noe valley, but it's twin peaks, as far as the weather pattern. we can go through the house without running into a storm, and having that adjacent to it means that it's less visible and less exposed to the neighbors, and we're going to do it in a way that preserves our privacy as much as theirs. >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i certainly understand the impacts around congregation and noise and folks living in their back yard. i have a hot tub next to my apartment in the back yard, and it does happen that people are out side more, and i certainly hear them more, but i cannot -- personally cannot think of a location in which there just wouldn't be impact, so i'm struggling to -- i hear those concerns, and i think it's been thoughtfully done.

>> i think it's a design problem that we're prepared to solve and having it exposed out in the garden is a nonstarter for us. >> president melgar: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: mr. paul, the hot tub, how much of it is enclosed under some type of a canopy or roof? halfway? is there a stair above it? >> it wasn't originally -- there was definitely -- >> president melgar: thank you pull the mic again? >> inexperienced. >> commissioner richards: you don't want this kind of experience. trust us. >> there was a significant -- when there was a hot tub, there was a significant fence by planning. we can do a seven-foot fence, as high as we're allowed to do a fence. we definitely did not have a

covering, but it was tucked into the corner. it did have an outdoor shower, but it was kind of tucked in as much as possible. >> commissioner richards: one other question, the neighbors -- maybe the neighbor can answer. i'm assuming the hot tub is right there on the property line and you're going to put the pump and everything far away. where are the windows to the bedroom in the neighbor's house? three floors up, like directly perpendicular? at 45°? is it -- >> it's set back from the property line about 5 feet, i believe. >> okay. and this is a flat roof, two story building. is there a property line window there? >> i can do this for you. >> commissioner richards: thank you? >> you know those clever things where you ev've got to layer y elevation with the building in front of you? >> commissioner richards: i do. >> i've got one of those.

okay. let's d let's do it. i'm going to draw in a hot tub. >> commissioner richards: okay. great. can you talk into the mic? >> i'm drawing first. >> commissioner richards: it moves. it moves. >> i think that's a bedroom window. >> commissioner richards: okay. and is it a transom window? is it an operable window? >> not sure. >> commissioner richards: okay. >> but here's the hot tub. >> commissioner richards: hold on a second. we'll ask you, too. >> so this profile is their building. that's the big deck. i believe that's the clear story in the living room, so this is the top floor. >> commissioner richards: with the bedroom window. >> with the bedroom. >> commissioner richards: now, next-door neighbor, while you still have the drawing up

there. >> it's a window -- >> commissioner richards: could you speak into the microphone, please. >> where you see the red -- >> commissioner richards: yes. can we see the overhead, again? can you push it over so we can take a look here? there we go. okay. so we'll see the hot tub down there. is that an operable window? >> that's the window off our -- >> this is a bedroom window. however, this whole wall are sliding glass doors. so -- so the hot tub -- the noise would travel through the patio doors as well as the window. and we also have two other floors. one on the second floor is the living room, and then, the ground floor is a family room. >> commissioner richards: okay. okay. thank you very much. so where i'm coming down on this is everybody that i know

that has a house that has a hot tub has it tucked exactly where the project sponsor is putting it. my personal experience is my husband wants a hot tub, and guess where we were going to put it? same place because we don't want to be running through the the yard if it's cold, running through if we're naked. we hear our neighbor three doors down on 16th street, and we're on beaver street. sound travels, so i don't think moving the hot tub over 5 feet, you're not going to get much of a difference. i can hear my neighbors talking in their house behind me in their yard. when their dog goes out to pee, he goes pee, pee, pee. i think we're splitting hairs here. i think everything we're doing allows me to go to sleep at

night, saying we're not ruining the d.r. requester's lives. trust me, i experience the same thing where we live. so i move to not take d.r. and accept the project as proposed. >> second. >> president melgar: commissioner moore, did you want to -- >> commissioner moore: i just wanted to tell the commission to move the entrance to the north facade is something we need to discuss. mr. paul, could you comment that? >> yeah, cognizant of previous projects, we have directed architect to make that an identifiable obvious entrance to that guard unit. >> commissioner richards: so i accept your friendly amendment to put lighting and canopy so that it really reads like a garden entrance. >> commissioner moore: one question i would particularly have to commissioner richards

who's planning to have a hot tub in his own home, i would still think that a kind of privacy screen, trellis, landscaping at the edge of the hot tub may kind of help break the impact of it. i'm not sure that's not necessarily an acoustic buffer, but it may be a psychological buffer to making it a little bit more softened. i personally don't particularly care for looking in other people's hot tubs, and perhaps that would help matters. i'm not sure what your thoughts are on that. >> just to be clear, miss wi wilmer, you're allowed to build a fence up to 10 feet without a height permit. so within those parameters, i'm sure you can arrange some kind of privacy screening that will also have an acoustic benefit. >> commissioner moore: i would like to perhaps add that to your motion, commissioner

richards. >> commissioner richards: can you articulate it? >> commissioner moore: yeah, to make the fence visually and acoustically to make it visually complete and soften the vision as much as we can. >> commissioner richards: with no roofing, open to the sky still. >> commissioner moore: with no roofing. >> commissioner richards: and work with staff on that. i hope nobody d.r.s my hot tub. >> clerk: so commissioners, if we're going to add conditions of approval, you need toic at th that -- to take d.r. and approve this project with conditions. >> commissioner richards: move to take d.r. and approve the project with conditions. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. that amenable to the seconder, commissioner koppel?

>> yes. >> clerk: very good. on that motion to take d.r. and approve the project with conditions to leave the hot tub open to the sky and -- >> commissioner richards: work with staff on making it more pronounced. >> clerk: very good. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, that'll place us on item 22 at 743 vermont street, discretionary review. >> good evening, president melgar, commissioners, david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review for building application 2017.10

2017.1017.2504 the building's historic resource category is c. the reason for the d.r. request, ryan patterson on behalf of meg mcknight is concerned with three main issues. first, the inappropriate building scale at the midblock open space, second, the loss of light and privacy, and third, a last-minute addition to the d.r. application asserts the existence of an unauthorized dwelling unit. to date, the department has received no letters in opposition and five letters in support. recommendation, the department has rereviewed the project with respect to the residential design guidelines. to do so, we requested

additional graphic information regarding the existing adjacent buildings be provided, and those are in your packet. after reviewing these, the department confirmed that the scale and massing of the proposed addition is comparable with the adjacent buildings, and the issued raised by the d.r. examiner are not -- requester are not significant or extraordinary. visual access to the midblock open space is retained by the same techniques of sculpting the rear of the building. additionally, with respect to the assertion of the existing unauthorized dwelling unit, i'm going to read a little definition of ours. nonauthorized dwelling unit shall mean or one more rooms within a building that have

been used without the benefit of a building permit as separate or distinct living or sleep space, independent from residential units on the same property. independent shall mean that one, the space has independent access and does not require entering the residential unit on the property, and two that there is no open visual connection to a residential unit on the property. based on the definition above, the department requires both of the following to establish that a space is an unauthorized dwelling unit. one, the physical attributes of independent access and lack of connection to a residential unit as described above. and second, the proof of occupancy to determine if a space has been used as a separate and distinct living un. we did not find occupancy. the owner has provided a signed affidavit attesting that this

is not an unauthorized dwelling unit, and with this, the stave finds that this meets our department standards for both the design guidelines and recommends commission not take the d.r. and approve the project as proposed, as it does not present any exceptional or extraordinary conditions. this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> president melgar: okay. thank you, mr. winslow. we will now hear from the d.r. requester. >> thank you, president and commissioners. i'm meg mcknight. this is my partner, daniel. i've lived next door to the project for 12 years. i love potrero hill, and i plan to stay there for a long time. i'm only here today because the sponsors have refused my many requests to discuss concerns of the project, beginning at the preapplication meeting in july 2017, all of the living space in my modest house is setup to enjoy the natural light, the

blue sky, which is oriented towards the project site to the north. we'll look at the computer, please. here's a photo to illustrate. there are high -- this is the orientation in my little piece of blue sky, which is really important where i eat and work and gather with my family. the other sides, they're high retaining walls and houses on the other sides. as proposed, we'll see a three story wall high beyond or house, covering up a major portion of that blue sky, the natural light, and the midspace -- the green space in the midblock. worst of all, the expansion of the third floor includes a 14-foot horizontal expansion. along with the flat roof that's

proposed, it would create a three story rectangle immediately beside us. it would be a 90° box with solid walls extending above us and behind us. what are the sponsors getting for this based on the impact to the neighbors? they're basically expanding an existing master bedroom to an enormous 300 square feet. that's the master bedroom, and they're adding a master bath and a walk-in closet which will total 600 square feet -- 650 square feet, pardon me. no new bedrooms are being created. when we asked at the preapplication meet if the project could be modified to a less impactful size and design, what they said was they were going to make it as big as they could to make money on the construction and the square footage. so sadly, after the preapplication meeting, and

after i expressed many concerns, the sponsors did revise their plans, but they added expansions on two levels, not less. my concern is the third floor horizontal expansion be deleted and to limit the second floor expansion be limited to a reasonable amount. i thank you for your consideration. >> commissioners, pat pascovic. one storage room, this one has a full bath. a tub -- it's called a storage room. never seen one with a full bath. all the other ones have legal habitable space. they extend all the way back there within 2 feet of the poppout. the existing bathroom, there is no permit to build it. there is no connection between the one that is required with this one with the bedroom and

above. the m.l.s. calls it a bedroom down here. there's plans that are available on microfilm. the plans showed this. signed declaration, you guys don't take them, but you seem to self-certify there's nothing there. if you really believe there's not a unit there with a bathroom -- there's a termite permit that shows the full layout. it's clear there are three rooms. the rooms go all the way back to within 3 feet of the poppout. you can only have a two-story pop out, and that includes if you read the interpretation habitable, which i think they are because they're part of a unit or potentially habitable, which they clearly are potentially habitable with a full plan. planning's now using bathroom because you can plug in a kitchen. you can't plug in a bathroom. so labeling a storage room a full bath is kind of insulting.

and you guys approved this project. you' you're defactoing remaining a bathroom. >> commissioners, why is this significant? well, it means for project notice and ceqa reviews are incorrect, but maybe more importantly, section 136 c-25-b-2 on the screen. >> clerk: thank you, your time is up. >> thank you very much. happy to answer any questions. >> president melgar: thank you. do we have any public comment in support of the d.r. requester? okay. no public comment. so we will now hear from the project sponsor. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is jeff taw, and i am

an attorney for the project sponsors. they are present, as well as the project sponsor architect to answer any questions. i just want to address some of the points made in this discretionary review. one of the points made was that this project affected the light and privacy of the d.r. requester. i'd like to show you some photographs so we have a better idea of what the issue is. so if you take a look at where the red dot is, that is the project sponsor's current house, and the addition is going to go right here. this is the d.r. requester's home, and i think they're taking issue with the their view is going to get blocked

once we build on this. and it's incorrect to say that this is a two story home. and as far as light, the way the properties are situated -- if you take a look at the shadow being casted, this is the project sponsor's home, and this is the d.r. requester's home. in fact the light puts the shadow over the project sponsor's home. so the addition on this level isn't going to take away any light. and what i find interesting

is...so what they're objecting to is the same addition that the d.r. requester -- this is their addition, which is the same addition that we're putting on our home, and this photograph is taken from the view of the neighbor to the -- to the south of the d.r. requester. i do want to address the lads minute unauthorized dwelling unit. it's a storage room, and it's indicated on the plans. my clients have -- she purchased the home in 2002. john has lived there since 2007. it's a storage room, and it's connected to the garage. the only way to access this storage room is through the garage, and that is part of the residence. if you guys have any questions for the architect, he probably is better to ask that. other than that, we ask that

you not take approval and approve the plan. >> president melgar: okay. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is terry pickering, and i'm the owner of the property. i would like to state we do not have an unauthorized dwelling unit because it's not independent. you have to enter the garage which contains our property. it is locked, it is kept secure. there is no direct access to that room from the street we have property that is valuable should it be stolen. in order to access that room, you have to enter our home, and we consider the storage room our home because we have property stored there. additionally, the extension that we're proposing is similar to the extension my neighbor

did several years ago and conforms to the neighborhood. thank you. >> president melgar: okay. thank you. do we have any public comment in support of the project sponsor? okay. >> my name is william walters and i am the architect. may i speak in support of the project? >> clerk: you have one minute. >> thank you. as an architect on potrero hill, i had an office and home for 25 years and 30 years practicing on the hill. i know all about this hill, and i know the composition and the -- how the houses are put. so when i was hired i knew how to do it from the start to get it passed. >> president melgar: thank you, sir. so with that, the hearing is

now closed -- oh, project sponsor rebuttal. sorry. it's late. >> clerk: public comment in support. >> president melgar: i already called and nobody was here. >> clerk: okay. >> president melgar: yeah. come on up. rebutt. >> thank you, commissioners. ryan patterson for the d.r. requester, and happy valentine's day, right? what could be more romantic? >> commissioner richards: funny you. >> okay. so first off, independent access for an unauthorized dwelling unit does not mean that you lock the door on the dwelling unit, right? you can have independent access through the garage door, which is what happens across the city. is it safe, maybe not, but that's what happens. if you look at the m.l.s. list, y you've got two different sales on this property, and this is undeniable. on top of that, you have a

sworn declaration from the d.r. requester coming from the person that used to live there. on top of that, you've got the architect's plan stamped which shows a full bathroom coming off of those rooms. there's no question this is an unauthorized dwelling unit. maybe it happened before the current owners, but that doesn't change the status. this is significant again because of code section 136 c, and perhaps this skews the interpretation here, but it says very clearly if there is adequate ceiling height, ceiling clearance to provide an occupiable floor from 10 feet from the rear building wall such that a useable space shall be created, that space shall be considered an occupiable floor even if it's not built out as an occupiable floor. what they did was simply count out correctly.

this is @-grade bottom -- an at-grade from the rear of the pop out. you can't do a third floor pop out like that. nor is there a reason. it's just a massive, open bedroom. thank you very much. >> president melgar: okay. come on up. rebutt. >> thank you, commissioners. first of all, we still agree that it's not an unauthorized unit. they haven't established that. there's no evidence that it's ever been occupied, used as a separate dwelling unit or not. but even if it is, the plans don't call for removal of that unit. we're not doing anything to that unit, so you're not remaining an unauthorized dwelling unit, even if it is. we don't think it is, so i think it's a last-minute attempt to delay this project any further. >> also, there is a mention

there is a request for us to take into consideration light and space, and we did that. we did amend our plans to not move the building out to the south toward the neighbor, so we actually pulled back to maintain the same space that's there now to allow for light and space and air, and there are no new windows on that southern side of the building, either so we actually did make an amendment to our plans. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. okay. with that, hearing is now closed. commissioners? commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i was -- they had me with the removal of the unauthorized dwelling unit. i was going to delve into that, but then, it all fell apart in my head. that's where i'm at with that.

>> president melgar: commissioner koppel? >> vice president koppel: this is not as extraordinary as we see on a regular basis, so i'm okay with it. >> commissioner richards: second. >> vice president koppel: i'd like to make a motion to not take d.r. and approve as proposed. >> commissioner richards: second. >> president melgar: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i have a question for mr. winslow. a-2, introducing a new deck on the third floor property line, i saw that somewhat unusual. that is, i think, asking for something that is hard to understand. >> the last word. >> >> commissioner moore: that is hard to understand. >> we also saw that, and it raised a red flag. here's what we thought of it. it is deminimous. it is a step out balcony

against a neighbor who also did not file any kind of complaint or d.r. while we typically would have had a second look at that and said take it out, we didn't have an issue with it. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners, there's a motion that's been seconded to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. >> president melgar: okay. happy valentine's day, fellow commissioners. we're adjourned.

>> good morning. i will call to order the board of directors catch a meeting for february 14th, 2019. >> i will note for the record

that supervisor haney is joining us for his first meeting as the barge of -- board of supervisors tjpa appointed member. director haney? [roll call] >> mr chairman you do -- term and you do have a coram. item three is a communications. i am not aware of any. seeing then, item four. >> yes, please. >> board of directors, new or old business. >> i think if i may, if this falls under old or new business, but everybody has experience experienced of the rorschach test of the governor state of the speech. i want to talk about what it

means and what we are doing. there has been lots of different reporting, and the governor does support that high-speed rail system from the transit center all the way to los angeles and anaheim. what he labelled out in his state is consistent with what we said in our 2018 business plan, which is where we are already building, we want to get that into service. he prioritized putting bakersfield into service and getting that going. at the same time, and the rest of the state, what we are doing is going through all the project development steps kept getting environmental clearance, and getting shovel-ready. that is what we are doing in northern california, and that is what you're doing in southern california as well. all of that continues. the third part which he also prioritizes making the investments in our book and projects, that is altercations in the north and similar projects in southern california. you will be linked over time and connected to the high-speed rail system. all of this is continuing the

focus and pursuing additional funds to connect what we are already building and will we -- we will be running service on in the central valley, both here in the bay area and in southern california. i know there's a lot of drama, and i am happy to answer some questions from folks if there are any, but i hope that helps clarify what this means, what we are doing, as well as what is just what some of the priorities are going forward, in the path he laid out for us. >> okay. >> i will call your next item, item five is executive director's report. >> good morning. i do have several updates for you this morning, but before i do that, i would like to welcome supervisor haney to our board of directors. i look forward to working with director haney on how to best maximize the benefits of the transit center to the immediate neighborhood and its residents, and to also realize the full potential of the center and phase two to the region and especially once we reopen.

to that end to, i would like to update you on our highest priority. reopening the transit center as soon as safely possible. i'm here --dash i'm happy to report we reached an important milestone since our last board meeting. first, we repaired work on sights with the removal of the hydraulic jack and system on first street, and installation of a temporary sorting system like the one we had on fremont street to. with this in place, we are getting ready for the repairs on fremont street and remediation work on first street. once a fabrication is completed, we get will arrive to the job site in march. as i reported last month, are an -- peer review panel gave us the go-ahead on the repair strategy. you will hear an update about the repair and remediation work from the administration from our construction manager later this morning. secondly, we received a construction schedule from a contractor showing all work to

be completed by the 1st week of june. that work pertains to the work on fixing the girders on first street, fremont street, and strengthening the guarantor on fremont street. we have reached out to the san francisco fire department, the department of building inspections, and others to share our schedule so they are available with resources for oversight and inspections once we are ready to be commissioned the building. we continue our exhaustive review and to the cause of the fishers at fremont street, in full cooperation with the peer review panel. we would receive from the lab, in the next two weeks, the final determination of the finance element analysis which allows the panel to confirm the cause of the fishers. as you know, the independent review panel is also undertaking a review to ascertain if other areas of the transit center require further review. to date, we are not aware of any additional reviews or inspection on the building, and we stand ready to hear in june pending

the confirmation they still have work to do. the chair of the peer review panel will see it later this morning. i would like to think the public for the patients and undergoing the further review and i'm happy to report the project. we will work mostly with transit operators to resume bus operations as we get ready for reopening. as we know, transit agencies provide bus service out of the temporary terminal as we provide operations and security. this week, early morning service began to allow critical seismic work on the transit to begin. i'm happy to report that the staff provided a seamless experience for early morning commuters, with security and additional signage to support the change.

moving onto phase ii in the the downtown extension, we approved this for the transit phase ii program. the process laid out in the california environmental quality act has concluded, and we are working with the federal transit administration staff as they prepare to issue their decision, which concludes the federal impact of the process of. because of the partial government shutdown earlier this month, the process has been delayed. we hope to have a record decision soon. we know that they are working actively on it. at this time, i like to update you on the design effort for phase two. as you know, the san francisco county transportation authority gave funding for the design phase two pending an evaluation. management and delivery of phase one for the san francisco controller's office, and the review of alternative for oversight and governance model

for the management and delivery of phase two by the transportation authority staff. they are currently assembling three review panels with experts from various consulting firms to provide advice and recommendations on best practices, delivery methods, and governance structure. a kickoff meeting is expected to take place in mid march. the goal is to conclude the peer review on may -- unit may. the controller's office review of the delivery of phase one is anticipated to be completed within the same timeframe. we want to work closely with staff from the transportation authority and the controller's office as appropriate so funding can be reinstated, and work on phase two of the downtown extension -- approval -- it will

be two major milestones in advancing the delivery, funding, and construction of phase two. these two efforts will allow us to enter into a new program and capture the $1 billion in federal funding currently included in the plan b area for phase two. and infrastructure funding from the federal government. we are currently working with the public transportation association regarding the peer review for phase two. the peer review will be held as technical services and individual departments including executives from atlanta, rapid transit authority, denver regional transportation district and the transit district and the consultant firm lewisburg or. we have provided them with background material and the kickoff meeting is expected to take place in early march.

this effort is going to be completed in four months. the scope of the review includes an evaluation of the processes and procedures implemented in phase one and a recommendation for phase two. this work will include organizational capabilities, and project delivery best practices. in regards to the pennsylvania avenue extension, as you know, we received a letter from air breed in december, communicating her support for the pennsylvania avenue extension, as a city's preliminary preferred alignment. in discussions -- on discussing the imp limitation strategy with stakeholders of the california high-speed rail authority, the city and county of san francisco, and the transportation authority. once discussions with stakeholders are completed, in a couple of months, upon 2% to the board the imp limitation strategy and recommended steps for moving forward. moving onto operations, we make

progress without releasing efforts, in at this time, i would like to ask our manager to provide you with an update. >> good morning, directors. i am a tjpa facility manager. i'll be giving a brief update on the status of the leasing activity, and erica elliott with colliers is here to address any questions that i may not be able to answer. the information on this slide is different than what has been previously presented. it outlines a simple comparison of the timing of the signing of the leases between what was budgeted for this year, and actual activity. the timing of the signing of the lease triggers a few things, the payment of the first half of leasing commission, the start of design construction, and eventual occupancy, copy center

his occupancy then triggers payment of the second half of the leasing commission, and the start of revenue. in general, the start of revenue was budgeted to be about 4-5 months after lease signing. as you can see, in the first quarter of the fiscal year, the actual surpassed budget, this is mostly fitness s. -- fitness s.f. momentum started to slow down. it can be said that the original projections on timing were generally optimistic, keeping in mind that the budget for fiscal year 18, 19 was prepared in april and may. reasons, as noted, transactions were taking longer to negotiate and complete. the net effect is eventual receipt of revenue is pushed out

with regard to the impact of the closure, what we are finding is the volume of interest has slowed down, with not as many tours, and we no longer have multiple interests in multiple spaces, however, there is some activity on all the spaces with prospects for each. most importantly, we continue to completely -- complete leases post closure, of the four leases , we have signed letters of intent with the other two expected soon. as of yesterday morning, they reported a previous prospects that we thought had been lost came back and has reengaged. also, being able to command market rents has not been impacted. as such, with your ego -- eager for reopening and we are confident momentum can be regained to garner multiple interest in the remaining spaces

so this is a snapshot of where we are today. 47,890 square feet are laced -- leased to date. however, adding the four solid transactions that are in the pipeline as noted on the previous slide would bring us to about 50,000 square feet or 56%. also of note, at this juncture, with a completed lease, and the transactions in the pipeline, the merchandising plan that was approved in mid-2017 is holding up, which includes a mix of mostly local operators, food and services, and it is shaping up well. the second floor with fitness s.f. and on-site to dental thinkers will be supplemented with other services that we will soon be able to discuss, in the ground floor is a mix of coffee, quick service food, and sit down restaurants to soon be supplemented with operators who will complement the current mix.

this slide is an overview of the tenant improvement timeline. the green bar represents current timing, the blue bar represents the original timing of the specific space as outlined in the merchandising plan. note that we are ahead of the original production, in many cases, such as on-site dental, and fitness s.f., and charlie's, and our on target per diem. the current plan, a notice to proceed for the landlord's work to be issued in march for completion in mid june. the landlord's work includes pouring slab, mechanical, any electrical work. an interesting slight -- side note is supporting this lab will cost less without the bus -- buses running, because work can be done during the day, otherwise it would be weak nights and weekends. at the board meeting next month, we hope to be able to add

specificity to some of the targeted opening dates for the stories. i'm happy to take questions. >> any questions from board members? >> first, can you clarify that where we are, relative to where we hope to have been at this point is -- >> say that again. >> okay. please clarify that where we are now, verses where we expect to be at this point is a combination of two things, it is a closure, but also the original forecast we now think was too optimistic, and it has taken longer to negotiate, or is it just because of the closure? >> let me restate that. the negotiation of the leases is taking longer, the targeted occupants were smaller businesses, they are working hard with their banks for financing, construction costs

have gone up, that has added to the length in time. that is not specifically related to the closure, that is internal to the conversations with their prospective tenant. the closure has impacted the multiple interests and activities, for example, they may have had 52 is scheduled over the course of a day, now it is maybe one or none. that is what has been impacted by the closure. >> okay. and we anticipate that to change once a facility has reopened? >> exactly. >> my other question with regard to the chart, it shows ongoing and upcoming work, and it shows some are ahead to, some are behind. if we were to add all the spaces, is it safe to say that we would show a bunch where all the rest were behind on? >> i have not gone back and looked at all the spaces. it is the original merchandising

plan from 2017. >> but just for the spaces that you have chosen to put here, my point is, if we had put all of the spaces in the facility, it seems like it would give us a more complete picture, and one that is probably less favourable >> what we showed in the chart as a basis for executed leases. >> i understand. and you are showing some are ahead of the original plan, and some are behind the original plan, will what you are not showing as the original plan for all of the other spaces. >> we will go back to the total merchandising plan. >> that would give us a more complete picture. >> i will do that. >> maybe perhaps, since things are shifting, it has been two years, and things evolve. it is that now an appropriate time category is at an appropriate time to rebaseline and get a better sense of what this looks like going forward? i think we're getting questions.

everything else is on track. maybe now is the moment to look at that. >> we will try to do that next month. we are waiting until we reopened an update it. what we could update it right now and update it later on. >> maybe just one thing to consider, given there's a little bit less interest and less competition for spaces while the closure is going on, being careful not to make a bad ten year deal over a few month period here, so making sure that if it means we have to wait an extra few months, when interest will kick back up after we are open, i would suggest we look for that, and if we are getting deals under our performer, at least it is in the tenure of 15 year scheme, three months will not matter, but the deal will still be there. >> absolutely. so far, as far as leases executed, as they are all within

perform or above in their spending. >> yes, the market rate and the performer have not been impacted. >> thank you. >> i do have -- i do have one more item i would like to report on. >> go ahead. >> i wanted to announce the annual citizen's advisory committee is well underway. recruitment launched in january, and we have conducted extensive outreach, including reaching out to our database of 10,000 contracts, publishing our announcement in the neighborhood newspapers, and conducting outreach through transit partners and others. application headlines -- deadlines are february 20th. i would like to note that. i would like to say that while we have made significant progress to reopen the transit center, we are committed to fulfilling all of our obligations to our transit riders on the part -- public by completing the rigourous process without the review panel that will ultimately allow us to reopen the center and begin your trust and confidence. that concludes my reports.

>> director risk in? >> i believe we have an item on the peer review process later. >> yes, we do. >> even though you addressed it in your report to, it would probably make sense to hold that. on the peer review, we discussed last month the idea of leaving space in that scope, should the sport eventually add phase three into the program. is not something we can do? >> that is something we will be doing. i just failed to mention those details, but we will ask them to do phase two as well as the potential for including the impacts of the program. >> thank you. >> yes? >> thank you. maybe to make life easy when the kickoff meeting is with the peer review, and with the consultants on the sfmta, if you just share,

or the appropriate agency can share the scope of work with the directors so we can see what was being asked of the different groups, that way we don't have to ask you during your executive executive director's report. >> sure. >> any other questions from the board? okay. >> all right, i will go ahead and call you next item. item six is an update on the construction of temporary closure of the transit center. >> good morning, directors. and the construction manager with the tjpa. this morning, i will give, we will have a two-part presentation here. i will give the progress on the merger, remediation and repair, and then we will follow up with the progress on confirming what is the facility-wide efforts that are going, and the validation related to the rest of the building.

this is to give you an idea of where we are at, i wanted to make sure that was part of its. as we look at this expanded view of the transit center, we are focusing on the area of first and fremont street. that is where the girders in red are the two that cracked over fremont street to, and the two girders over first street are the ones that have not cracked, and have no structural items. the repair for fremont street has not changed. this is the schematic we have been using to explain what the repair looks like. is a sandwich plate design, with 220 volts for each one of these. at these plates, and i will get into windows are showing up coming forward. what has happened since the last time i presented to the board? fremont first street remediation material is in the process of being machines right now. it has been procured, and it is right now in pennsylvania at the shop they are, and getting

milled. the initial preparations have also happened at fremont street. there are some items, that is the area where the samples are taken out. some of the items had to be cleaned up, smoothed out to, all part of the plans at fremont street that the peer review has done. another thing happened during super bowl weekend. on first street, those yellow jocks that were temporarily in place were replaced with two steel girders to allow the right amount of load to be put into the first street to girders that allows us to do that sandwich plate installation per how the designers would like to. those have been swapped out. and then the contractor has

spread their schedule as it continues to be updated. they are still holding as per what mark noted to be completed with repair -- for repair by june. here is a couple of photos, just to show the swap out at first street. steel columns are now installed, and that is all place without any impacts to the rail and all the supports that were around it most people probably didn't even notice we change that out because it was very minimal impact. also, another thing that has happened to too is as part of the quality program for this sandwich plate design, we had a sample of that same type of material taken. it was delivered to lpi, that is the lab in new york that has been doing all of our testing and sampling. they have delivered it, it was bent to the exact angle, and it has been machined right now to be tested for the strength, the

hardness, and all the various items to make sure that any kind of bend has no issues, it is tested for stress. and we have also drilled holes, and doing a nondestructive testing with a dye penetrate for a multiple drill hole as well. what is coming next? the project team and also l.p.i. continue to finalize their analysis to be presented to the peer review panel and about two weeks. there is a meeting that was set up with the project team, all of their experts to ensure that their input is incorporated into the one model that will happen next week, and by the end of the month, that will be setting up a schedule to presented to the peer review. and the biggest effort has been the project wide efforts. if we are looking for the

various areas in there, i have a graphic that will show what that effort looks like, but that has been continuing on to ascertain if there are any other areas in the transit center that need additional review or inspections, and i will show a graphic that shows that, if needed, what that effort means. that continues into march. materials arrive on site in march, and then the commencements of that fremont and first street remediation will happy and in march. and with the final repair and remediation for both, completed by june. so what does that look like on a schedule? for breakdown one of those activities, the first item is the peer review. keep that as an ongoing activity as they will continue on. as we continue to present them to him. the design of first street to, the remediation, and also has been the final set was delivered

with the final minor details last night to the peer review, and they hope to finish their review and the very short near-term, but also the permanent and fixed installation. is a fairly long bar, but includes procurement, which started back on december 19th. it is being bent and pennsylvania, they should arrive by the end of the month. it will involve the installation elements as well, with the final installation by june 1st, and that is what that small little number is showing, his june 1st at the end of that put -- particular. as we work through that, the shoring will be removed. that will be one of the items from a public standpoint. during that time period, the shoring will be removed to the condition they were. moving onto the other areas

building wide to, the reevaluation, basically it well -- once the repairs go in, you will also have a stitch back, a summer calling it, but you have to put back the ceilings, put back the fireproofing and it will continue -- we will continue to make note of it once the repairs are in. we still have to do that to get everything back to the way it was. the next item, the project team building review, that is ongoing now. i keep referencing a graphic that will be the next one that will explain what they are working on, and the peer review, as a way of efficiency, we have been including them, we have a very good kickoff meeting regarding the criteria, and then we will loop back with them in a couple of weeks to give them feedback on where we are at. and the last item is really the elements of if there is any need

, there would be an element of going back out into the field and looking at inspections. you will be sometime by next month, and i can report that in the march presentation. here is a graphic that i was referring to that will hopefully help understand what this effort is building-wide from a structural standpoint. this is a full beating -- building structural health check, and evaluation criteria at the very top cactuses if -- this funnel -- if you think of it like a save, and as you work through each one of these steps, you filter out what is taking care of, or needs to go onto the next level. that is as we work through this, the evaluation criteria it was developed with the peer review panel together. focusing on items like plate thickness, corners, edges, the welding itself, plate toughness,