the project sponsor has worked with staff throughout this process. they have accepted every modification request stuff including the ones requested by staff today. some you're asking you to take d.r. and incorporate those further changes. what you're seeing on the screen right now already incorporates those changes. just know you're looking at these projects as amended with staff's recommendations. the project sponsors have been working there adjacent neighbors and the north neighbor is supportive of the project. they have done a number of things, reduce the size of one of the front decks, they minimize the elevator penthouse. they have added sound dampening measures along the property lines, removed fire pits on the back deck, and as i said, as a result, the north neighbor is in support of the project. they did reach out and work with

the south neighbor. she is obviously not on board, that said, the project is currently designed smaller then a current massing diagram that they have provided earlier on in the process. there is that, and in addition to that, or property line window is not being covered by the project. it is being sent back 5 feet at the bottom. i can't even remember how much the contact is at the top, but it is not covering the property line window. a couple of things i want to say , the existing building on site today is 5,000 square feet. it is proposed to go up to 5500 square feet. the proposed new building to the south is 5,000 square feet. i just want to get that clear and make sure everyone is aware. to speak to this certificate, one last thing, a little bit minor in the context, there is a

single-story we are garage being removed from the development lots which will, in essence, open up that midblock area and actually be through open midblock space as is intended by the planning code. a couple of things, the certificate of compliance process with d.p.w. this is not an action taken. this is not a lot line adjustment, this is not a lodge merger, this is not a subdivision. certificate of compliance process is under the state subdivision act, and in essence, is a process by which if there's some question as to where your property lines are, you file an application with the county county surveyor and the county surveyor does the research, takes all the evidence in, and makes a determination as to what the lots or today. there is no change, it is an acknowledgement and a confirmation of what the lots or today. you will see in your packet there is a letter from the director, very explicit -- expressly stating that they have

looked into this. there are two existing lots, in and that letter has also been developed with the city attorney 's office. this issue is not at issue anymore. it is not something we can do anything about. that is the first thing. the demolition, i know this is a sensitive issue and there's nothing to defend here. it was three years ago. i know in the context of the last year, it seems like people are still doing this, it was three years ago. take that into account. i also just want to distinguish the character of demolitions you have seen and this demolition. this is not a demolition of a small home to make way and build a monster home. this is the demolition of a nonoriginal, without a foundation, three-story bay that reduces the size of the property to 5,000 square feet. i am not defending it, just distinguishing the character of it.

and again, this is not necessary to build some the on the second lot. the second lot is a lot. and the unfortunate thing coming into this late is seeing that the demo combined with a certificate of and compliance is simply a process by which the surveyor acknowledges their two lots here and a second home can be built on a second lot. it has obviously fostered an environment early on of not is not helpful towards communications, and i think the fact that, you know, the northern neighbor is on board, i think it's a positive sign. we've got some other folks from the neighborhood who also or supportive of the project, so, again, the demolition that took place is not necessary to build the building on this lot, which is different than your previous project. i asked the commission, when talking about the new unit -- and took think -- taking a look

at the massing that we worked very closely with stephan and accepted every single recommendation modification they requested. this is an appropriate project for this location, and i will leave it at that for now. thank you. >> where are we? >> we are on speakers in support of the project. >> okay. do we have anyone in support of the project sponsor who wants to provide a comment? come on up. anybody else who wants to provide a comment in support of the project sponsor, please line up on the left. >> good evening. my name is scott. my family and i live two blocks away on 16th avenue. we have been there for 16 years. i am a homeowner in the community with kids, and obviously want what's best for

the community. i have reviewed the renderings and the plans as well as the lot the two subject properties are fully within the scale, scope, and character of the neighborhood, and more specifically, the block in which they are located. additionally, in reviewing the materials, it does not appear that the sponsor is requesting a variance or conditional use for either of these projects. furthermore, san francisco is obviously in a bit of a housing crisis. no big surprise. the crisis consumes an entire segment of the whole market from affordable to entry-level, and obviously higher and luxury properties. the two homes will allow two families to join the neighborhood and allow for them to join the neighborhood. san francisco needs more families for kids and these two homes will allow that to happen. enclosing, my family and i fully

support these two projects and hope you'll consider you will consider their completion as soon as possible. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. thank you for your time and attention on this matter. i live on the 100 block of 17 th avenue, just about a block away from this site. my concern about this project is simply that it has been stalled for so many years. knowing that the project sponsor has been working with the department, they would like -- i like to put my have completed its process. it has been an eyesore for some time now. that site seems like something that needs to be really resolved i put my support behind it and hope it moves forward. thank you very much.

>> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is jeffrey stevenson. thank you for letting me be here today. i am a real estate broker and a property manager with very happy tenants in san francisco. i have been in the industry for over seven years. i was very fortunate to start as an apprentice under a group of top producing brokers in san francisco. as long as i can remember, tim brown was one of the names that was exemplified in me as my mentors. as a respected broker in san francisco. through his countless efforts, he has truly transformed real estate in san francisco for the better. he can drive by many of these developments and find out how he has improved the curb appeal of the subject properties as well as assist us -- statistical value of the neighboring properties. i'm passionate about real estate but also have hobbies, too. i enjoy playing golf and i'm a member of the presidio golf and concordia club.

this is where i met john a few years ago. also a very respected and honourable person, as he and myself and the 250 members of my club. john is a loving family man and has gotten to know me well over the years and saw me growing my career. he knew he would be able to help me get to the next level by introducing me to tim as a candidate to join his team. i have been working with tim brown now for over two months i can testify what an incredibly ethical and straightforward businessman he is. i was raised on strong ethics and principles, and after working along him every day and seeing him in action, i say they align. his wealth of knowledge has helped me to be better, better my value to my clients, family, and friends. tim loves what he does and he loves helping people. it is a bit shocking -- shocking to see someone trying to challenge their integrity. yes, he is a developer, they obviously want to make a profit,

but importantly, i truly believe they want to make a difference and make san francisco a better place to live. we are all neighbors in san francisco and i think we look back -- we will look back when this project is complete and thank both of them for their honest and professional efforts in improving this location and building a new sickle family home. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. thank you for having me tonight. i am kevin martin, a neighbor in the community and also a friend of john's. like the former speaker, i also know john from being a member of the presidio and concordia club. i am the president of the club and speaking specifically to the ethics and integrity of john, i have never met a more stand a person that i have known. he has specifically worked on

renovation projects at our club, he has provided guidance to plenty of others that have been doing renovations and have had other projects, and he is someone who i know has wanted to work with his neighbors and has accommodated many changes to the original plan, and has been stalled because of complaints and problems over the past few years. i truly think this project should be approved. i do think the homes look absolutely beautiful as they have been shown on the screen tonight, regardless of the objections. i think they fit well into the community. i think some of the concessions made on the size really do allow these little things to fit well, and i fully support the approval of this project.

the site hasn't been able to be developed for three years. we need all the housing we can get. whatever size can be built. and when tim actually showed me the plans on a show -- i saw how he cut them down so they'd fit

they would fit with the neighborhood, i realize that people who had been there for longer than i have would object because it is a change, but if we are going to house the people in our city and continue to grow and do well, we have to accept this change, so i urge you to approve this project. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment in support of the project sponsor? okay, public comment is closed. is a two-minute rebuttal? okay. each of you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. this project is characterized by false documents and full statements. here we are today, and they are so claiming the project is 5500 square feet, when i have had a forensic architect look at it. if you would like the reports

from the forensic architect, i would be happy to give it to you , but i have given you too much paperwork in the first place. plans for the driver brought permit that failed to show the existing three-story area and some of the misinformation. in 100,000 dollar abatement permit that was raised by d.b.i. to 200,000, statements like the planning department said it would be a waste of resources to replace the bay, after the planning department issued in an oe. submitting a map, the sponsors claim that the survey has not been approved by d.p.w. the sponsor and its associates will say anything and do anything to get their project approved, including falsely claiming two lots exist when there was really one lot. i recognize a significant -- a certificate of compliance issue its outside the scope of the planning commission, however,

the bad acts of the project sponsor indicate the planning commission should proceed with caution and require a formal, written, legal opinion from the city attorney that lots 25 and 26. -- that lots 25 and 26 were legally created. if the project sponsor is confident they have done the right thing, they should not oppose it. thank you very much. >> thank you. hello. >> thank you. at 5589 square feet, the proposed expansion of existing home, which is directly behind my home, will be 50 7% larger than my home and i believe that my home is above average for the block. both of these proposed homes are just simply way too big. in addition, the number of rear decks or being proposed by the

project sponsor leave the impression that a couple of cruise ship to being currently parked behind my home. the three rear decks that they propose or clearly excessive and unprecedented on the block. the project sponsor simple he cannot be trusted to build in our fair city. please send the message that dishonest developers need not apply to build in san francisco and demonstrate that integrity is a priority in the planning and building processing process in our city. i'm aware that he is currently recommending modifications to result in only two rear decks on each home. the two we're decks on each home is one too many. one rear deck should provide adequate where yard access and maintain rear yard privacy and would be consistent with virtually all of the other homes on our block. under no circumstances should the fourth floor rear sky deck on 25 or the third floor rear deck on 27 be allowed. these gratuitous decks simply serve to invade the rear yard privacy of all the neighbors.

i urge you to do the right thing demonstrate respect for the rule of law, protect integrity of our neighborhood, and i implore you not to reward the dishonest and illegal behavior of the project sponsor. require the planning department to withdraw its support for approval of these projects as currently proposed. in light of the undisputed facts regarding dishonesty into legal work performed by the project sponsors, this is the only honourable position for the planning commission to take. if you insist on allowing the project to proceed, the modifications that will be proposed to the projects will bring both projects in alignment with -- >> your time is up. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. okay, commissioner -- >> project sponsor. >> sorry. >> thank you, commissioners. i recognize that the planning commission is tasked with

fulfilling the planning code and the goals of the planning code. they also recognize that it is test to do appropriate, equitable development in the city of san francisco. this project is adding another unit of housing to -- another unit of housing in the housing crisis. for a moment, could i get san francisco government t.v.? this building, is the building smaller? yes, but the building is not -- this is not extraordinary for this block or this neighborhood. this neighborhood had larger homes in it and it is r.h. one so you can only get one home per lot. the demolition, no one is standing up here defending a demolition, but we do -- i think it is important to know to distinguish between this type of demolition and the demolition you guys have been seeing over the last couple of years.

these guys have been punished. this happened three years ago and for a single family home and a home remodel, they are here three years later. it is not like they have not been punished, and it is not like this commission hasn't been putting project sponsors on notice. let's be clear about that. no one needs to feel bad about this project sponsor, but this is not a process that someone would like to go through. the last thing i will say is that, as you can tell from the very beginning, this process kicked off on the wrong foot with the demo and the certificate of compliance. i would urge the commission, if you think the buildings are not appropriate in this location, if you think that there needs to be some modifications made, do it tonight. don't send this project sponsor back out to the neighborhood because this is not going to lead to any sort of further useful conversation. i would really put it on the planning commission to make the decision you guys need to tonight to make the appropriate development for this location.

>> thank you. your time is up. >> okay. commissioner richards? >> i am going to be a little bit crowd because we have been here since 11:00 a.m. seeing this every week is starting to get old, to be honest with you. it seems like every week we have some type of shenanigans that go on. we have illegal demos, we have evicting tenants through rent evictions, admitted by the developer, stuff that was submitted, demos that were done without approval, permits weren't that -- obtained, by a project sponsor who, actually, i really respected when he did the project on franklin street, who i think should really have known better. i truly believe that this commission is one of the last bastions of public trust. the citizens of san francisco can come here and feel like they've actually really been

heard and we process what they say. we may not always agree with them, but we come down on the right side of things, and i think this is no different from what we did on 214 and 60 -- 65 alvarado. you see the list is getting longer and longer and longer. in terms of where i am at with this, you know, we have a series of violations, no permits succeeding the scope of work, you know, comparing demo types to -- it is like murder and murder. it is the same thing. it really is. i am going to move to take d.r. and have the project put back the way it was before. i'm happy to entertain a new project on the other lot should there be another lot coming forth. i think that we need to be

consistent in our application when we find this type of behavior, and it is nothing personal, it is just being consistent anything it upholds the project -- public trust in the process and in ourselves. i moved to take d.r. >> second. >> commissioner fong? >> second. >> i will take a slightly different position. the cases that my fellow commissioner brought forward, you know, involves garages that weren't there, extensive demolition wait in excess of this one. the reason i think it is a little bit different is because

if this had been two different owners, each owning one of the lots, then that they was illegal , and so the question is, whether the not filing for a permit to demolish that they, and demolish a surface pipe deck , which i don't quite consider to be the same in terms of severity of the bay, is the one where i would struggle with in terms of further punitive efforts against the property owner. they have now -- they have

proven, as far as the city is concerned that it is two lots. they submitted a code compliant project, and i am prepared to support it. >> commissioner richards? >> i understand on june 16th, 2016, just to rebut your point, fell commissioner fong, the engineer his applied for and received an over-the-counter planning department permit with the scope of work was like kind repair, southwold drive wrought. when the engineer supported the building permit, he submitted building plans to show the existing three-story bay. this isn't just exceeding scope of work, this is submitting fraudulent building plans. this is clearly in line with our decisions that we had before. when people exceed the scope of work, i think we generally cut them a break. i think that is generally our

position. i think nearly something has been turned in for the city to get an approval on, where it has been misrepresented or factually inaccurate. that is where i draw the line and i believe that -- this project crossed that line. >> commissioner his, there is a motion that has been seconded. if i understand the motion correctly, it is take d.r. and require that the property we reverted back to its previous condition. >> exactly. >> i'm sorry, you said entertain a new plan submitted for the other lot? >> yeah, fine if they bring up project four on the other lot, that is great, let's reconstruct the building, make sure that the new project adheres to the existing site conditions that they need to get a demolition permit, or adjust the lot line, whatever they need to do. >> i'm sorry, so can we not approve the building on the other lot today? that already has been submitted. it has to be a new --

>> i would like to see a new project because it doesn't take into consideration the three-story bay. >> i don't believe you can approve the project on the other lot today. building the three-story bay would encroach over that lot and physically change the plan of that building on 27 17th avenue. >> on that motion to take d.r. and revert the property back to its previous condition. on that motion... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes 5-0 -- 5-1. commissioners, we tabled item 16 at 2075 mission street. a conditional use authorization. i understand that there is a need to continue the matter.

>> yes. we will be continuing that item. >> for how long? >> whenever there is an opening. i think august 22nd was open, no? >> they're all full, but we could squeeze it in on the 29 th. >> on the 29th of august? yeah, that's do that. >> we're going to continue it, we are not going to hear it. everybody has gone home. >> i'm so sorry. the project is not ready to be heard. >> just a second, sir. if i could get a motion? >> so i wanted to ask you something. unfortunately the planners not here anymore, and i would like to see that the planning department has some more

guidance because the planning department had voted against on-site consumption and vaporizing because it is not being fully elaborated by the department were consulted by the department of cannabis, so we are going to be sitting here again. >> yeah, so maybe farther then the 29th. >> the go farther then the 29 th, commissioners, we should push it until october. >> okay. let's do that. october 17th? and we should open up public comment on the matter. >> okay. , sir, did you want to have a public comment on the matter of the continuance? >> no, the actual application. >> that will have to be in october.

>> thank you. >> can i have a motion? >> second. >> make a motion to continue the item to october his 16th -- >> seventeenth. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to continue item 16 to october 17th,... [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6 -0. >> we are now adjourned.

[ gavel ]. >> good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. this is the july 24, 2019, regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. i am sandra lee fewer, i am joined by supervisor catherine stefani and supervisor mar who is sitting in today. our clerk is ms. linda wong. colleagues may i have a motion to excuse supervisor rafael mandelman. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes, please silence all cellphones and electronic devices.

anything to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. the items today will appear on the next agenda. >> commissioner fewer: thank you very much. can you please call item new brunswick 1. >> clerk: item no. 1 is the resolution retroactively approving an agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the san francisco bay area rapid transit district (bart) regarding administration of capital funding to fund half of the cost of the bart/muni market street entrance modernization project with proceeds from the sale of general obligation bonds, in an amount not to exceed $45,000,000 for an agreement term from february 1, 2018, through december 31, 2025. >> commissioner fewer: thank you very much. colleagues, last week we heard this item and continued it for more information. we heard from the bla last week. we may not need to hear the report again, but we are joined today by supervisor mar who was not here last week. supervisor mar, would you like to hear from the bla? >> supervisor mar: i don't think that's necessary.

i had a briefing from them already. >> commissioner fewer: thank you very much, supervisor mar. let's bring up leo levinson from the toa and of course our elected bart representative bevin dusty. >> thank you, chair fewer and committee members. i am the cfo for the san francisco mta and happy to be coming back here to supply more information on this item. just briefly, this is an item for the mta to share with bart the cost of installing 21 can y canopies over the shared bart and mta stations along market street. this is up to a $90 million project of which the mta would be agreeing to fund up to $45 million from general obligation bond funds. i'm very happy to have here carl

holmes is the assistant general manager for bart and he's going to supply more details about this project. >> commissioner fewer: mr. levinson, you mentioned 21 canopies, but in your powerpoint it mentions 22. >> there are two installed as pilots that helped with the costing of the remainder. there is 19 further that would be in the base contract that would be approved here within the $90. then there are three others that could be an option under this. so the 22 would represent one more optional canopy, but this funding of $90 million would be for 21 canopies. >> commissioner fewer: for 21. >> as in the bla report. >> commissioner fewer: thank you very much. >> so carl. >> thank you, leo. thank you, supervisors, and thank you for acknowledging our board president. my name is carl holmes,

assistant general manager. i lead the design and construction for most of the capital projects for bart. first, i want to thank you for the partnership that we have with you and with sfnta. i also want to apologize for not having the right info last week. i believe there was a miscommunication, but we hope that we're bringing the right data today. we normally do present to our own boards when we ask for approval of funds, so we understand the questions. first off, before i introduce tim chan who is our group manager for stations planning, i will say that the main point of this i believe is the questions came with the questions of the cost. so i'll just start by saying -- and tim will get into it as well -- we believe, i believe, it was the responsible thing to do with -- by having our

engineer's estimate be modified based on the lessons that we learned in our pilot program that we have in san francisco at pal street station as well as the civic center station. this is our second pilot. so we had another pilot that we installed several years ago in 19th street in oakland. san francisco wanted a different design. so that's why we have this template that we're proposing. it is more costly than what we had in oakland, however, we think that even with 2019 dollars the cost for our 19th street canopy, it was around $2.3 million could be as high as $3 million. we have another canopy in downtown berkley using that same template. so we believe that was going to be the model. however, we're willing to work with san francisco with public works, sfmta, and that's why

we're moving forward with this canopy design. there has been a history of engagement and tim will speak to the details of that. we have a lot of information that's in these slides. there's six slides, including the cover, but i asked tim to just highlight some of the points and that way it allows for if there's questions, we would be happy to answer. i know supervisor fewer, you had a question about the quantities. so the $90 million is for 21 canopies. we've got 19 that are in the base contract, two -- that includes the two pilots. so that 19 plus the two gets us to 21. we have options for three canopies, and that could allow for us to go to 24. this agreement that we're asking for approval, the $90 million is requesting $45 million to be

paid by city and county san francisco. this is an estimate. we're wanting to advertise this project and we want to have estimates better in line with the market conditions and better in line with the lessons we learned on the pilot program. we think that's the responsible thing to do and once we get the business that will verify that we're closer aligned to the market. >> commissioner fewer: mr. holmes, apologies for interrupting you. just to clarify, the $90 million that we are talking about and discussing today will cover 21 canopies, as 19 base in the contract plus the two pilots? >> that's correct. >> commissioner fewer: this does not include the option for three additional canopies that we have the option of adding on later on; is that correct? >> that's correct. >> commissioner fewer: and the cost of the additional three canopies, do you have an estimate cost if we wanted to extend for three other stations

how much that would be? >> i believe we do. i can make sure we have that if tim doesn't have it with my colleague sits behind me. >> commissioner fewer: thank you. you're telling us you also installed these structures over the 19th street station in oakland; correct? at the 19th street bart station in oakland, you had constructed one of these canopies over there? >> yes, that's correct. >> commissioner fewer: and that was at a cost of $2.3 million? >> yes, that's correct. >> commissioner fewer: and the one in berkley cost how much? >> that was around i believe it was $3 million. >> commissioner fewer: so from your pilot of the two, and i believe you mentioned civic center -- >> actually, i think it was the closer to $2.5 million. it was a bigger canopy. we tried to isolate the cost because there's a number of station entrances so we tried to isolate the cost for that particular canopy.

>> commissioner fewer: so we've had this pilot and there's been two pilots. i think what you mentioned briefly is that after doing the two pilots and the one was at civic center and the other one is at pal street, that your cost estimate that you're giving to us today incorporates what you've learned around the cost analysis or what might be needed during the construction of these 19 canopies; is that correct? >> that's correct. >> commissioner fewer: okay. so -- and then you have here today with you someone that can respond. so actually i think what supervisor mandelman asked last week was about a cost analysis. so if we build these canopies over the escalators i think and i think during our meetings we have heard that the purpose of these canopies, one, is that it is required by state

ordinance -- >> state code. >> commissioner fewer: state code. so we must have the canopies in accordance with state code, so they're required. we -- the reason we're doing this is because also wear and tear on the escalators, also to prohibit feces from getting stuck in the escalators and whether -- all that kind of stuff; is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> commissioner fewer: so we know what we're getting. and i think what you may not have mentioned which i got during your briefing and i wanted to share with my colleagues is that the 19th street bart station design over in oakland is a different design than what the city and county requested because of better market street. so because of better market street they wanted a design element that was different than the 19th street bart one that

added also additional costs because of the redesign of them. and then also each entrance canopy must be custom designed because of the site environment. now, am i capturing that correctly? >> absolutely correctly. >> commissioner fewer: okay. great. sorry to interrupt. i just wanted to clarify because it is confusing and i think it is a little complicated and it is a hell of a lot of money. so your next speaker, please. >> thank you. >> commissioner fewer: thank you, mr. holmes. >> tim chan, group manager, stations planning. >> good morning, supervisors. you did a great job. i feel like i don't have to say a lot, but i will add more information. so i'm not going to go through a lot of information that was provided at the briefing on monday. so what i can do is i can take questions towards the end. this is really just a list of the process that we went through.

the information has not changed, so i'm going to move to the next slide. we did add this slide in providing an overview of the market street canopy project. so i have 22, but it is 21 plus two options. it is anticipated for that construction program to be completed over the next seven years. now, the benefits of the canopy program is to provide safety for bart and muni patrons as well as employees who have to close early in the morning and late at night. when we took a look at the performances of the entrances at the 19th street station with and without the canopy, we saw, in fact, an 80% improvement on the operational reliability. so that is significant. of course, you know, by closing the gate at the top, we are significantly improving and will improve the entrances at the four downtown stations.

we are of course expecting to have the canopies last for decades to come, as long as the maintenance is consistent, and this maintenance includes cleaning, it includes glass replacement, stainless steel, grille gates, maintenance, and then lighting. so we included a lot of this information, but it just quickly bears mentioning that we did significant outreach to bart and and muni customers when we started the process to get input. we've reached out to a lot of supervisors and other elected officials, but over the last two days of course we briefed supervisor fewer, supervisor mandelman, and then we also had an opportunity to brief the staff of supervisor stefani and supervisor mar. we've engaged a lot of the stakeholders on market street, and the one information i would like to highlight is that staff went to the sfmta board on june 18 of this year and received approval from that board.

so we -- there was a lot of lessons learned from the pilot, and this is a list of that. i think you saw that on monday. so we took all of those lessons learned and then incorporated that into the next phase of design and cost estimates. and then at the same time, as you are well aware, the construction climate, the market conditions for all major public works construction projects are astronomical. we're dealing with a lot of factors that are driving up costs annually, and these are what we're dealing with, these factors. i'd also like to mention any delays to the canopy project is going to significantly impact the overall project costs, not just for the canopy project, but also for the escalator project because they have to be constructed in tandem. now, i know there was requests for information about how we do our cost evaluation. we bring on a professional estimator, and that professional

estimator is very fully aware of all of the market conditions, all of the site conditions, everything that we do in the state and in the region, and brings that knowledge to our projects. so when we have the estimator both help us in developing the engineer's estimate, the engineer is also there when after we advertise and we receive the business, the estimator is also there to review that information, the bid information, to determine for accuracy and reasonableness. so the cost information, this is the last slide, so it's the unit cost for this next phase of design is approximately $4.5 million, but that does include the 10% contingency. so the construction costs, if we break it down, it's approximately $3.3 million. the soft costs that include design, construction project,

project management, it's approximately 1.2 million. as carl mentioned as we go out to advertise we'll have a better sense of what the bid will be and what that price will be. as we compare that with the 19th street pilot, that project was completed in 2015 and it was 2.3 million and the market street pilot that was just completed last fall is $3.5 million. if we were to take the 19th street pilot, again complete in 2015, and we escalate that over the five-year period to 2019, it would cost $3 million to implement that project now. so again, it's giving you a sense of that cost escalation that we're dealing with. so there was also some information requests around the allocation, the funding allocation. so here's a table that shows you over the next seven years of the construction phase where the money is going, all the different pots of money that we've identified. so the column right after the phase is the san francisco prop

a bond. so you can see how much is allocated for each of those fiscal years. then we layer on the state prop 1 b money and how that's going to be spread out over time. we are going to frontload i think the prop a bond and the state prop 1 b bond towards the front. and as we move forward and towards the middle to the tail end of construction, we're going to bring on the bart measure rr. then finally, in partnership with san francisco, we applied for a state and cap grant fund and we received $1 million from the state to help contribute to one of the canopies on market street. i believe it's in conjunction with an affordable housing project that's coming in in that location. so finally, i also want to highlight that sfmta, we're commiserating and sharing the pain. just a simple project, although nothing is simple, if i use a

muni shelter, that is a consistent design across the board. even the sfmta saw a cost escalation of 40%. so this concludes my presentation, and i'm here to answer questions. >> commissioner fewer: thank you. so, mr. chan, i think what supervisor mandelman asked was sort of a cost analysis about the current situation of our escalators. so we spend money to repair them. do escalators need to be replaced because of weather or feces? how much do you think this will -- putting a canopy will offset the overall cost of the maintenance, also the inconvenience that happens when our escalators are not functioning? >> we were trying to get that cost from our maintenance and engineering group. i'm going to turn to carl and mark to see if they know. i had not heard back from me.

>> so we don't have a cost yet. we got numbers from them, but we're trying to make sure that they're accurate. what we also were looking at were the number of maintenance calls and also the days out of service. i can say that looking at other escalators, for example, at 19th street station, there was a number of days out of service i want to say over 100 without the canopy and then you were looking at maybe 50 with the canopy. so the cost may not translate linearly, however, that's just an order of magnitude. we've seen significant improvements with the operability of our escalators. >> commissioner fewer: you've mentioned these canopies will last for decades -- should?

>> yes. >> commissioner fewer: we've had problems with structures here, cracks in beams and things like that, so does bart have a maintenance fund that actually is -- so these canopies will be on a regular schedule of maintenance? >> so we have an operating budget and that includes the maintenance for all of our assets. so -- >> commissioner fewer: is this a shared asset with the city and county of san francisco? >> yes, it is. >> commissioner fewer: so would we be responsible for the maintenance of these canopies? >> yes, for half of -- >> commissioner fewer: for half of them? >> yes. >> commissioner fewer: how are we coordinatoring this effort together? because as we're seeing this is going to be a $90 million investment, so we want to make sure our investment is well-tended and maintenance does not slack off so that we maintain these and they're in good condition, they should last us for a long time. how is that coordination going to be happening on the maintenance of these canopies

together? >> so i'll make sure at staff level that it's happening with bart staff as well as sfmta staff. i know that has been occurring in the past in regards to providing a five-year look-ahead for projects, as well as making sure that both maintenance departments are on the same passage with regards projects that sfmta may be performing and making sure they're in line with our projects. there is that synergy there and i'll make sure it happens with these new canopies. >> commissioner fewer: yes, because it has been a concern about our bart stations and we co-share them with bart, and the maintenance and the cleanliness, the elevators, everything, i actually feel there has been an issue with the maintenance and this is why i bring it up. maybe mr. levinson can shed some

light on this. >> i can just say that we meet regularly with bart staff over the maintenance needs and we have an annual maintenance agreement or maintenance funding that we supply with bart and a discussion over priorities and roles and responsibilities. that includes not just physical maintenance, but also issues around security in the bart stations and other items such as staffing of elevators in order to have better security and cleanliness in the elevators. so we are reviewing all of those maintenance items, and we have a substantial commitment and contribution each year. it is something that comes out of our operating budget. so when we have operating budget pressures, this is one of those things that is also under pressure, just like everything else in the operating budget. but i know i have a very strong commitment to the concept of maintenance, that we don't underinvest in our existing

assets and then have greater costs later. so it's very much on our radar screen that we maintain the assets that we have as we get all of these requests to expand our services and assets, we don't want it to be forgotten that we have to maintain what we currently have and that includes a close relationship with bart on our current assets. >> commissioner fewer: supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair fewer. i'm glad you are asking those questions because those were mine. but i'm wondering what is the annual cost of maintenance for these structures? do we have an annual cost of maintenance? >> we do not, at least at this meeting, but i can see between now and the last question if i can get something for you. >> supervisor stefani: do we have a ballpark figure? do we have any idea? >> supervisor stefani: i can get that for you, any minutes. >> supervisor stefani: and any

foreseeable events that could increase the cost of maintenance. >> i think the intention of this project is that there is a net reduction in maintenance costs associated with the station because the reduction in maintenance costs around the escalators, should bart heed the extra cost of a physical canopy. i'm not speaking from any cost analysis, but that is one of the general purposes of this project is that it's reducing escalators maintenance costs. >> supervisor stefani: okay. >> commissioner fewer: but we have not seen a cost analysis of that. so i think that is fairly vague, quite frankly. supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you. thanks for the presentation and for all your work on this important project. i just had a question around cost information that was presented and just wanted to see if you could provide a little more explanation about the difference in the estimated

costs per unit is $4.5 million for the new canopies and in the pilot -- for the market street pilot, it was $3.5 million. can you just explain that, the cost difference, is that just due to the cost escalation or is there going to be any -- some changes made to the new canopies from the pilot? >> sure. so there are a number of lessons learned from the pilot. for example, we needed to provide additional security. as we were doing the construction of the pilot. so we incorporated that cost of providing officers into the next phase of design. we also had some unanticipated things that came up around the permitting, requiring that we do monthly permits. so we're going to reach out to some of the supervisors to see if we can help expand the permit time so that our contractors don't have to keep going back to public works to get that permit. and then also i would say that if you look at the second half

around the labor shortage, the fact that wages are going up in order to meet really the cost of living in the bay area, we're dealing with that. we're dealing with a lot of construction. workers leaving the bay area because they can't afford to live here. we're dealing with significant steel tariffs, up to 25% that we're incorporating into the engineer's estimate. we are working very proactively, including with our board president, devin dufty, but also with staff. we're reaching out to all of the construction companies that are in the bay area in order to generate interest, because as you know, the more competition that we have, the more we're able to drive down the overall bid price. i mentioned the cost of doing business for agencies, we incorporate a lot of different programs around sbde and around our pla programs. i also want to mention this is

going to be an approximately seven-year project to construct, but we're also dealing with city issues and policies around moratoriums. so during the period between thanksgiving and new years, we have to shut down. we're not going to be able to do a lot of construction work at pal area. so all of those different factors, including an annual cost escalation of 5% is what's elevated that price from 3.5 to an engineer's estimate of approximately 4.5. but again, we're really working diligently to get all of the different construction companies to be interested, and from there we hope we will see some benefits as a result of that. >> thank you. >> commissioner fewer: i'd like to call up actually board president devin dufdevin dufty.

good morning. devin, i know you've been doing a lot of work about cleaning up our bart stations yourself -- i mean yourself actually. so we've had this question, i think supervisor stefani and i were just discussing, about the maintenance of these -- i mean, of bart stations in general, but also about the maintenance of these canopies because it's such a huge dollar investment, we want to make sure that they're maintained on a regular basis. since you've been working so diligently on cleanliness and maintenance of the bart stations, i thought you would have some insight to this relationship that bart has with mta around shared maintenance. because what we've seen so far isn't that reassuring. >> thank you so much and it's an honor to be here with my friends at the budget committee and,

madam chair, as you know i swept at the 16th station for four months with your colleague supervisor ronen. i spent a lot of time in civic center station. and i believe over the last year and a half to two years that we've changed the culture at bart. for example, when we hired custodians, who are known as systems service workers, they were not trained. they were simply given the tools of a grabber, gloves, a bucket, and a broom and told to go at it. i have cleaned human waste at 16th and mission station at the platform level and i was deeply concerned that i felt that, first of all, we also had 21 maintenance vacancies in our last fiscal year. so i drove that home, and we do not have vacancies anymore. at the 16th and mission station, the first day that i swept when i was by myself, i had a

gentleman who identified himself as being homeless and said that he pretty much lived in the plaza and there hadn't been a full-time custodian daytime for eight months, and i was absolutely shocked at that. we have had a change in leadership. our former assistant general manager for operations retired, and tamar allan who is an engineer and she's been with bart for over 30 years has come into this role as being our assistant general manager for operations and engineering. we now participate with the international systems supply association, issa, which is an international maintenance and cleaning association that i'm sure city hall belongs to, the empire state belongs to. so now we have two certification programs that we have for our custodians and they love it. our new employees, our continuing employees, love the fact t