank felix and charles at sfgov tv for broadcasting our meeting and ensuring it is available online. mr. clerk, do we need to take roll? >> clerk: yes. [ roll call ] >> chairwoman kim: can you call items two, three, and four together? >> clerk: items two, items

three, item four, approve the minutes of the june 26, 2018 meeting. this is an action item. >> chairwoman kim: thank you, colleagues, this meeting is somewhat apropos after our deep dive and discussion into congestion management and mobility management in our sfcta committee meeting, and this is really our first foray into introducing a mobility management program on treasure island, and create a revenue source to fund a brand new ferry and bus service, as well as autonomous shuttles to policy frontiers related to tolling and equitable access. earlier this month i joined my colleagues who represent districts that border the 180, i'm sorry, the 80, the 101, and the 280, and we, along with our san mateo policymakers, traveled to los angeles to study the experiencing with tolling and another context that of freeway express lanes. we toured and learned about

l.a.'s decision-making approach for the 10 freeway, which was experiencing heavy congestion, as well as generating harmful emissions in the neighborhoods adjacent to the 10 back in 2012. and i want to thank supervisitors mandelman, ronen, cohen, for attending this trip. we also learned it's as much about congestion as the health of our residents. the world health organization estimates up to 80% of residents around the world are caused more than 3 million premature deaths worldwide every year, and so it's important for us to address air quality. at this time i want to open up for the executive director's

report. director chance, who is shaking her head. >> thank you so much. i'll submit that online and forego the verbal presentation. >> chairwoman kim: thank you. the clerk has also called an action item, approval of minutes. are there corrections to the minutes or comments from colleagues? seeing none, we'll open up public comment for items 2, 3, and 4. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. colleagues, can we take action on the item? we have a motion from commissioner fewer, second from commissioner yee, and let's take a roll call on this item. >> clerk: on item 4. [ roll call ] we have final approval.

>> chairwoman kim: and the item passes. mr. clerk, can you please call the next item? >> clerk: item 5, approve a three-year professional services contract with hntb corporation in an amount not to exceed $250,000 for conceptual system design, operations oversight, and evaluation services for the treasure island autonomous vehicle shuttle pilot program. this is an action item. >> chairwoman kim: this was heard at committee and is incredibly exciting. it will be the first time our city launches or pilots an autonomous shuttle program here in san francisco, and so this is just to begin the design operation oversight and evaluation services. we have mike tan here if anyone has any questions or comments. seeing none, we'll open up for public comment on this item. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed on item number 5. mr. clerk, can we do same house, same call? >> clerk: motion and a second? >> chairwoman kim: sorry, we have a motion from commissioner

yee, a second from commissioner peskin. >> clerk: we can take it same house. >> chairwoman kim: same house, same call. mr. clerk, can you call items 6 and 7? >> clerk: item 6 is an information item, item 7, public comment. >> chairwoman kim: colleagues, are there any new items you would like to introduce today? seeing none, public comments on items number 6 and also general public comment at this time. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed for item 6 and 7. mr. clerk, any other items before this board? >> clerk: item 8, adjournment. >> chairwoman kim: seeing none, this meeting is adjourned. see you all at 2:00 p.m.

>> the meeting will come to order. this is a regular meeting of the vision zero committee for wednesday, october 31st. 2018. i am captain -- [laughter] [applause] >> and i wanted to do this to emphasize what we really mean about what is vision zero. as you know, it is our policy in