[applause] ihenacho inasmu

i will call to order the san francisco transbay joint powers authority meeting for today, november 8, 2018. can we call the roll. >>clerk: all right. and prior to calling roll, i'll note for the record that michael hursh is joining us as a member of the public, and on behalf of supervisor kim, katey tang. with that -- [roll call] >>clerk: as well, mr. chairman, you do have a quorum. go ahead and call your next item? >> yes, please. >> >>clerk: item three is communications. i'm not aware of any. seeing none, directors, new and oral business. none. item five, executive director's report.

>> good morning, directors, i will begin my update by providing you with the progress that we're making toward the reopening of the salesforce transit center. i would like to assure you and the public that we are working swiftly to determine a cause and reopen the facility, but we are balancing that with our responsibility to conduct a thorough investigation and fully cooperate with independent risk review and over sight provided by the metropolitan transportation commission. we are excited to welcome the public back to the transit center and the park. as you know, the first step toward reopening is to install a temporary shoring system, and we did so at both fremont street and first street locations. we reopened fremont street on sunday, october 14, after the shoring was installed, and we were able to install the shoring

on ninth street during night to minute muse public impact. with the shoring system in place, we were able to take samples of the beams in question on fremont street and smaller samples, as well, from the beams in question on first street. sample locations and findings were proposed by the tjpa and the contractor and accepted by our independent review panel. the samples were then shipped to l.p.i. laboratory in new york. the testing facility agreed upon by all parties, including the peer review panel. testing is underway to determine the cause of the fissures. we expect the results later this month to tell us the findings and determine a repair. after, we will did he right lane open a schedule for implementing

the repair and opening the facility. i assure you, we will work as quickly as we can, but we must ensure a trusting and thorough investigation to win back the trust of the public at large. i would like to thank the peer review panel members for providing us with over sight, expertise, valuable input and for their expeditious reviews. later in the agenda, the tgpa construction manager will provide more construction details as part of the update on the transit center closure. moving to phase two in the downtown extension, we received the final comments from the federal transit administration for the supplemental environmental documents on friday of last week. we have since discussed with them the comments received and incorporated their input in the final environmental documents. we expect to find f.t.a. the

final document. barring any delays on obtaining f.t.a. signature on final documents, we plan to submit the fire e.i.r.-e-i-s for your consideration at the board meeting. as you know, the san francisco county transportation authority board passed a resolution to suspend tgpa's $9.2 million extension 30% design. this suspension of funding will stay in place until the san francisco city controller's office conducts an audit of tgpa's management and delivers phase one and delivery of phase two, the downtown extension. i will report to the commissioners that the tgpa

welcomes this, as it will provide tgpa with valuable lessons learned. [inaudible] >> -- california high speed rail, and sfcta. we work with sfcta executive director, tilly chang, and the san francisco controller's office to complete these two efforts as soon as possible so that funding can be reinstated and work on the downtown extension can resume. moving onto transit center operations, as you know, all bus operations continues to be conducted from the temporary terminal. since the transit center's temporarily closure, we took steps to reduce staffing levels on all our operational activities. we also developed a schedule of

required ramp-up time so we can be ready to augment staff when the transit center is scheduled for reopening is developed. next month, we will present the board with impact the closure has had on our operational budget. we were working with pearl media, the advertising and social media time to rapidly start the social media and rapid response team once the park opens. we will be ready for a full schedule of park events as soon as the park reopens. later on today's agenda, we have another lease for your consideration. as you know, retail is one of the long-term strategies for generating revenues to fund operations. our current operating projections for a stablized year is approximately $32 million. our projected revenues is

approximately $18 million. the remaining $14 million will be generated from toll funds and operator subsidies. we expect to get approximately $11 million from toll funds and $3 million from the operator subsidies. in addition to generating revenue from retail and advertisement and other activities, we are also identifying efficiencies and looking for other revenue sources for the center. we'd like to close by saying i understand how important the transit center is to the bay area and the state. it's an economic driver for the neighborhood, creating direct and indirect jobs, generating sales tax revenue for the state and the city and providing permanent jobs for people that need them. we will reopen as soon as possible, safely possible, so that the entire bay area can

once again benefit from the investment they have made in the transbay program. directors, at this time, i would like to present with you the project leadership report, and then, i can take questions. dennis? >> thank you. good morning, directors. this will be our third quarter 2018 labor agreement. we go through labor and administration, labor statistics and finish out with the apprenticeship trend. we held our 26th joint administrative meeting on the 20th, went through our regular agenda. it was a fairly -- very straightforward meeting. very little report came in from the unions, and it was our first meeting with our new san francisco building commission -- building trades person, tim

paulson. we went through apprenticeship programs. in regards with labor for q 3, there were no labor stoppage for incidents, but there were zero incidents, and of course no lost time in third quarter. person years, we do have our breakdown that we have throughout the bay area and central valley showing that we have about 5.5 million hours of labor. regarding the apprenticeships in this graph that we've been showing a while now, you can see the far right end, it really does show as the labor was ramping down, we still are holding that yellow line, greenish line, depending on how it looks on your monitors. they're providing the shift perthe p.l.a. still, and we're essentially at 99.99% of the

precincts reporting. also, on the bus storage facility, the construction company, they have achieved their apprenticeship goal. that completes my presentation. if there's any questions. >> questions? yes. >> quick comment. i just wanted to thank directza for coming to us and reporting this. thank you. >> thank you. >> comment. >> yes, director -- >> i appreciate the peer review.

i think we can always get better. i would just suggest, as i mentioned to director chang, we also do an apt peer review. apt has done peer review as they were here last week for caltrain. having autos set of experts looking at it from a -- having a different set of experts looking at it from a different set of eyes could benefit us. >> okay. >> comments on a similar line. i appreciate the report, thank you very much. i want to make sure we don't get focused on the o-rings, so to speak. i don't want us to focus on the issue that we're currently facing. i'm glg i'm going to have to face our board, the public, and the entire facility. i appreciate the way this is being handled, but i have to double underline, if anything else happens, it will be

something we can't potentially recover from. as i guess more involved with this board, i want to make sure we're looking through the entire facility to make sure nothing else happens. thank you. >> any other directors? thank you. >> director nuru, if the board is in agreement, i'll be happy to follow the advice of vice chair zee and do another review. >> i think it's good to have as many sets of i's that we have and dot all the i's and cross all the t's to make sure we don't have anything like that again. >> it may be worth coming back to the board. if you explore kind of coming back what that would look like, kind of scope and timeline. i think there could be great value in it. it could also be a very long and slow process, so we may want to balance that, if that's the case, will it be effective if we get an answer a year from now.

so just having an understanding of what that might look like, i think would be helpful. >> okay. you're also getting into very different set of issues as you're going into that project, so you might also want to look at them that way. >> okay. >> go ahead and call your next item, item six? >> yes, please. >> is an update on the closure and repair of the salesforce transit center. >> good morning, directors, ron and i will present this. it'll be a combination of the shoring, repairs, closure update, and my presentation builds on previous items that

you have seen in the past, but i leave them in there as reference, and ron will come up and reference on other items that are going on with the rest of the project, so we'll both be up here. so i bring this up as the bus deck, this red line is the two ghirardelliers since september 25 that we've been discussing. the two columns on the outside are the supporting columns and the one in the middle is the girder. the bus aisle is supported by this. as we've seen, we did have that -- i bring this as reference of where this is at,

the crack in the round area. that's what we call the flange. i will refer to that through various other signs. that's the bottom part. if you picture the girder as the i-beam, that would be the bottom part. this part is the web, and i'll refer to that, as well. [inaudible] >> -- to receipt lines are up there. what it looks like below in the train box are these two levels. this is what's -- the steel supports, those red items in there are jacks that are applying a load to whatever the surface is above it, and in

snugging it up so there can be a transfer of load so the repair can be made in there. when you come up to the ground level, this'll probably be the most recognizable because this is where most of the public can see. this has been in place now for a while. those similar jacks are in place as they are pushing up on the bus deck and taking about 70% of that load off of those girders. in the meantime, fremont street has been flowing with no issues since we opened it october 14. now up on the bus deck level, this is the shoring system that was installed. this is mainly what it happens since the last time. these are newer pictures. this is a system that's taking -- like i said, 70% off the girder that had the crooks. some of those bracers or kickers out there is a seismic. there's a seismic criteria that's been built in that's at the full design capacity at this

point. you know, the seismic or drift as some would call it has been totally built into this shoring system, and it's not being treats treated as a temporary in it to ensure the redundancy in it. so on the right-hand side, you see the pictures of what you're looking at is that flange. you can see the crack is to the left of a stiffener. if you go down to the base where it hits the flange, there happens to be the crack in that particular spot. if you refer to that item or drawing or rendering on the left, you can see the purple or bluish, that's the sample area

or cut lines. it was determined by both parties that it was very important to cut this out. we've done that for both girders at fremont street, so essentially we took out four samples, and i'll show you those a picture of. i do note on the rendering on the left, you see some pinkish purplish on the right-hand side of

it is done, and it essentially kept the sample and the girder itself at 70°, so it kept it relatively cool and allowed them to take that out without doing any damage. all parties agreed on where these white lines were, and when i say all parties, the peer review, to herrick, the fabricator, and the supplier. so we have everyone because that's been the only way we've been able to move forward is to ensure that all parties have that full access.

so that was the operation. it's actually an amazing operation with a lot of pulleys that it works through, and was -- and those samples were taken out. and here's pictures of those samples out. each weighs somewhere around 600 pounds each. they're -- two of the four came completely apart, and those were up on the table at the left-hand picture where they're in two parts, but the ones on the pallets, on the right-hand side, were still intact, and those were shipped that way. we shipped t-- the smaller piecs were shipped air frath, and tei the other ones were shipped ground freight. we had everyone -- all parties from the peer review, which is actually the peer review member

who is in the picture here with the beard, and then, also, we had every one of those same contractors, fabricators, and the materials people, also, they had full access, and nothing was moved without making sure that everyone was aware of what was happening and was on board and agreed upon. so then, those, now have been shipped. they've all arrived -- i believe all of them have arrived now. if not, they'll be shortly. so this is that same rendering that i was referencing. this is that same one, just a little closer. you can now start seeing that there's individual little coupons, little pieces. that starts showing you -- it's almost multiple layers. they'll do the exterior layer, the midpoint, the corner point. this is going to be sliezed up into many, many different pieces to perform the tests that are on

the left-hand side. this is a list of all the tests that were agreed upon now that are moving forward as they machine all these little pieces and start the process of testing, which is started already, they will then go through this litany of different tests that they've all agreed on. once the tests are getting close to done, we're going to have another round on next wednesday where all parties are going to converge on l.p.i. to get that last chance, after maybe some initial results and inspections of these pieces, there may be additional testing that may be required that the peer review may want. maybe such the parties such as the fabricator or the materials person may need additional, depending on how initial test results are coming out, so that's why there's a little bit of a process here, but we want to make sure we take the steps properly in everything we do and

make sure everyone's involved. but there's a long list that will be done on all these samples. so for schedule, at least for -- this particular slide shows an as-billed in october and pretty much what's happening in november . it just pretty much showed -- this would be november 1 through 30 in this slide. it just shows things that would go on in december and beyond. it does show the as build as we opened fremont on october 14. we are done with our sampling. as the blue line would indicate, we are in the middle of that testing procedure. it does show two weeks, but additional may be required depending on what it shows us next week. that gets us into the all very important element of findings and results. that's where we will get our root cause.

once we get that root cause, then, that's where the finalization of the design and the actual fix comes from, so we're getting methodically to that step as efficiently as possible, and then, the design will be reviewed and approved by the peer review. just as a quick update on first street, similarly, that's where we have identical design over there. there still has been no cracks, no identified items looic thike found over there, but we continue to look in that area as well because of a similar design to ensure what is necessary, if anything for redundancy over there. what we have in place is currently a three-level system of shoring that are ares at the train platform level and -- --

that are at the platform level. almost identical pictures below grade. it's essentially an identical design that's below grade at first street, and then, above grade, this is what it's been looking like since we installed those for stablization, and first street has not had any impacts since -- we did this work over night, and it's had zero impacts to rush hour or no impacts on first street with the split-lane configuration. what we've done, we did do a lot of nondestructive testing at first street to make sure there's no cracking, ultrasonic testing. there's several types of testing, the litany of nondestructive that you can do was done, but we also took

samples. these are small, 4 inch core samples, what's being tested now to confirm the -- basically the strength of the hardness of these girters over at first street. [please stand by]

>> good morning director. i want to recognize dennis and the engineers and the contractors for their hard work in a short time frame to address this problem.

from day one, we had mapped the approach was going to be just stabilized and analyzed with benefit of pier review. we're on track in a measured manner i want to express my appreciation to the team for advancing that. we haven't lost sight that we want to finalize the phase one construction clos to close touts portion of the program. in terms of budget, we're in a slower burn than we had been. we committed $2.1 billion and expanded it to $2.09 billion. that was about delta 6.7 in expenditures and 4.7 in

committed over the last month. mostly attributed to the extended period to address the close out as well as capture some of the latter trade packages that are coming to closure or maturity. in terms of forecast, e.a.c. remains the same. there are no new risk to factor or new facts. issues you have the paving are clearly in the realm of warranty and should not impact e.a.c. we are from the process reviewing the history of those matters to ensure we get the facts and understand the root causes of those issues.

in terms of contingency use, it's little bit of a slow burn. we've had some light draws. mostly as i mentioned, the latter packages. the ercs and the low voltage systems that are wrapping up now and drawing down on some of the contingency. little bit of changes with d.b.i. in terms of their code code interpretation. i want to remind or refresh on the contract close out status and methodology.

close out process involves these main bullet points. we need to be in receipt of the warranties. the punch list must be completed and accepted commissioning and training systems completed and then full and final close out change orders for all the various trade packages associated with webcor's work. in terms how we're progressing through that, i think the work to complete list is a few thousand items. many which are accomplished by wewebcor. we're starting to close out the punch list items. in summary fashion, where we stand in terms of the 42-43

trade packages associated with the project, we're at cusp closing out 10 trade packages. we're just buttoning up the full and final closeout change order resolving whatever remaining issues with webcor and the associated trade package subcontractor. seven trade packages will be nearly the same position. however, their activity is being protracted by the girder issue. 14 trade packages are not quite at the same level of readiness as the first 10 that i mentioned. they're still chasing warranties or finishing up punch lists. they're nearing a closeout

position but not quite there yet. then the remaining 11 trade packages we anticipate will be mired in some of the claim issues that had been run. we'll get into that more in closed session. that's pretty much it. just wanted to underscore that we haven't lost sight of closeout despite having to address the surprise of the beam condition. with that, i or dennis can address questions you may have. >> i have two questions for dennis or mark. the first is i understand that with regard to first street, we've so far not found anything of concern the level of testing it will be different from

fremont. maybe this premature to be expecting an answer for. do we expect that whatever the design solution is for fremont street, we'll be applying to first street regardless of the fact that we've not as of yet, identified any problems with first treat? >> i think it's premature to say that. i think very important element that we'll find out soon is those core samples. that's a very important element that will play into the matrix of solutions. we're not there yet. i wouldn't assume the same will be applied. will be what's felt -- the needed redundancy of first street. we're not there yet. >> okay. then the second question really following on director hursh's earlier comment, i know you made reference to the load path, there were loads that when this happened were distributed in places that were not anticipated and not designed for us.

i'm glad to hear that you're looking at that. it's a large structure with many other structural elements not impacted by this. we only found this fremont street issue si certain issue. to director hursh's point. it's important we're focusing we know there's a problem. could you talk about to what extent we're evaluating the rest of the facility, structural and nonstructural to provide the team, the board and public, the confidence that it's not just this one thing that we happen to find but that everything else is okay or if there are other issues we need to address? >> director reiskin. we're working on that.

we'll make an effort to independent any other location -- inspect any other locations in the building. we want to see what the cause is. there's structural analysis done on design team for the building. really to find out what other locations we need to explore, we need to wait for the findings. >> director reiskin: my point we only know of this issue because some astute workers happen to find it, well could have passed the ability of anyone to determine. we're very fortunate on that point. with the process now put in place, we can address this specific issue and any related issues based on how the load shifted. my point wasn't related to what

we found with this beam. it's other things -- i think given that we found this just by chance, i think, begs the question, what other things might there be in the building that we should be looking at, to make sure there's nothing else missed. >> you mean other things related to this? correct. >> we can go back and develop a strategy. ron mentioned some reports so that we're making sure they are done. closeout process make sure everything was done to plan. >> director reiskin: this issue, i think this is what director hursh's point was, puts at stake the credibility of the whole program or the whole project.

to overcome that, we do need some level of review of the whole facility. to make sure -- i have high level of confidence such a review would find that the facility is in good shape. i think having that review undertaken will be important in order to restore the credibility of the facility. >> without question. i think as we go through reviewing the history of what transpired and look at the qaqc documents, i think some data will emerge to give us a guiding light to follow as we look at the entire facility in terms of priority of what should we look at first and to what depth. i suspect or anticipate that the findings that we'll have from looking at the history and the

data that we have, whether to be steel related or otherwise in terms how the qaqc program played out, let the facts lead us through this. without question, we do have to review our facility. we just want to create a framework that's prioritized and focus in the right place in the right order. >> director reiskin: that's good to hear. it will be helpful to memorialize that review in the conclusions of it in some sort of document or deliverable so that we and the public have kind of a seal of approval that not only did we address this beam issue but we've reviewed the rest of the facility and it's good to go. >> very good. >> i like to piggy back on

director reiskin. i'm hearing, the board has suggested and prior meetings, there's two concurrent paths. absolutely need to focus on the repair and the analytics now. i don't want to see us get caught where through this process, the repairs are made but our operators saying i'm still not comfortable with the building. that we're not -- we have a building still not being used. that's what i heard director hursh suggest. the second path that has to be done concurrently since many of us here in the beginning, i like to hear a pier review panel on , report to us about the engineering work and design by thornton thomas as well as pier

review panel two at m.t.c. looking back on the engineering and the design of the facility. to be able to come to us and public and say, everything was designed according to code, right safety factors, all that stuff. so the issue can be isolate on qaqc or mill work. it leaves one part of the question open about the engineering. was it done right? is it appropriate where all the things observed? both need to happen concurrently so we don't get caught the repairs are done and the operators are not comfortable yet operating. >> i appreciate the director support of my recommendation. i apologize for being the new

kid on the the block. i would suggest it needs to be agendized. we would like that report to come back. just to make it clear, we're currently carrying over 14,000 people a day to a temporary temper terminal. a bus operator have to explain why it's safe to come back. that should be the goal of this study is for us to be able to in plain language, explain to the customers and employees why it's safe and why we're comfortable going back in the facility. i appreciate your support. i would ask it be an agenda item for this group. >> one other comment. can you go to that slide about next steps that you had prior to updating us on the budget? my understanding where the process now is everybody is kind

of on board looking at l.p.i.'s work and there's a meeting come up when they report their findings. that includes everybody. webcor obayashi, skanska. what isn't in here what happens if that group doesn't necessarily agree with l.p.i.'s finding and wants to do additional testing. is that another threes to do additional testing. we go ahead without them doing the testing? >> that was what -- the peer review panel want some initial reports. we'll know next wednesday. we'll have a meeting. we're meet acing at the l.p.i. .

we'll know at that point if requiring additional testing. we'll figure out if that's parallel or if that hold up the process. it depends on the type of testing. it maybe just clarifying testing more than anything. it depends on what the test is. >> i imagine the expectations. here we are and here's the report, not everyone may agree with the report's finding. we need to make sure it gets done right. >> let me clarify, we're not going to go into the findings phase until all the parties are satisfied and all the testing has been completed. that's what dennis was alluding to. our goal is to have consensus and also to have conclusive

results. we need to know the cause. we need to have consensus with the cause and have peer review of the cause to implement the proper fix and follow up on other exploratory investigations >> on your trade group package, clarification, this is a big project that's gone on for a long time in the construction phase. have we closed out any of the early trade groups? are they all carried to this point? >> i think the first wave is among the ten that i suggested. >> no one has been closed out yet? the excavation and shoring? >> there's a number of internal issues between the seven and webcor working out. the first 10 are the two a i mentioned and they are truly at the point of handing to web webr to hand to the sub to sign on

the line full final done gone. i'm anticipating that next report, we got those in the books. >> thank you. >> would you mind putting that slide back up? last time we talked about the scope of this m.t.c.-led peer review. could you confirm the very last slide that the m.t.c. peer review scope is not just to advise on the fix -- sorry, the one you had up earlier with the next steps. sorry. it says m.t.c. peer provincial o

implement the fix. the last bullet should be flipped with the open of the facility. >> i think we're anticipating. it is safe now as it is with the temporary shoring. identified a core issue and the more broader investigation may -- we'll let the experts guide us whether it's before or after in terms of priority. trying to balance out opening versus what -- there will be some things that are looked at more for comfort without answering to caters. we're anticipating some of that follow-up work to roll out.

>> are we comfortable with that directors? >> my feeling is, there are safety issues. it's what you need in order to feel that it's okay to be in the facility. there maybe issues that this peer review or broader review would look at that safety issues that don't have to be on the critical path opening the facility. we still want to look at to get that full clean bill of health for the facility. i don't have concern that we'll be green lighted to open up the facility if there's lingering safety questions. it will be -- what we don't want to do is put kind of nonsafety issues or other issues that we still maybe interested in on the critical path and delay unnecessarily delay opening of the facility. as long as we parse those outs what are the safety issues before opening, versus maybe other issues that we still want

to address but don't need to delay the opening, i will be comfortable. >> that's what i meant. those were the indicator its a are safety issues and there are indication need to take a deeper look. there are things we may want to look at that have no problem. we want to revisit. fast the distinction i'm drawing. other than safety issues or if the agency want to articulate specifics that they are concerned about, that is another guide post that would help us navigate it. it's one thing to go into four city blocks looking for something not knowing what we're looking for and another thing to have a guide post. that's what we're trying to do is establish a prioritized guide post to navigate through this investigation.

>> director sesay: on the contract closeout, to what extinct does the fix process that we're g the closeout process? >> it depends on the root cause. indication is a warrenty issue and will be outside. there are ripple effects a we're taking now during the peer review. minimal at best. every indication is a warranty issue. part of the repercussions squarely in that camp >> director sesay: i know we'll be reviewing how the process has impacted the project. i think it will be helpful if -- i'm expecting we're tracking all these additional resources a has

been deployed. i like to see a budget specifically addressing this fix. it will be nice to separate the two. the expectation is potentially it's warranty but it will be nice it know what that cost is. >> for those things that we're implementing, everything is ear parkepark -- ear earmarked. some of them have webcor has advanced a couple in terms of request to draw down contingencies which is inappropriate drawdown and ahasbeen deny end. >> director sesay: i want to

ensure a you have all the resources you need financially at least to get through this process. >> next board meeting, we're tallying up costs. this board meeting we present to you the impacts powering forward. i do want to clarify one item to director her point, we will not open the building until we ensure that the building is sound. we think we can do that in parallel. assure the board and director hursh as well, we will not open the facility. >> following up on director gee's question on the analysis and steps taken on the testing, i'm glad there's good

collaboration in the process of everybody working together towards get to the right answer. you might get to the finger pointing stage. everybody on the same page to this point of a entire process? >> there have been an amazing amount of effort behind to get to this sampling and testing procedure. yes, we have 100% commitment on all sides now. that was a finalized at the project team last week before we really got into the testing. everyone is on the same page at this point for testing as well too. it's been an incredibly important element to that to make sure we got everyone on. the next step will be when you get this failure analysis, getting everyone on the same

page for the design. we're starting to develop a process already with options and then having -- it's been a full team effort as we look to the next steps as well too as an effort to make sure there's not an outlier. it does change things. >> step by step process. we get information and as we learn, we hope the end result is the public is confident we're doing the right thing to reopen the facility to meet everybody's concerns. >> thank you. >> that concludes that item. item assessment i seven is the s advisory committee update.

>> good morning chair nuru, directors. my chair of tjpa citizens advisory committee. my comments are focused on the following area. our meeting opened with executive director providing update on the passage of the resolution. calling for them to suspend funding agreement with the tjpa for the downtown extension, 30% design part one until the following conditions were met. san francisco city office conducts evaluation of the management. , the staff performs a review of all alternativeoversigh -- altet

and governance models. results of both efforts are presented to the sfcta board. a passionate discussion ensued among the c.a.c. members. there were three areas of concern of the resolution. the first were costs. assuming full funding can be secured along the critical path of phase two and any delays moving forward with phase two in this case, 30% will result to increased escalation. at this time estimated approximately $17 million a month. second, missed opportunities to obtain commitments of federal and state funding for phase two and third, until completion of the dtx and caltran and high speed rail will utilize forth --

fourth and king with caltran electrification delivered in 2022 and high speed rail in 2027. the nation and neighborhood window be handle to anticipated volumes of passengers, residents, workers and visitors with major infrastructure and station improvements. this is problematic. based on these concerns, the c.a.c. members would have preferred that the design activities continue with the conditions outline outlined in e c.t.a. resolution being met. the c.a.c. members understand and respect the unanimous decision by the sfcta commissionerrings this is an appropriate action by those responsible for good governance and oversight of the scale. with this as the backdrop, the

c.a.c. relates the following. the evaluation and review by the comptroller office in sfcta's staff be conducted with sense of urgency. chair peskin mentioned he expect this review could be completed within a handful of months. second, we recommend that informational updates be provided to both the sfcta commission and the tjpa board on a regular basis. possiblyevery 4 to 6 weeks. based upon the updates, that the earliest time possible, when the commission and board are assured the intent of the resolution's conditions have been met, make the appropriate changes if any, recommended by either the sfcta staff or